RT Vendor Eval Criteria.xlsx

Technical

Marginal (2) – Minimal or incomplete validation; major gaps Acceptable (3) – Meets requirement with partial validation Good (4) – Strong validation across multiple scenarios Outstanding (5) – Fully validated across all scenarios with high confidence 2 System provides continuous 360° airfield view via primary display Unacceptable (1) - Does not provide 360° airfield view Acceptable (3) – Provides continuous 360° coverage Outstanding (5) – Provides continuous 360° coverage with redundancy and no loss under failure conditions 3 System meets minimum video performance: ≥25 Hz frame rate Unacceptable (1) – Does not meet minimum frame rate requirement Acceptable (3) – Meets ≥25 Hz requirement Outstanding (5) – Exceeds requirement with stable performance under load 4 Capture-to-display latency ≤ 1 second Unacceptable (1) – Exceeds 1 second latency Marginal (2) – Inconsistent performance near threshold Acceptable (3) – Meets ≤1 second threshold Good (4) – Better than threshold with stable performance Outstanding (5) – Demonstrated low latency under operational load conditions 5 System aligns with FAA human factors standards and supports effective ATCS interaction Unacceptable (1) – Does not align with FAA human factors standards Marginal (2) – Significant usability concerns impacting operations Acceptable (3) – Meets minimum human factors requirements Good (4) – Strong usability and controller integration Outstanding (5) – Optimized for ATCS performance with validated user feedback 6 System demonstrates high-quality visual presentation (resolution, contrast, luminance, clarity under varying enviormental conditions) Unacceptable (1) – Poor visibility; negatively impacts operations Marginal (2) – Below acceptable clarity in some conditions Acceptable (3) – Meets minimum visual requirements Good (4) – High-quality visuals across most conditions Outstanding (5) – Exceptional clarity across all operational conditions 7 System includes mitigation for visibility impacts (glare, weather, dust, lighting conditions) Unacceptable (1) – No mitigation capability Marginal (2) – Limited mitigation; ineffective in key scenarios Acceptable (3) – Basic mitigation meets requirements Good (4) – Effective mitigation across most conditions Outstanding (5) – Robust mitigation across all environmental conditions 8 System handles power disruptions and automatically recovers without loss of function Unacceptable (1) - The system does not handle power disruptions and automatically recovers Acceptable (3) – Recovers from power disruption without loss of function Outstanding (5) – Seamless failover with no operational impact and demonstrated redundancy 9 System provides recording and export capability for operational data Unacceptable (1) - System does not provide recording and exporting capability Acceptable (3) – Provides recording and export capability Outstanding (5) – Advanced recording, indexing, and rapid retrieval/export features 10 Controllers have the ability to control system functions (audio, lighting, interface settings) effectively Unacceptable (1) – Limited or ineffective control capability Marginal (2) – Basic controls with usability gaps Acceptable (3) – Meets operational control requirements Good (4) – Enhanced control with intuitive interface Outstanding (5) – Highly customizable and optimized for controller efficiency 11 Vendor provides detailed Maintenance model Unacceptable (1) - Vendor does not provide maintenance model Acceptable (3) – Vendor provides basic maintenance information Outstanding (5) – Vendor provides in- depth maintenance model description

Marginal (2) – Partial architecture with significant gaps Acceptable (3) – Complete architecture but integration is unclear Good (4) – Mostly integrated system with minor gaps Outstanding (5) – Fully integrated and demonstrated system architecture 2 Vendor demonstrates ability to produce required system artifacts aligned to the FAA SDA Unacceptable (1) – Required documentation not provided Marginal (2) – Incomplete or poorly aligned documentation Acceptable (3) – Documentation meets minimum FAE requirements Good (4) – Well-structured documentation aligned to requirements Outstanding (5) – Comprehensive, clear, and fully traceable documentation with validation evidence 3 Vendor demonstrates ability to support integration with airport infrastructure (power, grounding, environmental controls, facility requirements) Unacceptable (1) – No integration plan provided Marginal (2) – High-level concept with major gaps Acceptable (3) – Defined integration approach Good (4) – Detailed integration plan with supporting analysis Outstanding (5) – Proven deployment experience with demonstrated successful integration 4 Vendor demonstrates the ability to produce up to 50 units in a 5 year period Unacceptable (1) – Vendor does not have the ability to meet the 50 units over 5 years Acceptable (3) – Vendor meets the 50 units over 5 years Outstanding (5) – Vendor exceeds the 50 units over 5 years

Cost

Sheet1