Final Government Responses to Industry Questions 12.5.2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI) Market Survey
- Solicitation number
- SAI-11-2023
About this file
This document summarizes a draft solicitation issued by the Federal Aviation Administration for a Surface Awareness Initiative. The FAA seeks to develop a Qualified Product List of surface situational awareness solutions for use at airports across the NAS. Offerors would provide ADS-B surveillance systems to display aircraft positions on air traffic controller workstations. The solicitation involves a three-tier evaluation process to determine technical compliance, demonstration of capabilities, and best value solutions for different airport categories. Pricing is requested for initial implementation at five airports, with recurring management and support costs. Responses are due in early 2024, with contract awards and system deployment through 2027 contingent on available funding. Qualified solutions may also be procured directly by airport authorities outside the FAA contract.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Draft SAI_SIR Comment Matrix Template 11.09.2023.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Section_B 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Section_M 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Attachment J.2 Strategic Plan 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Section_C PWS 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Section_L 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR Questions To Industry 11.09.23.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Attachment J.3 Requirements Compliance Matrix 11.09.2023.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Draft SAI_SIR_Attachment J.1 MRD 11.09.2023.docx | DOCX document |
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
J.1 MRD
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Requirement Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | 6 | 3.2 | 155 | 25 | A commercial solution will be using commercially available ADS-B data. There is no way to validate this requirement. | The source of ADS-B data must meet the Minimum Requirements (i.e., latency). |
This requirement can be validated through the use of an instrumented Test Vehicle in a controlled environment. This is a system level requirement not a receiver requirement.
| 2 | 5 | 3.1.2 | 124 | SAI-11 | To what industry standard must this cybersecurity requirement conform? | The FAA is re-evaluating the cybersecurity requirements and will include an update in the final Minimum Requirements Document released with the SIR. It is anticipated these will still be functional in nature allowing for various approaches based on industry and/or Government standards. |
| 3 | 6 | 3.2 | 159 | SAI-27 | "…receipt of the last bit…" is ambiguous. Receipt of which message by what, and where? Not all ADS-B messages defined in DO-260B would result in an update to the controller application display. | SAI-27 will be clarified to indicate that it only applies to ADS-B position messages received at the ground station. |
| 4 | 6 | 3.2 | 164 | SAI-29 | From the perspective of the target report display, the display map is the airport surface. This requirement should say the registration of the target positions on the display map must have an accuracy of at least 20 feet. | This requirement is intended to ensure the underlying maps are accurate relative to the airport surface. |
| 5 | 2 | 2.1.2 | 41 | Is an ADS-B feed available thru the FAA's security gateway or any other way? | No, the FAA is not providing ADS-B data. | |
| 6 | 6 | 3.2 | 159 | 27 | Does this reference of 1 second refer to the time from Aircraft transmit to display presentation? If so, your costs may be an order of magnitude higher than a low cost commercial service. 4 Seconds is a more reasonable number for low cost near commercially available solution. A 1 second delay between aircraft radar ping to display is, I believe, the current performance standard on ERAM/STARS systems....or it used to be. Or does it refer the time between the ADS-B message being received by the SAI application, and the display to a controller? | The 1-second update is the maximum allowed time for a target to be displayed on the SAI display after the ADS-B position message has been fully received at the ADS-B ground station. |
The FAA deems that surface awareness systems require a maximum target latency of 1-second.
| 7 | 5 | 3.1.3 | 135 | 16 | Will FAA provide local access to the tower via FTI/FENS for monitor and control? | Where necessary and deemed acceptable for FAA security, access to FAA networks will strictly be limited to the Admin / Mission Support network for client side access to remote applications accessed via a web browser (i.e. HTTP). Hosting of any applications is prohibited. |
| 8 | 5 | 3.1.3 | 127-128 | SAI-12 | Can you please provide typical display mounting options and preferences that the proposed solution needs to comply with? | FAA installations are typically swingarm using a VESA mount or desktop. The FAA will clarify SA-12 to include standard VESA mounting and desktop options. |
| 9 | 5 | 3.1.2 | 119 | SAI-7 | Is the ADS-B data for use in SAI intended to be provided by the Government for either the OCD and/or the production environment, or is it the expectation of the FAA that the service provider incorporate ADS-B data received independent of the FAA's Surveillance Broadcast Services network? | The FAA's expectation is that the service provider will incorporate ADS-B data independent of the FAA's Surveillance Broadcast Services network. |
| 10 | 5 | 3.1.2 | 124 | SAI-11 | Does this requirement refer to the SBU nature of ADS-B data (i.e., track filtering) or more a broader set of ISS requirements (e.g., NIST SP 80-53, FIPS 199 etc.) | SA-11 refers to the broader set of ISS requirements and not the Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) nature of ADS-B data. SA-11 will be clarified. |
| 11 | 5 | 3.1.3 | 133 | SAI-16 | Can the FAA elaborate on the requirement for an independent communication network as to the system or subsystem it is envisioned to address? Is this referring to the requirement to remotely monitor the system or is it also referring to any communication between the ability to surveil ADS-B targets and the display system in the ATCT? | SAI solutions may not utilize FAA networks other than for client side access to web browser based applications. Any communication required between solution components must be provided by vendor (e.g. LTE devices). |
| 12 | 5 | 3.1.3 | 144 | SAI-20 | Will airport surface receive only ADS-B stations follow the same FAA Spectrum Management Office review and approval procedures and also be afforded the same interference protections once approved? | SAI solutions must adhere to FAA spectrum management requirements in accordance with FAA Order 6050.32, Spectrum Management Regulations and Procedure Manual, and FAA Order 6050.19E, Radio Spectrum Planning. |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 41 | 2.1.2 | Section 2.1.2 Constraints, 2nd bullet restricts availability of data to NAS systems. |
We suggest the FAA consider adding options to make ADS-B plot or track data that is processed at an airport to be made available for use by other systems in the NAS . The value of additional surface surveillance data adds tactical and strategic value to the NAS decision support tools (DSTs) in terms of enhanced situational awareness and surface management done within the ATCT facilities as well as TRACONs, ARTCCs and ATCSCC. Specific benefit to NAS DST users may include:
| • | Enhanced situational awareness and controller workload management during weather events or other traffic initiatives | ||||||
| • | Improved measurement of pushback, taxi and off block times | ||||||
| • | Accuracy of post event analysis | ||||||
| • | Furthering Info Centric NAS concept | ||||||
| As part of a proposed option, we suggest that data be provided in an JMS based publication of target positions. With extra benefit and value emphasized for any solution using ASTERIX formats (Category 10, Category 62, Category 11). | Distribution of SAI data outside of SAI is not being considered at this time. | ||||||
| 14 | 5 | 3.1.1 | 116 | SAI-5.e | While sub-items a.-d. are easily achievable, adding the requirement to Rotate the map may drive significant expense for applications which use commercially available mapping APIs such as Google Maps or OpenStreetMap as a base layer and do not support this feature. | The FAA deems this to be a necessary requirement for Air Traffic use of the system. | |
| 15 | 5 | 3.1.2 | 124 | SAI-11 | Without further definition of these terms, it is unknown what the cost impact would be. It is also uncertain if all of these factors should apply to individual Targets (this requirement appears under 3.1.2 Surveil Target) or address the system as a whole (i.e. availability and security may apply to the whole application vs. each individual target.) |
| It is unclear what “confidentiality” is meant to address. Does this refer to a requirement to address Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) in any specific manner? | SAI-11 is an information systems security (ISS) requirement and it is not intended to be a target level requirement. SAI-11 will be clarified. | ||||||
| 16 | 5 | 3.1.3 | 133 | SAI-16 | The process by which a provider installs an independent, commercial communication network within an FAA facility can be costly and time consuming. It is recommended that the FAA allow for mobile technology (i.e. 4G, 5G, or StarLink SATCOM) to provide the backhaul services in order to minimize costs. Alternatively the allowance of other commercially available internet backhaul where already available (such as airport systems) would also help reduce costs | SAI-16 does not preclude Mobile Technology for the communications network. | |
| 17 | 6 | 3.2 | 167 | SAI-31 | This requirement needs more definition as its interpretation could drive significant cost. This requirement should be evaluated in concert with [SAI-30], which states the overall Operational Availability must be greater or equal to 0.99. |
For example. Over a 30-day period, an availability requirement of 0.99 equates to up to 72 hours of allowable downtime, yet depending on the MTTR requirement, each instance of downtime must be resolved within 30 minutes. These two requirements do not seem to align.
Alternatively, will FAA IT personnel have responsibility for triage and basic Tier 1 support before escalation to the call center?
Does the FAA require a Contractor-provided technician to be onsite or nearby at all times at each airport in order to meet the MTTR requirement? If so, this may significantly impact the cost of the service.
Requirement will be updated to indicate .99 Operational Availability over the course of 1 year. This equates to about 3.65 days down per year. The 30 minute Mean Time to Repair equates to the time it will actually take a technician to return solution to service. Not to be confused with Mean Time To Restore, which is undefined.
FAA personnel have no responsibility beyond reporting the failure.
The FAA does not require a Contractor provided technician to be onsite or nearby at each airport as long as the Operational Availability requirements are met. Rather, it is up to the Vendor to meet the Operational Availability requirements.
| 18 | 5 | Attachment J.1, Minimum Requirements Document | |
| Section 3.1.3 Equipment | 133-134 |
SAI-16
[SAI-16]The SAI system must provide its own communication networks independent of the FAA networks. Please confirm that this is a solution/system level network only and excludes and interoperability or interface to existing FAA facility communications systems or networks. Further, please specifically address the following:
Will existing ATC facility voice communications system (VCS) be used for communication? If so, how will the FAA and qualified contractor be required to provide interfaces for each location, address enhancements or changes based upon AJM-300 plans to sustain, modify and replace the VCS at all FAA owned tower and TRACON facilities? if not, please further clarify this requirement.
Yes, SAI-16 is a solution/system level network only requirement and excludes any interoperability or interface to existing FAA facility communications systems or networks.
The SAI Solution does not include any voice communications system (VCS) requirements or interfaces.
| 19 | 5 | Attachment J.1, Minimum Requirements Document | |
| Section 3.1.3 Equipment | 136-137 | SAI-18 | [SAI-18] SAI equipment installed inside of FAA facilities must not interfere with operations or existing equipment. |
For industry to provide the highest quality and accurate SIR response, and in recognition that individual site surveys will expand upon facility operational and equipment data and information required to be completed for any qualified vendor performance award, it is critical for our technical, management and cost teams that FAA provide some site equipment data to us as an attachment to the final SIR. We would be willing to provide FAA with a statement of intention to submit offers within 5 days of final sir release and also execute an NDA with the Contracting Officer/program office in order to obtain the site information details to support the requirements and information included in this D-SIR package and associated FAA market survey questions to industry related to proposed solutions.
| For the Final SIR please provide any company that delivers to the Contracting Officer a written statement of intent to submit a proposal and execute any appropriate FAA NDA a listing of each of the facilities' tower equipment and other related technical/site data to support the system design, implementation, security an and other topics included in the scope of this market survey. | The purpose of the requirement was to ensure solutions comply with power, RF shielding, and equipment installation requirements without specifying every FAA regulation (e.g. SAI display can't cause another display to flicker). | ||
| 20 | 5 | Attachment J.1, Minimum Requirements Document | |
| Section 3.1.3 Equipment | 138-140 |
136-137 SAI-19
SAI-18 [SAI-19] Will SAI be connected to FAA critical or essential power? The FAA's response is key to our intended architecture solution and as related to existing tower facilities and the requirement to operate a variety of tower configurations.
| See other related comments regarding equipment at the FAA tower that are connected to tower power and governed by FAA Power Provisioning Group and related orders, standards, handbooks and requirements. | FAA does not intend to dictate power requirements, however, when installed and powered by an FAA facility, relevant power requirements in FAA-G2100J. | |||
| 21 | 6 | Attachment J.1, Minimum Requirements Document | ||
| Section 3.2 Performance Requirements | 162-163 | SAI-28 | [SAI-28] | All Targets within the defined Coverage Volume must be updated on the display at least once per second, independent of detection rate. |
Please clarify, in detail. An update of the target independent of detection would require some form of tracking (tracker) included in the solution. Trackers require more setup time, potentially more time to maintain, and their configuration is typically site adjusted. All cost drivers. With DO-260B low squit rate, targets could disappear from the display for up to 5 seconds. This is not acceptable for the SAI Solution.
J.2 Strategic Plan
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 33 | Does training have to be performed by certified ATC instructors or can the training be undertaken by vendor staff once the materials and curriculum have been agreed upon with the FAA? Furthermore, is the vendor responsible for training all staff or training staff and supervisors (i.e., train the trainer)? | Training can be undertaken by vendor staff once material and curriculum has been approved by the FAA. The FAA will utilize documentation provided by the Contractor to develop a FAA web-based training course. |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 79 | How many products will the FAA consider placing on the QPL during the initial round of approvals? | All proposed SAI solutions that successfully pass Tier 1 and 2 evaluation criteria will be placed on QPL list. |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 87 | What is the estimated number of work orders that the FAA anticipates issuing, within the Initial Awards, and in each subsequent Block listed under the Program Milestones table? | To be determined. The FAA will place orders based on SAI solution costs and available budget. |
| 4 | 4 | Attachment A | Initial Airport Site Listing | Is the list of airports in Attachment A intended for installation under the Initial Awards milestone ending December 2024? Or is this the objective list through September 2027? | To be determined. The FAA will place orders based on SAI solution costs and available budget. |
| 5 | 2 | 4 | 46-50 | Section 4 states that "the FAA and other entities, such as airport authorities (using their independent authority and processes), may elect to procure products for surface situational awareness". |
Please confirm that, under those scenarios, other entities would not be bound to the FAA SAI contract vehicle, contract terms or pricing, but would be limited to purchasing only those FAA-qualified solutions on the QPL for use by ATC. Commercial SAI applications by other entities will not be bound to FAA contract vehicles nor pricing, however, the vendor may not represent any product as a QPL product that has not been selected by FAA for the QPL.
6 2 4 59-64 Section 4 summarizes the FAA acquisition approach to develop the Qualified Product list, and differentiates Best Value solutions from Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solutions. Yet Section M.3 details throughout the FAA award process for Best Value solutions, including assessment of risk and opportunities, but is silent on the process for LPTA work orders intended for one of the four categories of airport.
| What is the process under which the FAA will evaluate LPTA solutions, including risk assessment, determine their acceptance to the QPL, and subsequently issue work orders from the QPL? | In additon to the Detemination of Responsibility, criteria for Basis of Exclusion and all other criteria identfieid in the SIR, technically acceptable for LPTA means the solution meets all critical requirements as defined in the Compliance Matrix. This will be clarified in Section M for Final SIR. | |||||
| 7 | 2-3 | 4 | 46-86 | Can an Offeror offer multiple products, with different strengths and therefore potentially different Best Value calculations at different airports? If so, how will this be handled and how will it be evaluated? One approach would be to let Offerors submit multiple response packages with independent details and evaluation. | Each offeror is permitted to submit a base option and an enhanced option. This will be reflected in the cost model and section L instructions. The FAA has a need to simplify the process including the quantity of permutations on price evaluations. | |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 12-14 | How does the FAA plan to expand the SAI capability beyond Class C airports where ADS-B OUT is not mandated? | The FAA will address airports where ADS-B OUT is not mandated as a follow-on effort. | |
| 9 | 2 | 4 | 61 | What is the FAA's criteria for determining which airports will use an LPTA solution? | The FAA does not plan to disclose the criteria for determining which category is selected for a specific airport. | |
| 10 | 2 | 3 | 37 | Is an SAI System Operations Center and Help Desk envisioned as part of the SAI Sustainment Services? | The FAA requires Customer Service Support in accordance with the PWS Section 4.2.8.1. | |
| 11 | 2 | 4 | 46-48 | What percentage of SAI airports will be funded by the FAA as opposed to other airport authority entities? | The FAA will place orders based on SAI solution costs and available budget. The FAA does not have visibility into airport authority procurement plans. | |
| 12 | 4 | Attachment A | 91 | Would the FAA please identify the additional airports in consideration beyond the 17 listed, since there are over 450 airport towers in the NAS without surface surveillance systems? | The Strategic Plan Attachment A will be updated to identified the first 50 airports that are under consideration for an SAI solution | |
| 13 | 4 | Attachment A | 91 | Will the FAA expand the list of airports during each subsequent block award of the QPL or will the list be expanded during a block award valid period? | To be determined. The FAA will explore opportunities to expand list based on available funding. | |
| 14 | 3 | Strategic Plan, Section 5 | 87 | The "Publish QPL" milestone is identified as April 2025. This may be a typo and intended to be April 2024? For example Section L.4.1 states that "Establishment of the QPL and Basic Ordering Agreements" will be established in "Spring 2024." | The FAA will revise the Strategic Plan to reflect 2024. |
J.3 Compliance
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Row Number | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | 1 | [SAI-16] | 28 | Does the FAA plan to grant access to vendors to allow third party network providers to locate fiber or broadband connectivity into FAA properties? and will telcom rooms be available within FAA properties to accommodate this? | Yes, the FAA will grant access to FAA Facilities to authorized individuals during site survey and installation activities. For FAA property, the FAA will consider the use of telecom rooms on a site-by-site basis. |
| 2 | 1 | [SAI-16] | 28 | In the event that ADS-B sensors will need to be located on airport owned property, in order to achieve full surface surveillance; will the FAA be responsible for managing, negotiating, facilitating, and securing the use of the area with the airport? | No, the FAA will not be responsible for managing, negotiating, facilitating, and securing the use of airport owned property. |
| 3 | 1 | [SAI-10] | 21 | Is it the expectation that the air traffic controller will have the ability to configure the location or area where Targets are to be visible / or not? | Target display areas will not be configurable by local air traffic personnel. Target display areas will be identified by local ATC and implemented by the Contractor prior to System Acceptance Testing. |
| 4 | 1 | [SAI-26] | 40 | Do the ADS-B Sensors need to be FAA certified? | No, a formal FAA certification is not required for ADS-B sensors. |
| 5 | 1 | All | N/A | Can the FAA define the process being used for Inspection and Analysis Verification Methods? | The Vendor will propose their process and plans to verify requirements for FAA approval. |
Section B
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | 3 | B.4.2 | 55 | Table 2 Base Station and connectivity CLINs suggest that there is a list of intended sites for the installation of the SAI. Is the site information something that will be provided in future documentation? | The Price Model will contain all the CLINs to be priced. This is a subset of the full scope of the program. The Strategic Plan will be updated with a broader list of possible facilities. |
| 2 | 3 | CLIN0002 | 50 | FFP for Implementation work could be more accurately provided after the Site Survey is completed. Will there be a provision for updating those FFP following the Site Survey? If not, would the FAA consider that the implementation work can be performed on a time and materials basis in order to reduce cost to the Government? | The Government appreciates this response and understands the need to balance risk. Because the SIR is currently only asking for prices for 5 airports, the Government believs that the risk and uncertainty can be adequately bounded to support firm fixed prices. |
| 3 | 3 | 4.1 | 49 | Is the intent that Service Operations and Management CLINs can be defined such that they apply to each airport they are purchased for to cover airport-level service infrastructure (like hosting, support, etc. for the airport in question)? We recommend that Offerors be allowed to propose Service CLINs that would need to be ordered for each airport yet are also not directly tied to base stations or tower equipment (such as an additional cloud-hosted software feature). In line with our comment below, we do not think CLINs need to be tied to specific airports ahead of time. |
| E.g., 0001A.xx could refer to "Service Setup for Airport". Each time 0001A.xx was ordered, an airport could be specified. 0001A.xx could be a required CLIN that is a prerequisite for all other services at the airport. | The Operations and Management CLINs are available to cover airport-wide service infrastructure that is independent of base stations and tower infrastructure. Section B in the Draft SIR only has one non-recurring and recurring charge element. In order to allow for further tailoring of prices to specific airports to better balance the risk, the final SIR will allow this price to vary by airport. | |||||
| 4 | 3 | 4.2 | 55 | We suggest allowing Offerors to propose airport-agnostic CLINs for elements that are priced the same for different airports so that separate CLINS do not need to be offered for different airports. E.g., 0002A.AUS.xx could be offered simply as 0002A.xx and the airport would be specified at the time of order. | The Government does acknowledge that an airport agnostic charging mechanism will be easier to manage; however, this forces offerors to make assumptions about the number of awards expected to be earned, or requires a higher risk margin to be included. The Government is trying to maximize the limited use of funds it currently has and believes prices by Airport will assist offerors in making more accurate risk assessments associated with their offered prices. | |
| 5 | 3 | B | B.4.1 (Lines 42-50) | Lines 45-47 states [CLIN 0001] "includes all enhanced functionality proposed in accordance with Section C.4.3.1 of the Performance Work Statement." In the event the offeror would like to provide pricing with and without the enhanced offerings, there is no mechanism to do so. The enhanced offerings may incur additional cost, and the airport and FAA may wish to understand how these enhanced offerings affect the cost in order to have maximum flexibility in product and service selection. | The Government has considered this comment and will allow Offerors to price the base functionality covered by the requirements in the MRD, PWS Section 4.1 and 4.2, as well as the other SIR Sections to be released with the final SIR. Offerors will also be allowed to define a price for a set of features / enhancements as reference in PWS Section 4.3.1 that they define. One nonrecurring, and one monthly recurring charge will be established for this defined set of features / enhancements. |
Section C
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | 6 | C.4.2.4 | 205 | Should this not also extend to cyber security? Requirement SAI-11 in J.1 implies it, but there are no specific references. | No, Information System Security (ISS) requirements are outside the scope of this paragraph. |
| 2 | 10 | C.4.2.9.2 | 370 | Should this be "… at least ten (10) Calendar Days prior …" | Yes, this should be calendar days. All references to days throughout the SIR will reflect this change. |
| 3 | 11 | C.4.2.9.6 | 420 | Does the Service Acceptance Test procedure have to be approved by the FAA prior to it being conducted? | Yes, the Service Acceptance Test procedure will have to be approved by the FAA prior to SAT conduct. The PWS will be revised to add the SAT procedures as a deliverable for the Final SIR. |
| 4 | 3 | 3.1 | Will the FAA consider making ADS-B feeds GFE or do you want an independent source for redundancy? | ADS-B data is the responsibility of the SAI Contractor and the FAA will not be providing any source of ADS-B data. | |
| 5 | 2 | C.2.1 | 49 | Is FAA-G-2100J included because the FAA facility will be compliant with this specification or are there particular sections/items in FAA-G-2100J that the SAI is expected to demonstrate compliance with? | No, it is expected that the SAI Solution will be compliant with FAA-G-2100J when installed in FAA facilities. The PWS will be clarified to include a reference to paragraph 3.1.1.7 (Lightning and Surge Protection, Grounding, Bonding and Shielding (LPGBS)) in section 3.4.9. |
| 6 | 2 | C.2.1 | 49 | Is the standard FAA-STD-019F included because the FAA facility will be compliant with this standard or are there particular sections/items in FAA-STD-019F that the SAI is expected to demonstrate compliance with? | FAA-STD-019F is included because paragraph 3.1.1.7 of FAA-G-2100J references FAA-STD-019F. |
| 8 | 4 | C.4.1 | 105 | Section is missing a heading | Non concur. The Section heading is correct. |
| 9 | 4 | C.4.1.2 | 125 | COTS equipment will become EOL at some point and so there needs to be obsolescence management built into the program. Section L.6.1.2 Part B Material mentions that any EOL dates should be included but is there an expected lifetime of the components? | No, the FAA does not have an expected lifetime of the components. |
| 10 | 5 | C.4.2.1.2 | 159 | Updates to the IMS must be delivered as required - Will this be specified at some later point such as 30 days after contract award and then at some regular interval after that? | Specific deliverable requirements will be provided as part of the Final SIR release. |
| 11 | 6 | C.4.2.6 | 236 | It states that the contractor must perform a Service Requalification Test (SRQT) for any modification to the SAI that impacts the requirements. Is there an initial Qualification Test to establish the baseline System against the requirements? Is this the Service Acceptance Test (SAT) described in section C.4.2.9.6? | The Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD) will be the initial solution "qualification" where all critical requirements of the solution are verified; not the SAT described in C4.2.9.6. |
| 12 | 7 | C.4.2.8 | 275 | Assume this section includes addressing End-Of-life (EOL) issues due to the use of COTS (as requested in section C.4.1.2). Will the FAA consider bulk buys for equipment before it goes EOL or is this the responsibility of the contractor? | Under the SAI service contract, the Contractor is responsible for all procurement activities (e.g., life of type buys). |
| 13 | 11 | C.4.2.9.7 | 428-430 | protection from theft, vandalism, and other factors of material at an airport or potential government site would require own security personnel at somebody else's location, which is likely not possible and costly | The FAA cannot reasonably expect vendors to be responsible for theft or vandalism at secure FAA facilities, nor does the FAA expect vendors to station security personnel onsite 24/7. In such instances, FAA will accept an equitable adjustment to cover the costs to repair or replace vandalized or stolen property. Given the existing security at FAA facilities, FAA does not expect this to occur to any significant degree. |
| 14 | 9 | C.4.2.9 | Has there been any discussion/consideration on the installation process at towers. I suspect there is a very formal, rigid process and possibly a certification process that is used when equipment is installed in any tower. Will FAA be able to enable a more simplified or streamlined installation process? | Implementation process and requirements are identified in PWS Section 4.2.9 | |
| 15 | Does the FAA know of any ground service vehicles in the NAS that have ADS-B transmitters installed? | Yes, there are over 2000 ADS-B equipped ground vehicles. |
Section L
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response | |
| 1 | 19 | L5.1.1.1- L.5.1.1.3 | 591, 596, 601 | The SIR refers to 2 levels of requirements: Critical and not identified as critical. Is it correct to assume that SIR J.1 MRD attachment contains the critical requirements and that the not identified critical requirements are those specified in sections C, L and M of the SIR, plus any additional requirements that may be added in subsequent documentation? | The Government will update the compliance matrix to reflect the critical requirements for the Final SIR Release. | |
| 2 | 21 | L.5.1.2.3 | 647 | At what point is the acceptance criteria established for SAI? Is this just verification of the MRD or does it include additional requirements? What is meant by the SAI Acceptance requirements? | As part of the Final SIR release, the Government will update Section C and release Section E to identify the system acceptance test criteria. | |
| 3 | 25 | L.6.1.1 Part A | 797 | Will site information be provided as part of the final SIR to help determine quantities? | The Price Model will allow Offerors to enter quantities for an airport configuration. The Final SIR documents will be updated to clarify coverage requirements, which may impact quantity calculations. Airport diagrams are available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/diagrams/. Additional airport information is available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/ | |
| 4 | 15 | L.4.1 | 473 | In reviewing the notional schedule for the SIR release (12/12/2023), with questions due on or about 12/19/2023; when would answers be published based on these dates? Answers to questions are critical during the proposal preparation phase and may be impacted by FAA use -or-lose. | The Government intends to provide answers to SIR questions within 10 days of receipt. Additionally, the FAA is updating the schedule to reflect a final SIR release date of 12/27. | |
| 5 | 15 | L.4.1 | 473 | Is the Vol II (due 35 days after receipt of Technical Volume I.A) required to be submitted at 35 business days or 35 calendar days? | All days referenced within the SIR will reflect calendar days. | |
| 6 | 16 | L.4.3 | 487-492 | Given the FAA's desire for a solution for four different categories of airports, is there any restriction for a vendor submitting 2 separate proposals to the FAA for different approaches to meeting the various operational scenarios and operational needs? | ||
| The Government has identified 4 categories of source selection within Section M.3.2.3.1. The category used for source selection of an airport or group of airports will be determined in Tier 3. The Government currently intends to enable separate pricing for enhanced functionality above that required by the SIR. (See answer to Section B question) Consequently, the Government will accept one proposal per Offeror and if the Offeror is successful in Tier 1, only one OCD will be conducted with demonstration of the required capability and prescribed time to demonstrate the enhanced capability. | ||||||
| 7 | 7 | Clause | ||||
| 3.2.2.3-20 (a) | lines # 176-178 | Rather than submitting "responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: CD, DVD, or USB disk (USB preferable); Two (2) copies", would the FAA consider submitting "responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: must be made via the secure FAA Electronic Source Selection Repository site." (This does require more details to be completed - reference SIR 693KA8-23-R-00005.) | There will be revised language in Section L of the Final SIR. FAA intends to require electronic submittal only. | |||
| 8 | 18 | L.4.4 | Section L.4.4, Table 1:Proposal volume states 2 electronic copies. Please define if this means two (2) separate email containing the same submission file(s) or define if there is different expectation. | There will be revised language in Section L of the Final SIR. | ||
| 9 | 18 | L.4.4 | Please define file size limits (MB) for email communications if they exist. | There will be revised language in Section L of the Final SIR. | ||
| 10 | 16 | L.4.3 | The Government has indicated that no alternate proposals will be accepted, and therefore proposals should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the FAA intends to evaluate technical factors first, in a Pass / Fail manner. Price will not be evaluated until Tier 3, and there is no clarity on how FAA intends to structure the four "Categories" to determine Best Value. Therefore, it is difficult to assess what is most important to the Government in terms of price and technical tradeoffs, and how to prepare "best terms" from a price and technical standpoint. | Please see the response to Section L Comment # 6. | ||
| 11 | 15 | L | L.4.1 (Line 473) | The date for this item is identified as "Around February 26, 2024." It seems that the intent is that I.C would only be submitted if notified of acceptance into Tier 2. Consider a timeline for submission based off of such notification. | Correct, slides for an Operational Capability Demonstration are only required if an Offeror successfully passes Tier 1. The FAA has a program goal to accelerate this program. | |
| 12 | 15 | L | L.4.1 (Line 473) | The date for this item is identified as "35 days after receipt of Technical Volume I.A." With a Volume I.A submission of "Around January 19, 2024", 35 days would put submission of Volume II at February 23, 2024. Volume II will only be submitted if accepted into Tier 2, yet the FAA does not expect to notify offerors of acceptance into Tier 2 until February 16, 2026. Such a short timeframe (7 days) between February 16 and February 24 will result in offerors working on Volume II prior to notification of acceptance into Tier 2. Please consider the submission date for Volume II to be based on the notification date of acceptance into Tier 2 rather than fixed days after delivery of Volume I.A | The Government normally requests Price and Technical volumes to be submitted at the same time, but with this approach the Government has provided Offerors 35 days of additional time to work on some of the proposal volumes. The FAA team has thoroughly taken this recommendation under consideration and determined that we cannot make a change. | |
| 13 | 16 | L | L.4.4 (Line 500) | Electronic copies, including the Price Model, must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016. Understanding Volume II (Cost/Price) is required in Excel format, is PDF format acceptable for Volumes I, III, IV, and V, or are editable Word documents preferred? | Offeror's submissions should be in Microsoft 365 format. Technical volumes should be in MS Word, except for OCD Slides which should be in MS PowerPoint. Offerors are welcome to submit PDF versions in addition to those submitted in Microsoft 365 formats. | |
| 14 | 18 | L | Table 1 (Line 543) | Section L Table 1 Proposal Volumes indicates 2 Electronic Copies should be delivered. Are these two copied to be delivered by separate means or formats (email vs. CD)? | There will be revised language in Section L of the Final SIR. | |
| 15 | 19 | L | L.5.1 (Lines 577-582) | L.5.1 states: “Material addressing Section L.5.1.1 thru L.5.1.3 must be contained in Volume I.A. Material addressing Section L.5.1.4 must be contained only in Volume 1.B.” This paragraph does not describe where the FAA desires material addressing Section L.5.1.5 should reside. Please clarify. | These references will be updated for the Final SIR. | |
| 16 | 19 | L | L.5.1 (Line 571) | Is Volume I.A and I.B intended to be submitted as two separate document files, or is this simply a differentiation in organizational structure of the Technical Volume? Are I.A and I.B intended to be evaluated separately? The purpose of two different Volumes in this context is not clear. | Parts A and B may be contained within the same file; however, they must be separate sections within the document. | |
| 17 | 15 | Draft SAI_SIR_Section_L 11.09.2023 |
Section L.4.1
Draft SAI_SIR_Attachment J.2 Strategic Plan 11.09.2023, Section 4, Acquisition Approach
| Section 5, Program Milestones | 470-474 | Please align the schedules and milestones between all of the SIR documents (these two apparently have minor inconsistencies) prior to release of the final SIR | Timelines within the Strategic Plan and Section L will be aligned with the release of the Final SIR. |
| 18 | Draft SAI_SIR_Section_L 11.09.2023 |
New Section
Draft SAI_SIR_Attachment J.2 Strategic Plan 11.09.2023, Section 4, Acquisition Approach Funding. Please clarify if BIL (as related to the Strategic Plan timeline would apply to initial and Block 2 awards under the QPL) and/or AIP funding will be available to airports/sponsors to procure SAI systems using either or both of the grant programs. If so, please add this to the final SIR package and identify any potential waivers or considerations necessary for proposed solutions/offerors to address as part of their proposals to be or remain eligible and/or compliant with existing policies.
| Also, please consider addition SIR language (contract clauses of relevance) to add the information regarding availability of funding for this procurement/acquisition. | As stated in the Strategic Plan: Under this SAI acquisition, the FAA intends to develop a Qualified Product List (QPL), from which the FAA and other entities, such as airport authorities (using their independent authority and processes), may elect to procure products for surface situational awareness. The SAI program is not aware of any prohibitions on the use of BIL funding for SAI systems awarded off of the QPL. | |||
| 19 | SIR Section L, Section 6 Volume II Cost/Price, Section L.6.1.1, Part A, Government Cost Model | 782 | Please consider adding to the FAA's cost model for pricing proposals a worksheet for offeror's to provide detailed Ground Rules & Assumptions related to individual cost/price elements included in the final SIR in Volume II, Cost/Price Volume Part A (this is further substantiated in Volume II, Part B (L.6.1.2,Estimating Methodology and Supporting Documentation ). |
This will enable FAA clear visibility about how specific policies, contract language and other requirements impact/drive overall costs (for example small business set subcontracting requirements, COTS vs. FAA Tailored COTS components, Contractor-formatted CDRLs vs FAA DIDs, etc. Due the FAA's desire to have a low cost, rapid deployment solution, these considerations are factored in to most every offeror's proposal. For any additional SIR requirements that tie to FAA policies, standards and orders that involve modifications or tailoring to these available COTS solutions, the FAA and the offeror would benefit from including price point factors, assumptions, and specific cost factors impacting items included in the SIR package that are cost and/or schedule factors and suggesting in the GR&A submittal potential mitigations or data or activities that might be used to evaluate cost-technical-management and performance risks and opportunities.
Should the FAA agree to include GR&A in the government's cost model, Section B narrative would be updated to reflect this additional input from offerors.
| No change to Section M as there would be no separate evaluation scoring for the GR&A | The Government is not intending to request GR&A information. The basis for pricing submitted within Part A should be included within Part B and Part C. Given the competitive nature of this acquisition and the schedule goals, FAA has a desire to simplify and streamline the source selection process. | |||||
| 20 | 27 | L.8 Small Business Volume IV | 869-886 | We are supportive of Small Business Set-Aside concept in larger programs. For a low-cost, rapid deployable, ordered from a product list, the requirement to inlcude a small business with specific percentages contradicts the overall objective. One will need to outsource activities that could have done internally faster and more cost effective, the prime contractor has to align each order with additional companies potenitally delaying deployment. | Executive branch policy requires acquisitions to include Small Business goals, consequently, this acquisition cannot eliminate participation. | |
| 21 | 1 | FAA Questions to Industry document |
Question 3, Installation
c. time to install at "BNA" N/A Please clarify / provide rationale as to why the FAA identified Nashville International Airport (BNA) as the basis for industry estimated installation period. What special considerations exist at BNA that might impact implementation? (See also response to Q3c in the document response) The Government deemed BNA's configuration to be an illustrative example from the set of potential SAI sites for Industry to provide their implementation approach and timeline.
Section M
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response | |
| 1 | 12, 14 | M4.4, M.5.4 | 315, 369 | Is there a definition or list determining what is deemed a critical requirement to differentiate it from the requirements, which is important for the evaluation criteria for pass/fail - Table 2. Are the critical requirements those listed in the functional and performance sections of the MRD? | Please see the response to Comment #1 for Section L | |
| 2 | 5 | M.3 | Section M.3 and subsections detail the FAA award process for Best Value solutions, including assessment of risk and opportunities, but is silent on Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solutions intended for one of the four categories of airport. | |||
| We recommend that the FAA either remove the LPTA option, or detail the award process for those solutions. | For clarification: there are not 4 categories of airport. There are 4 different categories used in the source selection process. These categories allow the Government to fit the selection criteria to the specifics of a particular airport. With a possibly large scope of airports for which awards can be made, this allows the award decision to better align with the environment of the airport involved. The Government currently intends to modify the price structure slightly to allow all mandated requirements to be priced and the enhanced functionality that is above and beyond the mandated requirements to be priced separately. Please see the response to Section B Comment #5. | |||||
| 3 | 8 | M.3.2.3.1 | Please clarify how the FAA intends to use the four "Categories" to determine Best Value during the Tier 3 Phase, on an airport-by-airport basis. While it is clear that "Best Value" may vary from airport to airport, the SIR effectively provides the FAA the latitude to use a spectrum of criteria that is so broad (from LPTA to Technical >> important) that it is very difficult for Offeror's to understand what FAA may consider most important during "Tier 3." Further, the Pass/Fail nature of the Tier 1 Technical evaluation suggests a bias toward "LPTA." Does FAA anticipate that (for example) X% of airport solutions may be evaluated based on Category 4, Y% on Category 1, etc.? | Please see the response to Comment #2 above. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .