Remote Tower Systems (RTS) for the National Airspace System (NAS)

Other / Unclassified

This document outlines an "Other Transaction Agreement" (OTA) between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and "Non-Fed Airports" (acting as the Air Navigation Service Provider - ANSP). The primary purpose is to define roles and responsibilities for advancing, strengthening, implementing, and evaluating System Design Approval (SDA)-aligned Remote Tower (RT) systems at Non-Fed Airports. This initiative supports the FAA's Remote Tower Program and BNATCS initiatives, aiming to integrate innovative technologies into the National Airspace System (NAS) while maintaining safety and efficiency.

• Scope: Focuses on implementing and evaluating SDA-aligned RT systems for air traffic control services at selected airports. Goals include evaluating operational performance, safety, reliability, and scalability, and generating data to inform future FAA baselines for RT deployment.
• Roles & Responsibilities: Non-Fed Airports will act as the RT system integrator, responsible for design, installation, operation, and maintenance. The FAA will provide program management, technical oversight, and funding for pilot and evaluation purposes.
• Contributions: FAA funding is subject to availability and covers airfield/infrastructure upgrades and Remote Tower Center build-out. Non-Fed Airports must provide in-kind contributions including project management, staffing, facilities, and sustainment.
• Agreement Type: This is an "other transaction" agreement, not a standard procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. It does not incorporate Federal acquisition law or regulation by reference.
• Intellectual Property: The Government retains Government Purpose Rights in all data developed under the agreement.
• Funding: FAA funding is limited to obligated amounts. Advance payments may be provided for equipment procurement, secured by the equipment itself.
• Termination: Either party may terminate the agreement with 30 days' written notice.
• Disputes: Disputes will be resolved through informal discussion or by the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA).
• Insurance & Liability: Non-Fed Airports must secure insurance for third-party liability. The FAA assumes no liability for Non-Fed Airports' actions. Liability claims are limited to direct damages up to the obligated funding amount.

Solicitation / RFP / RFQ

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from non-towered airports for the planning, development, and deployment of Remote Tower Systems (RTSs). The objective is to enhance air traffic control services, particularly for rural and small community airports, as authorized by Congress. The FAA has approximately $36 million available to allocate for RTS implementation at qualified airports. This RFP seeks responses from non-towered airports and Sponsor-owned Federal Contract Towers (FCTs), with priority given to Non-Federal Control Towers.

• Technical Approach: Proposals must detail technical, operational, and programmatic approaches for designing, constructing, deploying, and operating RTSs in alignment with FAA requirements.

• Cost Sharing: Offerors must provide detailed cost proposals and implementation plans for a cost-sharing arrangement with the FAA. Estimated RTS cost is $4-$10 million, excluding site construction.

• Airport Readiness: Respondents must demonstrate technical capability, organizational readiness, and commitment to advancing aviation technology.

• SAM.gov Registration: Offerors must be registered and active in SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission and through contract award.

• NAICS Code: 488119 – Other Airport Operations.

• Award Type: The FAA intends to make multiple awards, potentially through an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA).

• Proposal Due Date: May 15, 2026, by 5:00 PM EST.

• Submission Method: Electronic submission via email to Saaduddin.Khan@faa.gov.

• Format: Microsoft WORD (.doc/.docx) for the main proposal and Excel (.xls) for cost information. Proposal page limit is 5 pages (excluding Business Qualifications and Capabilities).

• Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis, with Technical Approach being the most important factor, followed by Cost/Price. Higher cost-sharing contributions will be viewed favorably.

• Q&A Due: April 27, 2026.

• Q&A FAA Response Due: May 6, 2026.

• Primarily targeted at non-towered airports serving small or rural communities.

• Sponsor-owned Federal Contract Towers (FCTs) are eligible, but priority is given to Non-Federal Control Towers.

• Offerors are responsible for all proposal preparation costs.

• Attachments referenced include "Airport Eval Criteria" and "Sample Other Transaction Agreement."

Form / Attachment / Pricing Sheet

This document outlines the technical and price evaluation criteria for the opportunity. It details how proposals will be scored, providing bidders with insight into the government's priorities and expectations for a successful submission.

Technical Evaluation Criteria:

• Scoring Scale: Proposals are scored on a scale of 1 (Unacceptable) to 5 (Outstanding), with descriptions for each level.
• Specific Criteria (15 points): Evaluates the planned airport's suitability for RT implementation, including:
  • Runway configuration and length
  • Annual operations volume
  • Existing infrastructure (fiber, building space for control/server rooms)
  • Plans for supporting controllers and RTS maintenance
  • Partnerships (SLTT, academic, industry)
  • Readiness for near-term implementation
  • Demonstrated safety and economic benefits
  • Prior RT experience and willingness to participate in future FAA research.
• Additional Criteria (4 points): Assesses the respondent's understanding of the RFP scope, RTS components, benefits/limitations, and post-installation maintenance.

Price Evaluation Criteria:

• Scoring Scale: Similar 1-5 scale as technical criteria.
• Specific Criteria (2 points): Evaluates:
  • Willingness to participate in a cost-sharing agreement (percentage-based).
  • Provision of detailed information on revenue sources or documentation supporting system maintenance and controller support plans.

This document is crucial for bidders as it directly informs proposal strategy. Understanding the scoring for each technical and price criterion allows vendors to tailor their proposals to emphasize strengths that align with the government's evaluation priorities. Bidders should pay close attention to the specific scoring notes for each criterion to maximize their potential score.