Request for Proposal_Remote Towers (Vendor).docx

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION | Request for Proposal – Remote Tower Systems Request for Proposals for Remote Towers

Q&A FAA Response Due:

June 1st, 2026, by 5:00 PM EST

Table of Contents

1 Objective The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is committed to enhancing the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). To advance this mission, the FAA is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify qualified technology vendors capable of designing, delivering, and supporting a Remote Tower System (RTS) for deployment at Class D airports across the United States.

An RTS replaces the traditional out-the-window (OTW) view of a brick-and-mortar Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) by using a network of cameras, video screens, sensors and a human-machine interface (HMI) to provide Air Traffic Control (ATC) services from a digital environment. The controller observes a high-definition, 360-degree view of the airport and its surrounding airspace from a digital workstation that is supported by digital tools for traffic management.

The FAA intends to purchase up to 50 RTS units over a five-year period[footnoteRef:1], contingent on the outcomes of this proposal request. The FAA communicates this planned procurement volume to signal the scale of interest to industry and to enable vendors to plan production and delivery capacity accordingly. [1: This figure does not constitute a commitment to purchase any specific quantity]

The FAA is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to design, manufacture, deliver, install, and sustain RTS for deployment within the NAS.

This RFP supports the FAA’s objective to deploy RTS on a scale (up to 50 systems over five years) while expanding competition, improving pricing leverage, and achieving best value outcomes.

2 Background System Design Approval (SDA) is the FAA's formal acceptance of a non-federal system design intended for use in the NAS. An SDA signifies that a specific system configuration is compliant with applicable FAA standards. RTS that successfully achieve SDA are added to a qualified vendor list and are eligible to sell and operate their RTS in the NAS. The SDA process is iterative, and timelines depend on the maturity of the vendor's system and the completeness of supporting documentation. Vendors with well-established processes and documentation can significantly reduce the time required to achieve SDA. The SDA process is led by the FAA's Advanced System Design Services (ASDS) team.

The FAA has established a framework for the design approval, and deployment of RTS for non-federal applications in the NAS. This framework consists of three foundational documents, available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/non_federal/remote_tower_systems:

· Advisory Circular (AC) Remote Tower Systems for Non-Federal Applications: Provides guidance to applicants and sponsors on how to request an SDA for an RTS design. The AC defines the SDA process (Intake, Assessment, and Commissioning), identifies the required deliverables at each phase, and establishes the technical review areas the FAA will evaluate, including system planning, requirements, architecture, verification, hardware/software assurance, siting, installation, and training.

· RT Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements for Non-Federal Applications (Technical Requirements): These requirements define the mandatory functional, performance, safety, and security requirements that all RTS must satisfy. The document is organized into four main sections: System, Functional and Performance requirements (Section 2), Integration requirements (Section 3), Information Systems Security (Section 4), and Safety and Reliability/Maintainability/Availability (RMA) requirements. All vendors responding to this RFP are expected to have reviewed the technical requirements.

· Operational Visual Requirements (OVRs): The FAA evaluates whether an RTS provides controllers with the visual information necessary to perform all required tasks. OVR compliance is evaluated through a Functional Acceptance Evaluation (FAE), which produces a Functional Acceptance Decision (FAD). Which is a determination on whether the RTS provides sufficient visual acuity for a controller to perform their duties. This decision is a prerequisite for SDA award Remote Tower Program Focus Areas

· System Design Approval (SDA): The FAA has established a clear SDA approval process. Vendors must demonstrate a development process and documentation capability sufficient to achieve SDA.

· Testing and Validation: The FAA will conduct functional acceptance evaluations at the William J. Hughes Technical Center to ensure the RTS meets the operational visual requirements. However, vendors will be required to conduct their own testing to verify compliance with RT Technical Requirements

· NAS Integration: RTS must be able to integrate into existing NAS infrastructure without degrading ATC services.

· Airport Deployment: Vendors must support site-specific installation, commissioning, and sustainment in compliance with FAA orders and standards.

· Scalable Procurement: The FAA is developing an acquisition model to support deployment at scale. Vendors must demonstrate production capacity sufficient to support delivery of up to 50 units over five years.

3 Request for Proposals This RFP is intended to identify vendors capable and willing to undergo the RTS SDA process. The goal of the FAA through this RFP is to assess the depth of the vendor base, understand the barriers and costs associated with achieving SDA, and comprehend the system cost, production, and delivery capacity at scale.

4 Vendor Qualifier Criteria for System Design Approval (SDA) Process The FAA will use responses to this RFP to assess vendor readiness to participate in the SDA process. The table below defines the minimum criteria the FAA considers necessary for a vendor to be a viable SDA candidate.

Vendors are not expected to have completed all documentation, testing, or reviews prior to initiating SDA. The SDA process provides a framework in which artifacts are developed, reviewed, and finalized. However, the SDA process is not an R&D program. Vendors should have a mature system design and demonstrate the capability / expertise to produce the required artifacts. Vendors should review the table and assess whether their system can meet these thresholds through the SDA process. If significant gaps exist, vendors are encouraged to address them before submitting a response.

Baseline: The minimum capability required for a vendor to be considered for further engagement. Vendors that cannot meet baseline criteria will not be considered for the SDA process.

The vendor must submit a traceability matrix which correlates the vendor’s system requirements to the FAA technical requirements.

Software must be developed to the applicable RTCA DO-278A Assurance Level 4 for integrity-critical functions and AL 5 for continuity-critical functions.

The vendor must provide their plan for addressing safety implications associated with the use of any Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Line Replaceable Units (LRU).

Documentation must address mast frangibility requirements within airport safety areas; environmental operating conditions, lightning protection, grounding / bonding, etc.

The vendor must demonstrate that software and hardware development assurance levels have been assigned and applied:

(1) Software: DO-278A assurance Level 4 and 5

(2) Hardware: RTCA DO-254 Development Assurance Level D

(3) System-level: ARP 4754B Functional Development Assurance Level D.

The capture-to-display latency must be no greater than 1 second end-to-end.

Vendor must document all security controls in a System Security Plan (SSP).

Please note that Low baseline currently applies to non-federal applications. However, for federal applications, the required baseline may be higher (Moderate or High), and vendors should indicate capability to support elevated baselines if needed.

(1) RTS must have a calculated inherent availability of 0.999

(2) Automatic switch over to redundant elements must occur within 3 seconds; manual switchover within 30 seconds

(3) MTTR must not exceed 2 hours

Vendors that cannot currently meet one or more of the Baseline criteria are still encouraged to respond. However please clearly identify the gap, describe the reason why the gap exists.

5 Questions for RTS Industry Vendors are requested to provide written responses to the following questions. Responses should be organized by question number and should be as specific and quantitative as possible. The FAA is not seeking marketing material; it is seeking information about capabilities, limitations, and costs.

Company Information

1. Company name

1. Point of contact, title, number, and email address

1. Business size classification The questions below are intended to give the FAA a preliminary understanding of each vendor's technical capabilities and system maturity. Responses should be submitted as part of the RFP and do not need to be formal documents. These responses are not formal SDA artifacts.

Technical Capability

1. Describe your RTS architecture and capabilities with respect to the Remote Tower (RT) Systems Minimum Functional and Performance Requirements Document - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/Draft-Remote-Tower-Systems-Requirements-5.pdf. Example Guiding Questions:

· Describe the camera array (e.g. type of camera, number of cameras, resolution, etc.)

· Describe the network architecture and bandwidth requirements

· What is your minimum system configuration?

· Will optional / additional RTS features be offered?

2. Describe what the vendor will provide onsite at a future installation site.

· Is the vendor capable of performing all civil works onsite?

3. What is the airport sponsor expected to provide (e.g. MEL, Fiber, Power, etc.)?

4. Describe your system's redundancy and failure management approach:

· What is the failover architecture if a critical component fails?

· Which elements have redundant components?

· How fast does automatic switch over occur?

5. What is the maintenance model that the vendor intends to provide?

· Will the vendor provide all maintenance work?

· What is the vendors parts obsolescence plan?

6. Describe any operational deployments of your RTS

· What airport is your RTS deployed at?

· What type of service is provided?

7. How does your system interface with existing FAA infrastructure? Example Equipment:

· Voice communications: Voice Switching and Control Systems (VSCS) or equivalent

· Surveillance: Airborne Position Reference Tool (APRT), Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI), or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)

· Weather: Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) / Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) integration or display Cost, Production and Delivery Capacity

8. Describe your production and supply chain capacity:

· How many RTS units could be produced / procured and delivered per year?

· Where are major system components manufactured?

· Who are major partners for system production?

9. The FAA intends to acquire up to 50 RTS units over a five-year period. Describe how your organization would structure delivery and deployment to meet this scale.

10. Provide the cost breakdown for one RTS using the template in Attachment 1.

· Provide a rough cost estimate for three tranches of RTS units including multi-unit discounts:

a. Tranche 1: How much would the total cost be to deliver 10 RTSs?

b. Tranche 2: How much would the total cost be to deliver 30 RTSs?

c. Tranche 3: How much would the total cost be to deliver 50 RTSs?

Barriers, Limitations, and FAA Support Needed

11. What are the primary obstacles your organization faces in entering the RTS SDA process?

12. What specific actions, policy changes, or clarifications from the FAA would most accelerate your ability to achieve SDA?

FAA Involvement & Company Structure

13. Has your company participated in any FAA programs before?

14. How large of a team would be supporting the RTS SDA effort?

15. Does your company have other partnerships / agreements in place?

6 Alternative Means of Compliance SDA process was developed based on legacy approval frameworks that may not fully account for modern development methodologies or accelerated deployment models that mature vendors may already employ. The FAA is therefore open to vendors proposing alternative means of demonstrating compliance that their RTS meets the safety, performance, and functional requirements defined in the RT Technical Requirements.

If a vendor believes that an alternative approach, or other verification and validation methodologies exist that provide equivalent or superior assurance to the documentation artifacts prescribed in the SDA process, the vendor is encouraged to describe that approach in their response.

7 Submission Requirements:

Subject responses must include the following:

Table 1- Submission Requirements

· Technical - NTE 25 pages

· Past performance - NTE 5 pages

· Management approach- NTE 5 pages

· Business Qualifications and Capabilities shall not exceed 2 pages.

· Price proposal submission from Attachment 1does not count towards the page limit

· Experienced and qualified staff members who are able to support the full scope of work through in-house staff members, teaming and subcontracting arrangements.

· Financial ability to cover payroll and other operating and administrative expenses. In addition, provide the company’s existing line of credit (if applicable) or the company’s most recent financial statement.

· A Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)-approved accounting system or the company’s on file DCAA approved costs incurred audit submission showing the company’s latest DCAA approved forward pricing rates for all available direct labor categories along with associated indirect overhead rates (General & Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.).

· Name of project

· Contract Number

· Identification of the government or commercial entity for whom work was performed (identify all work performed as a subcontractor)

· Brief description of the project

· Start and end dates of the project.

· Name, specific organization, company address, title, and phone number of principal contacts of the company for which the work was performed.

Table 2 – Submission Format

Submission Format Quantity Government POC Address

Saaduddin.Khan@faa.gov

NOTES: The electronic submission should be in Microsoft WORD format(doc/.docx) and Excel(.xls) for cost information. Oral submissions will not be accepted. All questions should be submitted by date posted on Page 1. Questions will be addressed in writing in accordance with the Q&A Response Date reflected on Page 1.

8 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated using a best value tradeoff approach based on:

The Government will evaluate proposals using a best-value tradeoff approach. The following factors are listed in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Approach and (2) Cost/Price. When combined, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

1. Technical Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for its overall soundness, feasibility, and effectiveness in meeting the objectives of this agreement. The evaluation will consider the degree to which the proposal demonstrates a clear methodology, technical innovation, risk identification and mitigation strategies, and the ability to successfully execute within the proposed schedule. The Government may also consider the maturity of the proposed solution and its alignment with FAA operational and safety objectives. (Attachment: Vendor Eval Criteria)

2. Cost/Price Cost/Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and overall value to the Government. The evaluation will consider whether the proposed costs are consistent with the technical approach and reflect a clear understanding of the work to be performed. As this is an MOA agreement, the Government may consider cost realism and price reasonableness using flexible evaluation methods and is not required to conduct a formal cost realism analysis. (Attachment: Vendor Eval Criteria) Adjectival Rating System (Non-Cost Factors Only) Non-cost factors will be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

a. 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.

b. Good (4) – Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, with at least one strength and low to moderate risk.

c. Acceptable (3) – Proposal meets requirements with an adequate approach and understanding. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

d. Marginal (2) – Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and/or understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

e. Unacceptable (1) – Proposal fails to meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

The Government reserves the right to award a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) without discussions, conduct exchanges with one or more Offerors, or negotiate as necessary. After SDA is achieved the Government may or may not choose to award an Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Awards may be made to other than the lowest-priced Offeror if a higher-rated proposal is determined to provide greater overall value to the Government.

The FAA may conduct discussions and request Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

9 NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

The FAA will leverage full and open competition to obtain multiple viable offers, strengthening its negotiating position and enabling price comparison.

Discussions will be conducted with offerors in the competitive range, followed by FPRs to improve technical and cost proposals.

The FAA will apply price and cost analysis, including benchmarking against the IGCE, to ensure price reasonableness.

The Government will maintain walk-away leverage by retaining the ability to reject all proposals if none are deemed in the best interest of the government.

10 DELIVERY & PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Once SDA is completed, the anticipated period of performance is five years, supporting phased deployment of up to 50 RTS units.

Attachment 1 – Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Cost Template Use the example table below to provide cost estimates for one complete Remote Tower System unit at greenfield site, including a 20-year lifecycle period.

1001b

1001c

TOTAL BASE YEAR

*Ancillary Equipment is defined as anything that a RT system relies on to operate that is outside the boundary of their system design.

Page | 2 image1.png image2.jpg