Comment_Matrix_ILS Spec June 2026.doc
DOC document 97 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Instrument Landing System Draft Specification
- Solicitation number
- 693KA8-26-R-11111
About this file
This is a Comment Matrix document used internally by the FAA to track and resolve reviewer feedback on a draft Instrument Landing System (ILS) specification. The matrix serves as a quality control tool for the specification development process and is marked "FAA USE ONLY," indicating it is not intended for external distribution. The document provides a template and instructions for reviewers to submit comments categorized as Conceptual (C), Editorial (E), or Format (F), along with recommended changes and proposed rewrites. Reviewers must identify the specific page number and paragraph reference for each comment and provide clear rationale for their suggestions, using quotation marks when proposing new wording to ensure clarity on what text is being replaced.
The matrix is associated with the FAA's pre-solicitation market survey for ILS procurement (Solicitation Number 693KA8-26-R-11111), which is part of a broader effort to establish and sustain existing infrastructure for CAT I/II/III approach procedures. The feedback collected through this comment matrix will be used to refine technical requirements and finalize the acquisition strategy for the next ILS contract. As a template and process document rather than a substantive specification or solicitation requirement, this file does not contain specific product requirements, pricing terms, response dates, or other salient acquisition details related to the actual procurement.
View the file
Other files
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
Comment Matrix – Draft ILS Specification
(FAA USE ONLY)
Reviewer
| Reviewer Phone # |
| Page# |
| Para# |
| C, E, or F |
| Comment/Rationale |
| Recommended Change/Proposed Rewrite |
| Resolution of Comment |
| John Doe |
| 555-555-5555 |
| 3 |
| 5a(1) |
| E |
| Order 1000.36, Ch 2, 1c |
Use Active Voice.
Restate, “Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October.”
(FAA USE ONLY)
Reviewer
| Reviewer Phone# |
| Page# |
| Para# |
| C, E, or F |
| Comment/Rationale |
| Recommended Change/Proposed Rewrite |
| Resolution of Comment |
The Reviewer is the person making the Comment and the Recommended Change.
Please make clear your recommended change and proposed rewrite. When suggesting new wording, use quotation marks and make sure it is clear what text you intend to replace. In this case, the ellipse implies the beginning of the original title is ok.
Conceptual (C): If you disagree with the intent of what is stated or implied or, you believe the author omitted an important concept.
Editorial (E): You agree with the intent but believe the wording is unclear, ambiguous, or of the wrong tone.
Format (F): Comment on layout, organization, and other format issues that are solely the responsibility of the authors. There is no need to identify deviations from the standard order format, typos or common spelling errors. The OPR will correct them during the review of this order.
FAA USE ONLY How did you resolve the Review’s Comments and Recommendation?
The Reviewer must enter the page number of the document and the paragraph so we can easily identify the reference paragraph. List appendices page numbers as A-3 (Appendix A, page 3). No Spaces or Periods Between Numbers
NOTE: For comments covering the whole directive, please indicate "General."
Please explain your disagreement and give a rationale. Authors often fail to see the ambiguities that lead to readers finding unintended meaning. Having a reason behind a suggestion is not only useful for understanding the intent of the change, but also for helping us determine if your issue can be resolved in other ways.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .