BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section J.2.doc
DOC document 84 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BNATCS2
About this file
This document is a Supplier Information Request (SIR) template for evaluating past performance of a contractor for the Brand New Air Traffic Control System (BNATCS) project. The comprehensive evaluation form assesses contractors across multiple dimensions including quality, timeliness, administration, cost control, and customer satisfaction, with specific emphasis on previous performance in large-scale (over $500M) programs involving systems engineering, software development, implementation, maintenance, and training.
The SIR is associated with the FAA's pre-solicitation for a new Air Traffic Control System, with a draft Request for Solutions (RFS) published, seeking proposals due on July 25, 2025. The FAA is accelerating its timeline for a 3-4 year system development and is inviting offerors to propose an Integrator model, with particular interest in alternative funding arrangements including public/private partnerships. The document seeks detailed feedback on the solicitation, AMS policy changes, and contractor capabilities, with responses to be submitted to David L. Reynolds at the FAA's Washington, DC office.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| BNACTS Clause Matrix v2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section C.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section J.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section K.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section B.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section L.pdf | ||
| BNACTS Clause Matrix.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section D.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section F.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section G.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section H.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section M.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_ Comment_Question Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section E.pdf | ||
| BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section I.pdf | ||
| Award Fees Attachment J3.pdf |
Show all 16
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
Contractor/Offeror Name:
Contract Number:
Contract Period of Performance:
Dollar value including options:
Detailed Description of Contract Scope:
| Observed Performance History for our Relevance Evaluation |
| (O) Observed |
(N) Not Observed
Did the contractor perform systems engineering functions for a program over $500M?
Did the contractor perform software and system development functions for a program over $500M?
Did the contractor perform test and functions for a program over $500M where customer was actively involved?
Did the contractor perform implementation and transition for a program over $500M at multiple locations simultaneously with multiple users?
Did the contractor perform design and construction for a building with a contract value over $500M?
Did the contractor perform maintenance, operations, and logistics for a program over $500M with the customer assuming maintenance and operation of the system?
Did the contractor perform training for this program at multiple locations, over a period of several years?
Was the contractor responsible for overall program management on this contract?
Using the scale below, please select one response, which best describes the Contractor’s Past Performance
| 1 |
| Not meeting |
| 2 |
| Meeting |
| 3 |
| Exceeding |
| 4 |
| Far exceeding |
N/A - Not Applicable
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| N/A |
Quality – Managed product delivery meeting the technical and contractual requirements
Quality – Demonstrated ability to overcome technical or programmatic conflicts
Quality – Managed effective systems engineering process
Quality – Managed effective software engineering process
Quality – Managed effective software and system development
Quality – Managed effective maintenance, operations, and logistics efforts
Quality – Identified and mitigated transition risks
Quality – Implemented a transition process/plan that was reasonable and realistic for assumption of full operations and maintenance responsibility by the customer
Quality – Accomplished effective knowledge transfer throughout the system lifecycle to the customer
Quality – Contractor conducted effective training program
Quality – Product quality assurance process was effective
Quality – Contractor responsiveness to technical direction was effective
Quality – Contractor managed production of an effective building or facility design
Quality – Contractor effectively managed construction of the building or facility
Timeliness – Record of meeting submission of contract or task order deliverables
Timeliness – Record of managing delivery of systems engineering products
Timeliness – Record of meeting contract milestones
Timeliness – Record of managing delivery software in accordance with a release schedule
Timeliness – Record of managing delivery developed system in accordance with schedule
Timeliness – Record of managing installation of systems at customer facilities in accordance with schedule
Timeliness – Record of managing system deployment in accordance with schedule
Timeliness – Record of managing design delivery of a building or facility
Timeliness – Record of managing construction schedule of a building or facility
Administration – Compliance with contract terms and conditions and/or task order requirements
Administration – Effectiveness of contractor’s ability to manage contract/task efforts
Administration – Contractor’s willingness to negotiate contractual modifications resulting from changes in contractual and/or technical requirements
Administration – Accuracy and timeliness of administrative reports
Administration Socioeconomic Goals. Met contractual subcontracting goals for utilization of:
Small Businesses (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB), Administration – Ability to provide subcontract management
Cost Control – Accuracy of cost targets and estimates
Cost Control – Accuracy and timeliness of cost reports
Cost Control – Ability to alert customer of potential future cost issues
Customer Satisfaction – Responsiveness and willingness to meet customer needs
Customer Satisfaction – Promptness of notification to customer in case of program or delivery delays or problems
Customer Satisfaction – Contractor reasonableness, cooperation, and flexibility
Customer Satisfaction – Effectiveness of contractor’s recommended solutions
Customer Satisfaction – Effectiveness of maintaining a stable workforce
Other Performance Indicators. Please expand on contractor’s successes and failures.
| Yes |
| No |
Given the choice/authority, I would hire this contractor again?
I would recommend this contractor for other Government contracts.
I have attached additional comments regarding the contractor’s performance.
Respondent Information
Signature:
Phone Number:
Name:
Position/Title/Grade:
Email:
| Length of involvement with Contractor (in years): _____ |
| Address: |
Please e-mail or mail to:
Federal Aviation Administration
ATTN:
David L. Reynolds 600 Independence Ave SW
FOB
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202-267-0795
E-mail: David.L.Reynolds@faa.gov
AND
BrandNewATCSystem@faa.gov
PAGE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .