DRAFT - J1 - Phase I RFI - FAA ATCT Design Competition.pdf

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SIR #697DCK-22-R-00012

SCREENING INFORMATION REQUEST (SIR)

PHASE I

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

DESIGN COMPETITION

FOR NEW

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

CONCEPTS

October 5, 2021

DRAFT

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 2 of 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION

ARTICLE 2 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

ARTICLE 3 – SUBMITTAL FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS

ARTICLE 4 – TIME, DATE, PLACE AND SUBMISSION

ARTICLE 5 – SCREENING INFORMATION

ARTICLE 5.1 – DESIGN CONCEPT STATEMENT

ARTICLE 5.2 – DESIGN EXECUTION STATEMENT

ARTICLE 6 – EVALUATION PROCESS

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 3 of 7

ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Introduction – This solicitation is for the concept submission phase (Phase I) of a three-phase Screening Information Request (SIR) to deliver a conceptual design for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs) that could be deployed at multiple sites across the United States (U.S.).

The FAA owns and maintains many regional and municipal ATCTs across the U.S. that have exceeded their life expectancy and are past due for replacement. The FAA is seeking a standardized tower design that would enable the large scale deployment of new ATCTs within a 2–5 year timeframe. The goal of this competition is to identify innovative design approaches and execution strategies to meet our unique challenges.

A three-phase, Best Value and fixed-price selection process will be utilized for this source selection in accordance with the Acquisition Management System (AMS). This solicitation, Phase I, is an unrestricted Request for Information (RFI). Only those successful Offerors from Phase I will be invited to submit qualifications in response to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) (Phase II). Finally, only those successful Offerors from Phase II will be invited to submit a proposal in response to the Request for Offer (RFO) (Phase III).

The purpose of Phase I is to solicit innovative design and execution concepts from prospective Offerors. The evaluation criteria for Phase I will be based upon the Offeror’s design concept and design execution statements. The FAA desires to select no more than fifteen (15) Offerors to participate in Phase II of the source selection.

B. Project Description – The FAA is procuring a design concept that meets or exceeds the requirements listed below and enables the rapid deployment of new ATCTs across the U.S. The general facility design requirements and characteristics for the ATCT are shown below. The ATCT design must:

1. Support an ATCT with a range of between 60 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) (cab floor) to 119 ft AGL (cab floor).

2. Enable a cost-efficient construction approach and/or enable an innovative approach that supports high throughput construction at multiple sites across the U.S. and U.S. Territories, both urban and rural.

3. Include one elevator, a mechanical floor, an electrical floor, an equipment room, and one dedicated office space.

4. Support a control cab.

5. Minimize the physical footprint of the facility.

6. Be well suited for the climate for multiple environments and be adaptable for seismic, high wind and hurricane, and different foundation types.

7. Incorporate sustainability considerations (i.e., increase efficiency, optimize performance, eliminate unnecessary use of resources, ensure the health of occupants, protect the environment, generate cost savings, and mitigate risks to assets).

8. Be aesthetically pleasing.

C. Definitions – Terms used in this RFI have the meanings indicated below:

1. Request for Information (RFI) Documents – The advertisement or invitation for a company to submit any forms, conceptual design information, budget information, proposed contract documents, or other documents issued with or incorporated into this RFI.

2. Request for Qualification (RFQ) Documents – The advertisement or invitation for company and individual qualifications, and any forms, project information, budget information, proposed contract documents, or other documents issued with or incorporated into this RFQ.

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 4 of 7

3. Request for Qualification (RFO) Offer – The advertisement or invitation for company to provide a 10% design submittal.

4. Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) – The aviation control facility being constructed under this SIR.

5. Cab – The top level and the control room of an ATCT.

6. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – The federal agency and issuing entity of this SIR and owner of the new ATCT facility.

7. Offeror or Proposer – The entity submitting qualifications under this proposal. “Offeror” and “Proposer” have the same meaning in this document and are used interchangeably.

8. Screening Information Request (SIR) – Request by the FAA for documentation, information, or offer for the purpose of determining which Offeror provides the Best Value solution for a particular procurement.

9. Statement of Qualifications – The document submitted by an Offeror in response to the SIR, including any completed forms, attachments, and exhibits.

ARTICLE 2 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

A. SIR Phase I will be an innovation-based competition to select Offerors who will participate in Phase II of the source selection. The Government will provide additional information on qualification criteria, a scope of work, and performance-based ATCT requirements in Phase II and Phase III.

B. Each vendor must submit information identified in the parts as set forth in the paragraphs below.

The data submitted must be complete, concise, and relevant to the requirements of the SIR in which they are required and must be submitted in the prescribed formats identified herein.

C. In Phase I, Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Article 6. Up to fifteen (15) of the most highly rated Offerors will be down-selected to Phase II. The selected Offerors will be invited to submit qualifications in response to Phase II. In Phase II, either the Offeror or a team member or partner (if a teaming approach is utilized) must be a licensed architect or registered professional engineer.

D. The primary goal of this Phase I RFI is to identify innovative ideas regardless of a firm’s or individual’s professional experience. At the completion of Phase II, the scores from both Phase I and Phase II will be combined to select the Offerors who will be invited to participate in Phase III.

Up to six (6) Offerors will then be invited to submit a competitive proposal in Phase III.

E. Phase I Evaluation Factors will focus on innovative concepts proposed as part of a unique design or a design execution approach that facilitates the rapid deployment of new ATCTs across the U.S. Phase II Evaluation Factors will focus on financial capability and past performance/ corporate experience of the proposed team. The team identified in Phase II could be from one or more corporate entities. The scores from Phase I and Phase II will be weighted and then combined. Scores from Phase I will receive a 70% weighting, while scores from Phase II will receive a 30% weighting. The six highest scoring Offerors will then be invited to participate in Phase III.

F. In Phase III, the FAA must receive a 10% design as well as a conceptual construction/ deployment plan for multiple towers. Phase III will also require a cost proposal to advance the design to approximately 50%–80%.

G. The FAA intends to execute purchase orders for $100,000 with each of the unsuccessful, pre-qualified offerors that are selected to participate in Phase III of the solicitation process, and submit complete design packages / proposals per solicitation requirements, but ultimately are not awarded the resultant contract. Said purchase orders will be executed at the completion of Phase

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 5 of 7

III. The FAA is not liable for costs associated with the preparation, submittal of inquiries or response to this SIR for Offerors that participate in Phase I and/or II but are not down-selected to Phase III.

H. Based on the proposals submitted and using a Best Value approach, the FAA may award to more than one winner in Phase III. However, the FAA may decide not to award any winner in Phase III.

I. The proposal must be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer, Thuylinh (Michelle) TranNguyen, at Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov.

J. The FAA reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those proposals submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in the SIR that demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and scope of the requirements. Proposals that are not in accordance with the requirements set forth in any phase of the SIR or that contain omissions may be considered nonresponsive or deficient and may not be evaluated.

ARTICLE 3 – SUBMITTAL FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS

A. Requirements

The following must be submitted within the limitations indicated in the table and subsections below.

Tab Description RFI Reference

Total Page Limit

A Design Concept Statement Article 5.1 5 B Design Execution Statement Article 5.2 5

B. Format

1. Number of Copies – Offerors must submit an electronic copy of their qualifications as described herein.

2. Text – Text must be at least single spaced, on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages must be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides must be counted as two pages. No foldout pages must be used. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations stated throughout this document will be removed and will not be evaluated.

3. Font Size – Print must be of a minimum 12-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic representations, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, must have spacing and text that is easily readable.

ARTICLE 4 – TIME, DATE, PLACE AND SUBMISSION

A. The proposal must be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer, Thuylinh (Michelle)

TranNguyen, at Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov.

B. Phase I electronic submission must be received in the inbox of Thuylinh (Michelle) TranNguyen, at Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov, no later than 15:00 ET on January 5, 2022. Offeror must request receipt for submission if so desired. All Amendments issued, if any, must be signed and submitted with the Offeror’s submission. Offerors are cautioned that proposals may take significant time to process electronically before reaching the inbox. Delays in transmission will not excuse a late delivery.

ARTICLE 5 – SCREENING INFORMATION

mailto:Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov mailto:Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov mailto:Thuylinh.T.TranNguyen@faa.gov

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 6 of 7

ARTICLE 5.1 – DESIGN CONCEPT STATEMENT

A. Design Concept Statement – Offerors must submit a statement demonstrating their understanding of the FAA’s goals and the technical challenges anticipated during design and construction, and setting forth a concise statement of Offeror’s innovative design to address the technical aspects of the Project. Limit of five (5) pages.

ARTICLE 5.2 – DESIGN EXECUTION STATEMENT

A. Design Execution Statement – Offerors must submit a statement describing their execution plan to further develop the design package to the level of maturity where only site adaptation remains.

Limit of five (5) pages.

ARTICLE 6 – EVALUATION PROCESS

A. General – Submittals provided must be accurate and complete. The FAA will determine whether or not Offerors’ submittals are considered to be complete. The FAA will not conduct extensive investigations to resolve any errors or omissions contained in submittals. Offerors’ submittals must provide documentation to substantiate any statement of fact. Documentation includes, but is not limited to, formal resumes, licenses, financial statements, work plans, etc. Mere statements of compliance are not acceptable. Communications with Offerors may be conducted orally or in writing during the screening process if the FAA deems that communication is necessary. The FAA may conduct written or oral communications with any and/or all Offerors. Note that in order to be considered for participation in Phase II, an Offeror must submit a response to this Phase I

RFI.

B. Factor Identification and Order of Importance – Responses to this Phase I RFI will be evaluated on the two (2) evaluation categories listed below. Offerors receiving a marginal or unsatisfactory rating on three (3) or more evaluation subcategories will not be eligible to participate in future phases of this procurement.

1. Category 1 – Design Concept Statement

2. Category 2 – Design Execution Statement

C. Evaluation Criteria

1. Design Concept Statement – Evaluation is based upon a statement demonstrating the

Offeror’s understanding of the FAA’s goals and the technical challenges anticipated during design and construction, and setting forth an innovative design concept for ATCTs across the U.S. The design concept statement must be limited to five (5) pages and describe your design concept including how your design enables the following subcategories (total possible 35 points):

• Can be quickly constructed (e.g., less than 12 months).

• Offers an innovative approach for deploying ATCTs at multiple sites.

• Delivers innovation in design that has a high probability of being readily constructible (this could include citing examples of existing structures that utilized similar design concepts).

• Can be modified to accommodate different heights.

• Will meet ATCT code requirements.

• Can be built in many different environments and comply with environmental standards.

• Will have a minimum 50 year lifespan.

New ATCT Design Concepts Request for Information (RFI) Page 7 of 7

2. Design Execution Statement – Evaluation is based upon a statement demonstrating the Offeror’s planned approach for executing the design to a near complete level of maturity where only site adaptation would be required for each new ATCT. The design execution statement must be limited to five (5) pages and must describe the execution approach while addressing the following subcategories (total possible 15 points):

• Identify specific roles that will be performed by you or your organization.

• Describe partnerships and/or design principles will you explore when developing a design.

• Identify major risks for your design and execution approach, and how will you mitigate them.

D. Evaluation Scoring Criteria The Evaluation Team will assign a rating of Outstanding, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory to each subcategory for evaluation Category 1 and Category 2. Each criteria will be evaluated and assigned a corresponding point value. The total scores for each subcategory will then be totaled to provide an overall score for each category. The two categories scores will be added together to determine the overall score. The highest overall 15 scores will advance to the Phase II.

1. Outstanding (5 points) – The documentation provided demonstrates innovative thoughts and approaches that will help the Government exceed our performance goals. An assigned rating of “Outstanding” indicates that the information provides a clear understanding of the approach, instills a high confidence of the potential benefits of incorporating the proposed innovation and contains minor weaknesses, or disadvantages. The application thoroughly addresses all the information requested in the subcategory and is perceived to have a very high probability of success and/or represents little to no risk to the Government.

2. Satisfactory (4 points) – The documentation provided demonstrates innovative thoughts and approaches that will help the Government meet our performance goals. An assigned rating of “Satisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific subcategory, the Offeror’s weaknesses are outweighed by its strengths and/or advantages. The Offeror addresses the information requested in the subcategory and is perceived to have a likely probability of success that represents an acceptable level of risk to the Government.

3. Marginal (2 points) – An assigned rating of “Marginal” indicates that, in terms of the specific subcategory, that the Offeror’s weaknesses or deficiencies outweigh its strengths and/or advantages. The Offeror minimally addresses the information requested and does not offer innovative thought or an approach that will advance the Government’s ability to achieve its goals. A proposal that reflects standard approaches typically adopted by the FAA will receive a “Marginal” rating. A rating of “Marginal” could reflect that either the level of proposed innovation is low or that the perceived opportunity for the innovation to meet the Government’s goals are low.

4. Unsatisfactory (0 points) – The documentation provided is inadequate. An assigned rating of “Unsatisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific subcategory, the Offeror does not provide a clear understanding of their ideas or the Offeror fails to provide the minimum information required for evaluation. A subcategory may also be rated as “Unsatisfactory” if the level of risk is deemed unacceptable by the Government.

ARTICLE 6 – EVALUATION PROCESS