ATLAS ChBA Phase 1_Announcement.pdf

Accelerated Transformation of Legacy Applications and Systems (ATLAS) Challenge Based Acquisition (ChBA)

February 17, 2026

1. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Information and Technology Services (AIT) requires innovative, secure, and resilient Information Technology (IT) solutions to support the Solution Delivery Services (ADE) and enable the modernization of the FAA’s mission-support application portfolio. This Accelerated Transformation of Legacy Applications and Systems (ATLAS) effort is intended to accelerate the rationalization, consolidation, modernization, and sustainment of legacy and operational systems, reduce technical debt, improve user experience, enhance security and resiliency, and delivery long-term cost efficiencies for the Agency.

2. PURPOSE

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this Challenge Based Acquisition (ChBA) to foster innovative solutions, witness and assess Offerors’ actual technical capabilities through a rigorous challenge, communicate actively with industry, and ultimately select one or more companies for a production vehicle.

3. SCOPE

The scope of this requirement primarily includes support and modernization of the FAA’s mission support portfolio which currently encompasses over 200 applications and 3,000 databases, but may also provide this support across the entire FAA. Reference the Statement of Objectives (SOO) (Attachment 1).

4. CHALLENGE OVERVIEW

The FAA intends to conduct a ChBA as shown below in Table 1.

Table 1

Phase Description Evaluation Criteria Anticipated Timeline

Phase 1 Corporate Experience & Concept Paper

Reference Section 5.

Responses due March 10, 2026.

Phase 2 Rationalization Approach

FAA will evaluate Offerors’ approach to rationalize and consolidate a portfolio.

Additional details will be provided to all Offerors invited to Phase 2.

FAA will hold Industry Day with all Phase 2 participants appr 1-2 weeks after notice.

Phase 2 responses will be due appr 2-3 weeks from Industry Day.

Phase 3 Challenge – Modernization Factory Execution

FAA will evaluate Offerors’ ability to actually demonstrate their tools and approach, and execute a modernization

Phase 3 responses will be due appr 9-12 weeks from FAA notice.

Phase Description Evaluation Criteria Anticipated Timeline effort. Additional details will be provided to all Offerors invited to Phase 3.

Phase 4 Production Vehicle

Based on the demonstrated capabilities in Phase 1-3 and proposed pricing, the FAA intends to select one or more Offeror for contract award.

Contract award(s) by September 30, 2026.

The FAA anticipates an accelerated schedule across the phases. For Phase 1, interested parties must submit responses no later than March 10, 2026. Responses will be evaluated as described in Section 5.

After evaluating Phase 1 responses, the FAA will make a down-select decision regarding which Offerors will be invited to Phase 2 as detailed in Section 5.b. All Offerors will be provided notice of the FAA’s decision. If invited to participate in Phase 2, the respondent must be prepared to participate in an Industry Day within one (1) to two (2) weeks from notification and submit a Phase 2 response within two (2) to three (3) weeks from the Industry Day.

After evaluating all Phase 2 responses, the FAA may make another down-select decision regarding which Offerors will be invited to Phase 3. All Phase 2 Offerors will be provided notice of the FAA’s decision.

At the conclusion of Phase 3, the FAA may make another down-select decision and, at its sole discretion, may issue a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) to the remaining Offerors to ascertain pricing information as Phase 4. The FAA may then award a contract to one (1) or more Offerors. Only those respondents that have successfully completed all three (3) phases will be eligible to participate in Phase 4.

5. PHASE 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE & CONCEPT PAPER

a. INSTRUCTIONS & EVALUATION CRITERIA Offerors must provide a response which addresses the factors listed below. The FAA will evaluate responses as indicated below.

i. Factor 1 - Corporate Experience Instructions: Offerors must complete and submit the self-score worksheet (Attachment 2) and provide all supporting documentation as required below. Offerors must submit a completed version of the self-score worksheet (Attachment 2) in MS Excel version along with a signed version.

Offerors must also submit a Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3) for each cited corporate experience example used to complete the self-score worksheet. No additional proposal information will be considered for this factor.

The FAA will only consider examples performed by the Offeror as a prime contractor (i.e., the entity with privity of contract with the Government). If the Offeror is a joint venture, the FAA will only consider examples performed by the joint venture itself or by the individual members of the joint venture. Experience performing as a subcontractor will not be considered. Experience submitted for any proposed subcontractors, teaming partners or affiliates of the Offeror will also not be considered. The FAA has determined that limiting the evaluation to the Offeror’s prime contract experience is essential to ensure low performance risk and effective contract management.

The following minimum requirements apply to all corporate experience examples provided by the Offeror in response to all elements in Factor 1. Only corporate experience examples that meet all of these conditions will be evaluated or considered within each element. To be considered recent and relevant, each corporate experience example must:

• Be for a single contract or task order award1 that is currently ongoing or that was performed within the past three (3) years of the due date of the Phase 1 submission.

• Have been performed by the Offeror as a prime contractor (i.e., the entity with privity of contract with the Government).

• Demonstrate relevance to the FAA’s SOO in terms of similarity of scope by primarily consisting of IT System Development, Operations and Maintenance and or Modernization services2.

• Be a contract or task order with the U.S. Federal Government or a U.S. State Government. Commercial contracts will not be considered.

• Have an annual dollar amount3 of at least $10M. Examples with an annual dollar value less than $10M will not be considered in any of the elements.

Any provided corporate experience examples that do not meet all of these minimum requirements for recency and relevance will be ineligible for points in the self-score Worksheet (Attachment 2).

1 Offerors may use an ordering vehicle (e.g., IDIQs, BPAs, etc.) as one example of experience, assuming it meets the recency and relevancy requirements, and may utilize the aggregate for all orders awarded when completing the self-score model. Alternatively, Offerors may utilize individual orders under an ordering vehicle as separate examples. However, Offerors must not do both (i.e., Offerors must not submit an ordering vehicle as an example while also submitting a task order from this ordering vehicle as a separate example) because this would constitute double counting the same experience.

2 The term primarily in this context means at least 51% of the total effort. The FAA intends to validate similarity of scope by reviewing the following documents: Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3) narratives, SOW/PWSs if provided, NAICS code for the cited example, and any other relevant documentation provided or available through public means. If the effort is not primarily for IT System Development, Operations and Maintenance and or Modernization services, this example will not be considered and self-score amounts will be reduced accordingly.

3 Annual dollar amount is defined as the total contract ceiling value divided by the period of performance in years. For ordering vehicles (e.g., IDIQs, BPAs, etc.), the annual dollar amount is calculated as the aggregated ceiling amount for all orders awarded to the Offeror divided by the number of years of performance of the ordering vehicle that have been completed by the Offeror.

Corporate experience examples may not be used more than once within each element.

However, there is no limit to the number of times an example may be used across the different elements. For example, the same contract or task order may be used in Element 1 based on annual dollar value, and in Element 2 based on portfolio management.

Table 2 provides specific instructions for each element along with the types of required supporting evidence. The Offeror bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed experience for each element. For some of the elements where tangible evidence is not feasible, the Offeror’s evidence may be limited to the narrative provided in the Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3). In instances where the Offeror’s evidence solely relies upon a narrative, the FAA requires that the narrative form be signed, certifying the veracity of the narrative, by the Government Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative or the Program Manager for the cited experience.

Signed narratives must only be used when other supporting evidence is not practical or available.

Table 2

Element Instructions to Offerors Required Supporting Evidence

Element 1 Size and Scale

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate the size and scale of this effort using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to six (6) examples total for this element with two

(2) examples per annual dollar amount tier (i.e., greater than $25M, $50M or $100M) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on the annual dollar amount as defined in Footnote 1.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include a signed contract or task order awards showing period of performance, total award amount and scope details;

FPDS records; SOWs/PWSs; etc.

Element 2 Portfolio Volume Management

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate portfolio management using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to four (4) examples total for this element, with two (2) examples per portfolio tier (i.e., greater than 100 applications and 3 enterprise shared services platforms, or 200 applications and 3 enterprise shared services platforms) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on the number of distinct applications4 and enterprise shared services platforms in the portfolio being managed by the Offeror.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include list of applications and details (e.g., tech stack, number of users, ATO information, etc.); SOWs/PWSs indicating number of applications; etc.

4 Applications are independently deployed software systems that provide discrete business or mission functionality, have a defined system boundary, dedicated codebase and data store(s) and are managed through their own lifecycle. Content sites, static websites, microsites, information portals are not included as applications. Enterprise shared services platforms are centrally managed platforms or services that provide reusable, cross-cutting capabilities consumed by multiple applications or programs across the enterprise.

Examples such as but not limited to, Identity, credential, and access management, API gateways and integration platforms, and CI/CD platforms.

Element Instructions to Offerors Required Supporting Evidence

Element 3 Data Estate Scale

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate data estate scale using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to one (1) example for this element.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet for number of databases and size of data managed by the Offeror on a single experience example.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include list of databases including name, type and size; SOWs/PWSs indicating data scale; etc.

Element 4 Human Capital

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate human capital orchestration using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to two (2) examples for this element.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) development staff employed by the Offeror on a single experience example.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include an invoice submitted for a particular contract; a list of full-time development staff employed on a current experience example including name and position; etc.

Element 5 Rationalization Success

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate rationalization success using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to two (2) examples total for this element with one (1) example per rationalization success tier (i.e., greater than 20% of a portfolio containing at least 100 applications, or 50% of a portfolio containing at least 100 applications) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on successful rationalization (i.e., retired, consolidated, or replaced) of a portfolio containing at least 100 applications on a single experience example.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include sanitized before-after portfolio inventories, architecture transition views, decommissioning or system close documentation, measurable reduction in duplicative applications or overlapping business functions, etc.

Element 6 Cloud-Native Transformation

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate cloud-native transformation using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to three (3) examples total for this element with one (1) example per application tier (i.e., greater than 25 applications, 50 applications or 100 applications) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on the number of distinct applications that were modernized and migrated to a cloud native architecture within a single experience example.

Cloud–native transformation must include application refactoring or re-architecture to leverage cloud-native services and patterns. Lift –shift or simple rehosting migrations do not apply.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include sanitized reference architecture, pipeline workflows, cloud operating model artifacts, production deployment evidence indicating scalable, resilient, and automated cloud operations, etc.

Element 7 Demonstrated Application Cost Reduction

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate application cost reduction on a modernization effort using the self-score worksheet.

Offerors may provide up to two (2) examples total for this element with one (1) example per cost reduction tier (i.e., at least 15% or 25% cost reduction) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include before and after cost models, operational cost trend summaries, reductions in infrastructure or sustainment costs, evidence of efficiencies gained through automation, consolidation, or platform services, etc.

Element Instructions to Offerors Required Supporting Evidence on the application cost5 reduction on a modernization effort on a single experience example.

Element 8 Production Artificial Intelligence (AI) Implementation

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate AI deployment using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to three (3) examples total for this element with one (1) example for each implementation tier (i.e., on at least one production government system, greater than five or greater than ten) as indicated on the self-score worksheet.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on the deployment of generative AI/ML for code generation/refactoring/testing on a production government system on a single experience example.

Examples must include production grade, repeatable AI deployment beyond isolated pilots or single-use AI-enabled tests.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include sanitized architecture and workflow diagrams showing AI/ML integration with CI/CD pipelines, model governance and security controls, human in the loop validation processes, measurable outcomes such as improvements in development velocity, defect reduction, or test coverage, etc.

Element 9 Safety-Critical Context

Offerors must provide relevant experience examples that demonstrate experience with safety-critical systems using the self-score worksheet. Offerors may provide up to three (3) examples for this element.

Offerors must assign a score for each example that meets the criteria in the self-score worksheet based on experience modernizing safety-critical or life-safety systems (e.g., airspace management, healthcare clinical systems, weapons systems, etc.).

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support each example. Verifiable evidence may include signed contract or task order awards showing scope details;

SOWs/PWSs; etc.

Evaluation Criteria & Process: The FAA will evaluate Offerors response to Factor 1 by first sorting all Offerors by their self-assigned scores from highest to lowest. The FAA will then take only the top ten (10) Offerors for evaluation and validation.

The FAA will evaluate and validate each element to ensure the supporting documentation is acceptable to support the self-assigned scores. The FAA will only consider corporate experience examples which meet all of the requirements set forth above in Section 5.a.i.

The FAA will not consider any examples that were not accompanied by a completed Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3).

In the event that an evaluation element claimed by the Offeror is unsubstantiated, the FAA will reduce the Offeror’s self-assigned score by the appropriate point value and the Offeror will be re-sorted based upon the revised score. If the Offeror remains in the top ten (10) Offerors by score, the evaluation and validation of that Offeror will continue. However, if the Offeror is no longer in the top ten (10), the evaluation of this particular Offeror will cease and the next highest rated Offeror will be added to the top ten (10) Offerors for evaluation

5 Application cost, as used in this element, is defined as direct annual expenses required to operate a system, specifically: Cloud/Infrastructure hosting, Operations and Maintenance. Calculation is based on difference between legacy annual spend baseline and the post-modernization annual spend.

and validation. This cycle will continue as necessary until the evaluation and validation is complete.

During the evaluation of Factor 1, the FAA retains the right, at its sole discretion, to communicate with Offerors to resolve minor irregularities, discrepancies or omissions in the supporting documentation provided. Such communications may include requesting additional supporting documentation or clarifying elements already provided. However, Offerors must not rely upon such communications and must provide a thorough initial response.

At the conclusion of this evaluation and validation, the FAA will have identified and validated the top ten (10) Offerors by score in Factor 1. Only these top ten (10) Offerors will be evaluated in Factor 2, and all other Offerors will be eliminated from further consideration. If there are any ties that affect the top 10 Offerors (e.g., two Offerors tied in the tenth position, three Offerors tied in the ninth position, etc.), the FAA will include all tied Offerors that affect the top 10 Offerors in the Factor 2 evaluations.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information or support, the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or may be cause for debarment.

ii. Factor 2 - Concept Paper Instructions: Offerors must provide a concept paper that demonstrates the Offeror’s concept for a technical solution that satisfies the FAA’s objectives as stated in the Statement of Objectives (Attachment 1) and specifically addresses the three (3) subfactors below. The FAA expects that the Offeror’s concept presented in response to this factor will be utilized and demonstrated throughout the remaining challenge phases.

For each subfactor and throughout the response, the Offeror must support its conceptual approach with actual demonstrative examples of how the Offeror successfully implemented similar concepts previously. For Factor 2, these supporting examples may be from government or commercial contracts, but must have been performed by the Offeror as a prime contractor. Such examples will help establish credibility in the Offeror’s approach and will increase the FAA’s confidence in the Offeror’s approach. For any specific conceptual approaches where demonstrated prior experience does not presently exist, the Offeror’s response should make a logical connection to the prior experience that does exist which demonstrates the concept is feasible and likely to be effective.

Subfactor 1 - Modernization Factory Framework Offerors must:

• Detail the "Factory Model" that shifts from headcount-based staffing to automation, reuse and productized services.

• Explain how the framework scales to support the transition from legacy sustainment to cloud-native architectures and automated workflows across hundreds of applications.

• Detail the use of AI to increase velocity, improve code quality and reduce manual effort and costs.

• Describe how the “Factory Model” incorporates standardized UI/UX patterns, design systems, and reusable front-end components to improve consistency, usability, and delivery velocity across applications.

Subfactor 2 - Portfolio Rationalization Offerors must:

• Describe the use of AI-enabled techniques to analyze legacy codebase and enterprise systems to identify duplicated business rules, redundant data structures, and overlapping functionality.

• Provide a data-driven strategy for "Retain, Retire, or Consolidate" decisions including criteria, scoring models, and governance processes for portfolio rationalization.

• Describe how AI/ML is used to accelerate application analysis at scale, dependency mapping and identification of consolidation or modernization candidates.

• Describe how user experience and workflow analysis informs rationalization decisions, including identification of fragmented, duplicative, or inconsistent user journeys across systems to support consolidation and modernization planning.

Subfactor 3 - Enterprise Architecture & Data Excellence Offerors must:

• Detail the transition to modular, scalable architectures using API-first strategies and Data Mesh/Fabric to eliminate data silos.

• Describe the approach for achieving a Continuous Authorization to Operate (cATO) by embedding security controls natively into the development fabric.

• Describe how AI/ML capabilities are integrated into the enterprise architecture and data ecosystem to improve data quality, interoperability, automation, and decision support while maintaining governance, security and compliance.

• Describe how UI/UX architecture aligns with modular, API- first designs, including support for shared design systems, accessibility standards and consistent user experiences across applications.

Evaluation Criteria: As indicated above, only the top ten (10) Offerors in Factor 1 will be evaluated in Factor 2. Factor 2 will be evaluated based on the three (3) subfactors and the respective criteria listed below. The three (3) subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Subfactor 1 - Modernization Factory Framework The FAA will evaluate Offerors’ responses in this subfactor based on the:

• Evidence of a "Factory Model" that shifts from headcount-based staffing to automation, standardization and reuse.

• Effectiveness of the framework in scaling the transition of hundreds of applications to cloud-native architectures.

• Maturity of AI-enabled capabilities integrated into the “Factory Model” to increase delivery velocity, automate code generation/refactoring/testing and reduced manual sustainment effort and cost.

• Incorporation of standardized UI/UX patterns and reusable design systems within the factory model to promote consistency, accessibility, and delivery efficiency across modernized applications.

Subfactor 2 - Portfolio Rationalization

• Maturity of AI-enabled techniques to analyze legacy code and identify duplicated business rules or data structures.

• Quality of the data-driven "Retain, Retire, or Consolidate" strategy to resolve duplicated enterprise capabilities and reduce portfolio complexity.

• Effectiveness of AI-supported dependency mapping and impact analysis in accelerating rationalization decisions and identifying modernization, consolidation, or retirement candidates at scale.

• Consideration of user workflows and experience impacts in rationalization decisions including identification of fragmented or duplicative user journeys across multiple systems.

Subfactor 3 - Enterprise Architecture & Data Excellence

• Effectiveness of API-first strategies and Data Mesh/Fabric in eliminating data silos.

• Approach for achieving a Continuous Authorization to Operate (cATO) by embedding security controls natively into the development fabric.

• Integration of AI/ML capabilities into the enterprise architecture and data ecosystem to improve data quality, interoperability, automation, and decision support while maintaining governance and security.

• Alignment of UI/UX architecture with enterprise standards, including support for shared design systems, accessibility and consistent user experience across modular, API driven applications.

In addition to the specific criteria above, the FAA will also consider the credibility of the Offeror’s conceptual approach based on the supporting examples of experience cited in the Offeror’s response for each subfactor. The FAA will assign higher ratings for Offerors that present conceptual approaches that are well supported by prior experience.

The FAA will assign each Offeror evaluated in Factor 2 a confidence rating for each of the three (3) subfactors in accordance with the definitions in Table 3.

Table 3 – Factor 2 Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the FAA’s objectives, proposes a sound approach bolstered by relevant experience, and will be successful in performing the effort with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the FAA’s objectives, proposes a sound approach bolstered by relevant experience, and will be successful in performing the effort with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the FAA’s objectives, proposes a sound approach bolstered by relevant experience, and will be successful in performing the effort even with Government intervention.

iii. Formatting Instructions Factor 1 - Corporate Experience & Capabilities Offerors must submit the self-score model using the FAA’s provided MS Excel file (Attachment 2) and also a signed version. Offerors must not make any formatting changes to this document.

Offerors must also submit a Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3) for each cited corporate experience example used to complete the self-score model (Attachment 2).

Offerors must not make any formatting changes (e.g., font type and size must remain Aptos, size 12, single spaced) to this document. Each completed Corporate Experience Form (Attachment 3) must not exceed two (2) pages.

There is no page limitation or formatting restrictions on the verifiable supporting documentation for each Factor 1 element discussed above in Table 2.

Factor 2 - Concept Paper Offerors must provide a response to Factor 2 that meets the following formatting requirements:

• Responses must not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Cover pages and tables of contents are not requested, and will count against the page count.

• Responses must be submitted in MS Word or Adobe format.

• Pages must be standard 8 ½” by 11” size.

• Proposal content must be formatted using Times New Roman, Aptos, Arial, or

Calibri, 12-point font (no reduction permitted). The font size for tables, figures, and other type of inserts can be no smaller than an 8-point font size.

• Margins must be 1” at top/bottom and left/right of the page and pages may not be reduced form. Headers and footers are allowed in the margins and their font size can be no smaller than 10-point.

• Pages must be searchable and printable.

File Submission & Naming Conventions Offerors must email responses to this announcement to SSDRFI@faa.gov by the deadline in Section 5.c. Due to system limitations, each email must not exceed 25MB. Offerors are encouraged to submit ZIP files, and if multiple emails are necessary then the subject line must indicate “Email 1 of n” emails with “n” being the total number of emails in the Offeror’s complete Phase 1 response.

Offerors response to Phase 1 should utilize the naming conventions shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Factor File Naming Convention Factor 1 Completed Self-Score Model

(Attachment 2) [Company Abbreviation]_[Factor#]_[Attachment #]_[Document Name] e.g., “ABC Systems_F1_Att2_Self-score Model.xlsx” & “ABC Systems_F1_Att2_Self-score Model.pdf” for signed version

Factor 1 Completed Corporate Experience Forms (Attachment 3)

[Company Abbreviation]_[Factor#]_[Attachment #]_[Contract#] e.g., “ABC Systems_F1_Att3_692M15-26-C-00XXX.pdf”

Factor 1 Supporting Evidence Documents

[Company Abbreviation]_[Factor#]_[Element#]_[Example#] e.g., “ABC Systems_F1_E1_Ex1.zip”

Factor 2 Concept Paper [Company Abbreviation]_[Factor#]_[Document Name] e.g., “ABC Systems_F2_Concept Paper.pdf”

b. DOWNSELECT DECISION The FAA will evaluate Factor 1 as detailed above to identify and validate the top ten (10) Offerors in Factor 1. Only these top ten (10) Offerors will then be evaluated in Factor 2 and assigned confidence ratings as detailed above.

After both Factor 1 and Factor 2 have been evaluated, the FAA will make a final down-select decision to conclude Phase 1 of this ChBA. The FAA intends to invite approximately five (5) Offerors to participate in Phase 2. However, depending on the quality of responses to Factor 2, the FAA may invite more or less than five (5) Offerors to participate in Phase 2 at the FAA’s discretion. Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equally weighted in terms of the FAA’s down-select decision. The Offerors that are the most highly rated and most likely to be successful in meeting FAA’s objectives as stated in the SOO will be invited to participate in Phase 2.

All Offerors will be notified of the FAA’s down-select decision by the Contracting Officer at the conclusion of the Phase 1 evaluations. The FAA will provide debriefings at the conclusion of Phase 1 to any Offeror not invited to participate in Phase 2.

c. QUESTIONS & RESPONSE DUE DATE Questions about this announcement must be submitted to SSDRFI@faa.gov by February 24, 2026. In response to questions, the FAA may elect to amend this announcement or issue a Questions and Answers attachment on SAM.gov.

mailto:SSDRFI@faa.gov

Responses to Phase 1 must be submitted to SSDRFI@faa.gov by March 10, 2026. Late responses will not be evaluated or considered by the FAA.

6. ADDITIONAL TERMS

The Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for the FAA and can be reached via email at daniel.farrell@faa.gov.

Offerors must be actively registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and must provide the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in the completed self-score model (Attachment 2).

This announcement is being issued in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) Section 3.2.1.3.11 Public Announcements. All future announcements regarding this ChBA (e.g., Phase 2 invitations, etc.) will be issued directly to challenge participants and not posted on SAM.gov.

This is not a Request for Offers. The responses to this announcement will not be construed as a commitment or a promise to contract with the FAA. The FAA is not seeking or accepting unsolicited proposals. Any costs associated with the response to this announcement are solely at the respondent’s expense.

The FAA’s decisions throughout all phases of this challenge will be inherently subjective.

The FAA seeks concepts that are technically feasible, understandable, and usable and that will meaningfully address the objectives of this and subsequent supporting announcements, along with a reasonable business arrangement.

The FAA views this challenge as a continuous evaluation of the Offerors’ capabilities to meet the FAA’s objectives leading to the selection of one or more Offerors for a production vehicle. Therefore, the FAA’s final decision in Phase 4 will necessarily consider all evaluation findings from the prior phases along with any new criteria provided to Offerors in Phase 4. In terms of relative importance, the evaluation of the technical phases increases with importance (i.e., Phase 3 is the most important and more important than Phase 2, and Phase 2 is more important than Phase 1). The final award(s) decision in Phase 4 will be a best value tradeoff with the technical evaluation factors being more important than price, although price remains an important factor.

Throughout all phases of this challenge, the FAA reserves the right to request additional written information from any, some, none, or all Offerors. The FAA also reserves the right to hold one-on-one exchanges with any Offeror to clarify elements of an Offeror’s submission, understand technical capabilities, discuss potential pricing arrangements, recommend revisions to proposed approaches, etc. The FAA anticipates that communications during Phase 1 will be limited to resolving minor irregularities, informalities, ambiguities, omissions, or apparent clerical mistakes consistent with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3.A.7.c.2, and that such communications will primarily mailto:daniel.farrell@faa.gov involve the Factor 1 supporting evidence. During Phase 2 and 3, the FAA expects that communications with Offerors will increase in frequency and the scope of such communications will broaden to include addressing favorable or unfavorable aspects of Offerors’ approach or modernization challenge deliverable, communications to understand potential pricing arrangements, etc. Given the unique nature of this ChBA, Phase 2 and 3 communications will be specific to each Offeror by necessity. Importantly, these Phase 2 and 3 communications will be conducted consistently with all remaining Offerors being treated in a similar manner in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3.A.7.c.4. If the FAA pursues Phase 4, the RFP will outline how communications will occur during this phase.

The FAA reserves the right to cancel this ChBA at any time. The FAA also reserves the right to refine the ChBA approach and the details of subsequent phases. The FAA also reserves the right not to enter into a contract at the end of this challenge.

7. ATTACHMENTS

1. Statement of Objectives (SOO)

2. Self-score Model

3. Corporate Experience Form