Airport RFP Eval Criteria.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693KA8-26-T-00016
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria template for technical proposal scoring related to a Remote Tower Systems (RTS) procurement for the National Airspace System (NAS). The evaluation rubric uses a five-point scale (Unacceptable=1, Marginal=2, Acceptable=3, Good=4, Outstanding=5) to assess proposals based on technical approach and understanding of requirements, with scoring notes reflecting the degree of risk associated with proposal performance. The criteria document is incomplete but indicates evaluation of airport infrastructure characteristics, specifically addressing runway configuration and length compatibility with single mast solutions; proposals demonstrating single runway airports with runway lengths of 3,001-5,000 feet receive the highest scoring consideration, while those exceeding 7,001 feet are scored at the acceptable threshold. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Solicitation Number 693KA8-26-T-00016 to qualified offerors for planning, development, and deployment of remote tower systems, with proposals evaluated on technical merit and price. NAICS code 488119 (Other Airport Operations) applies to this procurement. Offerors must maintain active SAM.gov registration through contract award to be eligible for consideration, and all proposal preparation costs are the sole responsibility of the offeror.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Airport RFP Questions FAA Response.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RT - Request for Proposal - Amended.docx | DOCX document | |
| RT - OTA Non-Fed Airports (Draft).docx | DOCX document | |
| RT - Request for Proposal.docx | DOCX document |
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
Technical
| Score | Description |
| Outstanding (5) | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, with multiple strengths and minimal or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good (4) | Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, with at least one strength and low to moderate risk. |
| Acceptable (3) | Proposal meets requirements with an adequate approach and understanding. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal (2) | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and/or understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable (1) | Proposal fails to meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable. |
| Technical Criteria | ||||
| n | Criteria | Score | Scoring Notes | Comments |
| 1 | The planned airport has a single runway |
Acceptable (3) = Multiple Runway Outstanding (5) = Single Runway 2 The planned airport's runway length(s) are compatible with single mast solutions Acceptable (3) = >7001ft Good (4) = 5001ft-7000ft Outstanding (5) = <5000ft 3 The planned airport has approximately 100,000 annual operations Acceptable (3) = <50,000 or >150,000 Good (4) = 50,000-80,000 or 120,000- 150,000 Outstanding (5) = ~100,000 4 The planned airport existing fiber connectivity can be leveraged Acceptable (3) = No fiber Outstanding (5) = Existing fiber 5 The planned airport has existing building space for RT control room Acceptable (3) = New building construction required for RT control room Outstanding (5) = Existing building can be leveraged 6 The planned airport has existing building space for RT server room Acceptable (3) = New building construction required for RT server room Outstanding (5) = Existing building can be leveraged 7 The planned airport has a mature plan for supporting the controllers Unacceptable (1) = No information is provided Acceptable (3) = Basic information about airport financial support for controllers Outstanding (5) = Substantial information about airport financial support for controllers 8 The planned airport has a mature plan for supporting and maintaining the RTS Unacceptable (1) = No information is provided Acceptable (3) = Basic information about airport financial support for controllers Outstanding (5) = Substantial information about airport financial support for controllers 9 The planned airport has State, Local, Tribal, Territorial (SLTT), academic, and/or industry partnerships/programs that can support RT implementation Acceptable (3) = No partnerships exist Good (4) = Planned but not committed partnerships Outstanding (5) = Partnerships are in place 10 The planned airport can start RT implementation in the near-term Acceptable (3) = >3 years Good (4) = 1-3 years Outstanding (5) = <1 year 11 The planned airport would gain a significant safety benefit to operations from RT implementation Acceptable (3) = No benefits mentioned Outstanding (5) = Benefits mentioned 12 The planned airport would gain a significant economic benefit from RT implementation Acceptable (3) = No benefits mentioned Outstanding (5) = Benefits mentioned 13 The planned airport has participated in previous RT activities Acceptable (3) = No prior RT experience Outstanding (5) = Past RT experience 14 The planned airport has affiliations with academic institutions or programs related to air traffic management, RT technologies, or related technical fields. Acceptable (3) = No partnerships exist Good (4) = Planned but not committed partnerships Outstanding (5) = Partnerships are in place 15 The planned airport is willing to participate in future FAA research efforts to help advance RT technologies Acceptable (3) = Airport is not willing Outstanding (5) = Airport is willing
| Additional Criteria | ||||
| n | Criteria | Score | Scoring Notes | Comments |
| 1 | The respondent understands the scope of this RFP | Unacceptable (1) = Provided information is entirely out of scope |
Acceptable (3) = Provided information describes the installation and sustainment of a RT at an airport Outstanding (5) = Substantial information about installation and sustainment is provided. This includes timelines, detailed cost breakdowns, existing partnerships, risks and mitigations, and detailed sustainment breakdowns.
2 The respondent understands the different components necessary for a RTS Unacceptable (1) = Respondent does not provide any information about RTS they need to procure Acceptable (3) = Respondent describes that they will procure an SDA compliant system Outstanding (5) = Respondent describes that they will procure an SDA compliant system and which optional components they need as well as justification for those optional components 3 The offeror demonstrates that they understand the benefits and limitations of a RTS Acceptable (3) = Respondent describes little to no information about the benefits and limitations to RTS Outstanding (5) = Respondent provides details about how the RTS benefits the airport and notes any limitations 4 The respondent understands the maintenance and support needed for an RTS post installation Acceptable (3) = Respondent describes little to no information about the maintenance and support of the RT Outstanding (5) = Respondent provides details maintenance of the RT including costs, spare parts needed, timelines, tech refresh schedules, etc.
Price
| Score | Description |
| Outstanding (5) | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, with multiple strengths and minimal or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good (4) | Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, with at least one strength and low to moderate risk. |
| Acceptable (3) | Proposal meets requirements with an adequate approach and understanding. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal (2) | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and/or understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable (1) | Proposal fails to meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable. |
| n | Criteria | Score | Scoring Notes | Comments |
| 1 | The respondent is willing to participate in a cost sharing agreement | Acceptable (3) = <50% |
Good (4) = 50% Outstanding (5) = >50% 2 The respondent provides detailed information on revenue sources or other documentation to support their system maintenance and controller support plans Acceptable (3) = Respondent describes little to no information about the maintenance and support of the RT Outstanding (5) = Respondent provides details maintenance of the RT including costs, spare parts needed, timelines, tech refresh schedules, etc. Also provided is a business case (or alternative plan) for supporting controllers at the airport.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .