Vendor RFP Questions FAA Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693KA8-26-T-00017
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document from the FAA addressing vendor inquiries regarding the Remote Tower Systems (RTS) for the National Airspace System (NAS) solicitation (693KA8-26-T-00017). The Q&A clarifies critical technical, contractual, and procedural requirements for the RFP. Key clarifications include: the scoring methodology uses a 1–5 adjectival scale (Unacceptable to Outstanding) for Cost/Price evaluation; supporting appendices are permitted and count toward page limits; the FAA will initially focus on single-airport RTS deployments supported by one Remote Tower Center, though multi-airport configurations are permissible if technical requirements are met; the Remote Tower Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements document will continue to be refined through the System Design Approval (SDA) process without anticipated major changes to core safety requirements; and vendors are not required to provide cost estimates for civil works and site preparation, though if included, these costs must be itemized separately. The FAA will consider Scenarios 1–3 for deployment (single airport with co-located or remote RTC, or one RTC serving multiple airports under 1:1 operating concept) and confirmed that scenarios involving multiple RTCs are not required for the initial implementation phase.
The proposal response is limited to 37 pages total (25 technical, 5 past performance, 5 management approach, 2 business qualifications), with cover letters and contact information excluded from the page count; title pages, tables of contents, and acronym lists count toward limits. The baseline RTS cost should include prime mission equipment (airport sensor site, Remote Tower Center, Controller Working Positions, data recording systems, maintenance terminals, and installation/commissioning/testing) per Attachment 1 Work Breakdown Structure; ancillary or optional equipment should be priced separately. The FAA expects vendors to possess fully developed, mature systems immediately ready for evaluation—not research-and-development efforts—and vendors must conduct their own testing at both their facilities and the William J. Hughes Technical Center to demonstrate compliance with FAA technical requirements. Upon SDA completion, vendors will be placed on the Qualified Vendor System List (QVSL) for potential Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) procurement opportunities. The FAA estimates deployment cadence of 5–10 RTS units per year over five years and has approximately $36 million allocated under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 for digital remote towers as a parallel effort.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Request for Proposal_Remote Towers (Vendor).docx | DOCX document | |
| RT Vendor Eval Criteria.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Remote Tower Systems (RTS) for the National Airspace System (NAS) Questions & Answers (Q&A) | |||
| Number | Question | Response | Additonal Comments |
| 1 | Please clarify whether supporting appendices (e.g., diagrams, compliance matrices, or supplemental technical exhibits) are permitted in addition to the stated page limits, and if so, whether they count toward the applicable page limitations. | Yes, supporting appendices such as diagrams, compliance matrices, and supplemental technical exhibits are permitted. Unless specifically excluded, they should be assumed to count toward the applicable page limitation. | |
| 2 | The Vendor Evaluation Criteria workbook appears to reference both a “0–3” scoring scale and a “1–5” adjectival scale for Cost/Price evaluation. Please clarify the intended scoring methodology. | The intended scale for scoring is 1 - 5 (Unacceptible to Outstanding). The 0 - 3 scoring was unfortunetly not updated from an early draft of the document. | |
| 3 | Section 10 “Delivery & Period of Performance” references “phased deployment of up to 50 RTS units.” Does the FAA anticipate that some of these airports may ultimately be operated from a common Remote Tower Center (RTC), or does the FAA currently envision all 50 RTS deployments as standalone systems? | For the initial implementation phase, the FAA is primarily focused on deployments consisting of one airport supported by one Remote Tower Center (RTC). The FAA intends on supporting both RTS operations dedicated to a single airport and RTS concepts in which a RTC may support multiple airports, as long as the configuration meets system technical requirements e.g. data transfer, latency, cyber security. | |
| 4 | Section 4 references the Remote Tower Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements document, and Section 2 identifies this document as part of the FAA’s RTS framework. Does the FAA anticipate issuance of a finalized version of the requirements document during this procurement, and if so, what is the expected timeline? Additionally, does the FAA anticipate any major changes to the current draft requirements? | The FAA anticipates continued refinement of the Remote Tower Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements documentation as additional lessons learned are captured through the SDA process and operational evaluations. The FAA does not currently anticipate major changes to the core operational or safety requirements during this procurement. | |
| 5 | The Offeror respectfully requests that the FAA consider extending the proposal response deadline by 60 days. Several major FAA and U.S. air traffic management system procurements are currently active and competing for the same highly specialized technical, engineering, program management, and pricing resources necessary to prepare a comprehensive response. Given the significance and long-term strategic importance of the RTS Scale Program to the NAS, additional time would enable industry to provide more complete, mature, and thoroughly coordinated technical and pricing proposals, ultimately supporting the FAA’s objective of obtaining the best overall solutions and best value outcomes. | The FAA acknowledges the request. Any extension to the response deadline would be issued through an official RFP amendment | |
| 6 | Please clarify whether any future IDIQ procurement contemplated following SDA completion is expected to be limited to MOA awardees under this RFP, or whether the FAA anticipates conducting a separate competitive procurement open to other eligible vendors. | The nature of future procurements related to the Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is contingent upon the successful completion of the System Design Approval (SDA) phase. | |
| 7 | If the FAA elects to award MOAs to multiple vendors under this RFP, does the FAA anticipate a subsequent down-select process prior to any future IDIQ procurement or production deployment phase?” | If the FAA decides to award MOAs to multiple vendors under this RFP, upon SDA completion vendors will be placed on the Qualified Vendor System List (QVSL). | |
| 8 | Could the FAA please clarify whether the RTS cost estimate should include civil works and site preparation activities? |
In particular, should vendors include the following items within their scope:
• Mast foundation and associated civil works.
• Fiber extension from the existing airport infrastructure to the RTS demarcation point.
• Electrical power extension from the existing airport infrastructure to the RTS demarcation point.
| • Adaptation or refurbishment of the operations room / Remote Tower Center, if required. | Vendors are not required to provide cost estimates for civil works and site preperation. If the vendor does provide the cost they should ensure that these costs are broken out individually within the estimate. This will provide clarity and allow for a detailed understanding of each component's contribution to the overall budget. | |||
| 9 | In case the deployment is not a full greenfield scenario, please confirm if the airport will provide an existing building and technical/operational room for the Remote Tower Center. If so, will this be a fully prepared room, an existing building to be adapted, or should the vendor include the design and construction of the Remote Tower Center facility? | The condition and availability of facilities will vary by airport. Vendor is not responsible for RTC design and construction. | ||
| 10 | Please confirm whether a technical shelter/containerized solution would be acceptable for hosting remote tower center equipment or local site equipment. If no suitable building is available, may the vendor propose a shelter-based solution? | Yes the vendor may propose a shelter based solution. | ||
| 11 | Could the FAA please confirm whether contingency and support systems such as UPS, backup power, power conditioning, HVAC and environmental control systems should be included in the RTS baseline scope? |
If yes, could the FAA clarify whether these systems are required for:
• The airport sensor site.
• The Remote Tower Center.
• Both locations. Yes, the cost estimate for the Remote Tower System (RTS) should either include these elements or state if these are sponsor airport responsibilities:
Additionally, please ensure that these costs are broken out individually within the estimate. This will provide clarity and allow for a detailed understanding of each component's contribution to the overall budget.
These systems are required for both locations continuity req.
| 12 | Could the FAA clarify the expected redundancy level and autonomy for these systems? | Reference the RT Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements for Non-Federal Applications (Technical Requirements). https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/non_federal/remote_tower_systems |
| 13 | Could the FAA please clarify which deployment scenarios are expected to be considered under this RFP? |
In particular, should vendors consider the following possible scenarios?
• Scenario 1: One airport served by one Remote Tower Center located on or near the airport.
• Scenario 2: One airport served by one Remote Tower Center located at a remote location.
• Scenario 3: One Remote Tower Center serving multiple airports, with one airport controlled at a time under a 1:1 operating concept.
• Scenario 4: One Remote Tower Center serving multiple airports under a 1:n operating concept.
| • Scenario 5: Multiple Remote Tower Centers serving different groups of airports. | The FAA will consider Scenarios 1-3 as long as the system meets the technical requirements. | |||
| 14 | Could the FAA clarify whether a centralized system is required to monitor all Remote Tower Centers and, if needed, provide backup or contingency support to other centers? | A centralized system to monitor all Remote Tower Centers is not required unless the vendor deems it necessary to meet the project requirements. Vendors should evaluate their approach and determine if a centralized system would enhance the performance, reliability, or operational efficiency of the Remote Tower Centers, and include it in their proposal if they find it beneficial. | ||
| 15 | Regarding the RTS dimensioning, please confirm the minimum number of Controller Working Positions required per RTS. The RFP refers to CWP configuration and RTS center structure as part of the system design documentation, but it does not define how many positions should be included in one RTS unit. Could a standard configuration of 2 CWPs + 1 SWP be considered as the baseline? | The RTS must support at minimum separate local and ground control operational positions. If additional positions are required to operate the system the vendor is welcome to propose their solution. | ||
| 16 | Could the FAA please provide further information on the expected status of communications infrastructure at the candidate airports? | Communication infrastructure is to be provided by the sponsoring airport. | ||
| 17 | Could the FAA please clarify which existing FAA or airport systems the RTS is expected to interface with? | FAA is not expecting the RTS to be interfacing with exisiting FAA and airport systems. However the vendor can propose interfaces they want/need to interface with. | ||
| 18 | Could the FAA also clarify whether these systems are expected to be fully integrated into the RTS Controller Working Position / HMI, presented on separate displays, or connected only at interface/data level? | You may design the system according to your preferred approach, whether that involves full integration into the RTS Controller Working Position / HMI, presentation on separate displays, or connection only at the interface/data level. The key requirement is that the design meets all specified technical and performance requirements. This flexibility allows you to leverage your expertise to create an optimal solution. | ||
| 19 | Could the FAA please clarify what should be included as the baseline for “one RTS” for cost breakdown purposes? |
In particular, should one RTS include:
• The airport sensor site equipment, including mast, cameras, microphones, Remote Light Gun, processing equipment and local network equipment.
• The Remote Tower Center / Remote Tower Module.
• Controller Working Positions.
• Data recording system.
• Maintenance terminal.
• Installation, commissioning and testing.
| • Backup or contingency system, if required. | The baseline for one RTS should include the prime mission equipment required to meet the technical requirements. Anciallary or optional equipment should be priced seperatley per attachement 1 of the RFP. | |||
| 20 | If a contingency system is required, should it be priced as a full replica of the operational RTS or as a reduced capability configuration? | If a contignecy system is required the vendor may propose either solution | ||
| 21 | Please clarify whether a fixed price per site is expected, or whether a base configuration price plus adjustments for site-specific civil works / redundancy levels will be acceptable | The FAA recognizes that airport-specific conditions may impact implementation costs. Vendors may propose a baseline system configuration price with adjustments for site-specific infrastructure or implementation requirements. | ||
| 22 | Please clarify whether the 20-year lifecycle period in the WBS should include corrective maintenance, preventive maintenance, obsolescence management, technology refresh, software licenses, cybersecurity patches, and system updates. | Yes. The 20-year lifecycle should include sustainment assumptions such as maintenance, obsolescence, software updates, cybersecurity updates, licensing, and technology refresh, as applicable. | ||
| 23 | Table 1 indicates 37-page limit including cover letter and contact information, with further breakdown of page limits for technical, past performance, management approach, and business qualifications. If the cover letter and contact information is to be included within those limits (i.e., the breakdowns), which section should the cover letter and contact information be included? | Cover letter and contact info will not be considered part of the 37 page limit. | ||
| 24 | Regarding the 37 page limit and structure of the response: |
• Should the questions in section 5 be included in the "Technical" portion of the response and fit into the 25 page limit?
• For the "BUSINESS QUALIFICATIONS AND CAPABILITIES" section, are we required to submit financial statements? If so, would they be considered to be outside of the 37-page limit?
• Are Title page, table of contents, lists of figures and acronyms, etc. counted under 37 page limit?
• Are the "POTENTIAL TEAMING/SUBCONTRACT ARRANGEMENTS/COST SHARING" details intended to be inlcuded under the 5-page limit for "Management Approach" along with "PAST EXPERIENCE "? The full response is limited to 37 pages. Cover letter and contact info will not be considered part of the 37 page limit. Technical is 25 pages, Past Performance 5, Management Approach 5, and Business Qualifications 2. Financial capability information belongs in Business Qualifications.
•Questions from section 5 should be included in the technical potion.
•Financial statements are not required to be submitted.
•Title page, table of contents, list of figures and accronyms, etc. do count toward the 37 page limit.
•POTENTIAL TEAMING/SUBCONTRACT ARRANGEMENTS/COST SHARING" are intended to be inlcuded under the 5-page limit for "Management Approach" along with "PAST EXPERIENCE "
| 25 | How many Contoller Working Positions are to be included in the proposed system? | The RTS must support at minimum separate local and ground control operational positions. If additional positions are required to operate the system the vendor is welcome to propose their solution. | |
| 26 | Is multitower capability required? | Please clarify the definiiton of multitower capability | For additional information please refer to question 13 |
| 27 | Would it be acceptable to use our own template for cost breakdown? | Vendors should use Attachment 1, but may supplement it if needed, as long as the required cost elements remain clear. | |
| 28 | If we wish to detail an Alternative Means of Compliance, what section and corresponding page limit should that be included in? | Please provide alternative means of compliance under the technical portion | |
| 29 | Can you confirm that if a vendor is already participating in the SDA process for digital towers that no response to this RFP is needed and that the existing SDA process will continue without submitting a new proposal? | A vendor currently undergoing the SDA process would not need to submit a response for the system undergoing SDA. If the vendor wished to propose a new system then it would be acceptable to submit a response. | |
| 30 | The RFP indicates that the FAA expects a ‘mature system design.’ Can FAA clarify the minimum evidence FAA will use to determine ‘maturity’ of vendors or solutions? | Mature system design indicates that this should not be an R&D effort and the vendor has a well established product ready for review against requirements | |
| 31 | Section 6 of the RFP identifies the possibility of an alternative means of compliance. Can you confirm that any proposed alternatives must still verify that the proposed solution complies with all safety, performance, operational, visual, design, and documentation requirements (i.e., Remote Tower Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements, Operational Visual Requirements, and all documentation and review requirements per the Advisory Circular) applicable to FAA digital remote tower technology? | Yes. Any Alternative Means of Compliance must still demonstrate equivalent or superior compliance with FAA safety, performance, functional, visual, documentation, and SDA expectations. | |
| 32 | The current RFP defines the SDA process. If the FAA accepts an alternative means of compliance that changes the requirements or expectations, can the FAA confirm that an updated RFP will be released that defines those new requirements or conditions for all participants? | An Alternative means of compliance should not change the requirements or expectations. Any Alternative Means of Compliance must still demonstrate equivalent or superior compliance. | |
| 33 | Please confirm that costs associated with the SDA process are to be covered by the vendor and there is no funding from the FAA for this effort? | MOA will be established with the selected vendor and will establish roles and responsibilities between FAA and Vendor. | |
| 34 | VENDOR would like to formally request an extension of thirty (30) days to both the Q&A and Response Submission deadlines, making the Q&A due on June 16, 2026 and the Response Submission due on July 27, 2026. |
Given the scope and technical complexity of the opportunity, additional time would allow our team to more thoroughly prepare a comprehensive and high-quality response. An extension would also help ensure that we are able to obtain and incorporate the necessary information, documentation, and confirmations from potential partners and subcontractors that may be involved in our proposed solution.
| We remain very interested in participating in this opportunity and believe that the additional time would ultimately support stronger and more complete submissions from all parties involved. | The FAA acknowledges the request. Any extension to the response deadline would be issued through an official RFP amendment. | ||
| 35 | Beyond the formal SDA review process described in the Advisory Circular, what specific forms of FAA support are available to vendors pursuing SDA? Specifically, will FAA confirm whether each of the following is available, and under what conditions: |
(a) Pre-SDA access to the William J. Hughes Technical Center, NARTP, or other FAA testbeds for vendor self-conducted testing;
(b) Early-look or pre-submission technical reviews of SDA artifacts by the ASDS team prior to formal Intake;
(c) FAA-furnished reference data, prior test results, or environmental performance benchmarks against which vendors can self-evaluate;
(d) Cost-share, cooperative agreement, or other financial mechanisms (CRADA, OTA, BAA, or equivalent) to support vendor system maturation;
(e) Direct technical assistance or subject-matter-expert consultation during the SDA documentation development phase.
The FAA expects the selected vendor to possess fully developed systems and operational capabilities at the time of proposal submission. This procurement does not account for development phases; solutions must be mature and immediately ready for evaluation."
| 36 | In the RFP for Remote Towers word document, from Sam.Gov the TOC lists roughly 60 pages but only 15 including the cover page is downloadable. Will the additional docs be made available or are those not relevant for this RFP? | The table of contents was unfortunatly not updated before publishing the RFP. The last section of the RFP is Attachment 1 - Work Beakdown Structure (WBS) Cost Template (page 15). |
| 37 | After MOA award, what is the anticipated timeline from MOA execution to first IDIQ task order, and will MOA holders be guaranteed at least one task order opportunity with the IDIQ once SDA is achieved? | MOA execution to IDIQ Is dependent upon the vendor ability to complete SDA. Upon SDA completion vendors will be placed on the QVSL for IDIQ opportunity. |
| 38 | For the planned procurement of up to 50 RTS units over five years, will FAA specify (a) the anticipated deployment cadence by year, and (b) whether site-specific adaptation costs (e.g., non-standard utility availability, environmental conditions, airport-specific civil works) are expected to be borne within the unit cost or treated as separately priced site-specific CLINs? | A.) Cadence of delivery will be established by the FAA and are estimating 5-10 per year |
B.)Vendors are not required to provide cost estimates for civil works and site preperation. If the vendor does provide the cost they should ensure that these costs are broken out individually within the estimate. This will provide clarity and allow for a detailed understanding of each component's contribution to the overall budget.
| 39 | The FAA has evaluated remote towers previously, what was the reasoning behind not moving forward at that time? | The FAA has evaluated these type of systems in the past but the decision to not move forward was based on the previous vendors decision. | Previous activities were valuable in maturing FAA understanding of RTS operational concepts, human factors considerations, visual performance requirements, and NAS integration needs. |
| 40 | The FAA, according to publicly available data has roughly $36M under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 for digital remote towers, is the RFP utilizing or referencing that line item or is this considered a separate and new topic as part BNATCS? | This is a parallel effort to the FAA Reauthorization/BNATCS effort referenced in the question. However, if selected vendors from this RFP achieve SDA, then their systems may be utilized as part of the Reauthorization/BNATCS effort. | |
| 41 | Beyond the high-level Operational Visual Requirements published in the Technical Requirements v5.0, will FAA publish or describe the specific quantitative pass/fail thresholds applied during Functional Acceptance Evaluations for environmental conditions including glare, precipitation, fog, dust, nighttime operation, and back-lighting? | The OVRs provide quantiative objectives that must be met by the system. FAE also qualitativley evaluates controller usability of the system. | |
| 42 | Are vendors expected to cover all of their own costs to get through the SDA process, including the cost of the system to be deployed at the WJHTC? | MOA will be established with the selected vendor and will establish roles and responsibilities between FAA and Vendor. | Please see Q33 |
| 43 | On page 5 of the RFP, it states that "The FAA will conduct functional acceptance evaluations at the William J. Hughes Technical Center to ensure the RTS meets the operational visual requirements. However, vendors will be required to conduct their own testing to verify compliance with RT Technical Requirements". Is the vendor's own testing expected to occur at the WJHTC or at another non-federal RTS installation of the vendor's choosing? | The vendor should anticipate conducting testing at both the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) and the vendor’s facility. The vendor is responsible for performing the testing necessary to demonstrate compliance with FAA technical requirements and for providing the associated test data and objective evidence. For the purposes of this requirement, the vendor’s facility refers to the vendor’s laboratory, development, integration, manufacturing, or test facility and does not refer to an operational airport or another non-federal RTS installation selected by the vendor. Functional acceptance evaluations will be conducted by the FAA at the WJHTC in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. | |
| 44 | How long does the FAA estimate it should take a vendor with a mature RTS solution to get through the SDA process? | The duration of the SDA process varies based on the maturity of the system, completeness of documentation, responsiveness to review comments, and the availability of FAA and vendor resources. The FAA does not establish a standard SDA timeline applicable to all vendors. | Vendors with mature systems and complete supporting documentation are generally expected to progress through the SDA process more efficiently. |
| 45 | Given that multiple vendors with mature RTS offerings have unsuccessfully attempted to get through the SDA process with the FAA, what changes or lessons learned have been implemented to improve the liklihood of success going forward? | The FAA has continued to mature the RTS framework through the development of the Advisory Circular, OVRs, Technical Requirements, and associated SDA review processes. Additionally, the FAA has centralized FAE activities to the William J. Hughes Technical Center to provide a consistent test environment, reduce variability between evaluations, and improve repeatability of results across vendors and RTS designs. | |
| 46 | Based on our earlier experience with the SDA process, the FAA expected some specific pre-existing design documentation that was not created when our original product was designed and built for a different customer/market (hence it did not pre-exist). How does the FAA intend to handle cases like this going forward? | The SDA process is intended to evaluate whether an RTS can demonstrate compliance with FAA requirements. Vendors are not expected to have completed all SDA artifacts prior to entering the process; however, vendors should possess sufficient system maturity and development documentation to support the creation, review, and approval of required SDA artifacts. | |
| 47 | What is the FAA plan to finalize the Draft Remote Tower System Technical Requirements, Operational Visual Requirements, and Advisory Circular, and how does that impact System Design Approval process? | The FAA anticipates continued refinement of RTS framework documentation as additional operational experience and lessons learned are obtained through SDA activities and operational evaluations. The FAA does not currently anticipate changes that would alter the fundamental objectives of the SDA process. | |
| 48 | Should the draft requirements change, what are the implications for a system that has already achieved SDA? Will the vendor be expected to conduct new SDA or regression testing activities? If so, how, where, and at whos expense? | The FAA will evaluate future changes to RTS requirements on a case-by-case basis. For systems that have already achieved SDA, the FAA would expect an assessment of the impact of the requirement change and may require additional analysis, documentation updates, regression testing, or other verification activities depending on the nature and significance of the change. | |
| 49 | Upon achieving SDA at the WJHTC, what are the expected operational limitations for the approved system? I.e., what constraints are expected that would limit which airports the vendor's system is approved for deployment at? | SDA approval applies to a specific RTS system design and configuration. Operational deployment considerations may vary based on factors such as airport characteristics, siting, communications, environmental conditions, operational concept, and any limitations identified during the SDA process. | |
| 50 | Please elaborate on the envisioned acquisition model for up to 50 RTS in the next five years. Will the FAA be procuring these systems directly or will the vendor be expected to pursue relationships and contracts with each airport operator? | The FAA is evaluating acquisition approaches to support scalable RTS deployment. Future procurement strategies will be determined based on program objectives, available funding, SDA outcomes, and applicable acquisition requirements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .