99--Future Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In Development Activities - Request for Cost Estimates

This purpose of this market survey is obtain industry input to assist the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS)Program Office in estimating costs for future ADS-B-In development activities. The specific goal is to obtain cost estimates for supplying aircraft avionics to participate in future Operational Evaluations of ADS-B-In applications as described below. This market survey is not for the purposes of a planned FAA acquisition. Per the recommendations of the ADS-B-In Aviation Rulemaking Commmittee (ARC) (see , FAA is considering the development of multiple ADS-B-In applications. The ARC recommended that the FAA use operational evaluations to mature equipment standards and regulatory guidance, as well as demonstrate the operational benefits of these applications in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA SBS office is preparing budget and schedule estimates for potential programmatic activities in the FY2014 to FY2020 timeframe. These estimates will be used to frame internal FAA budget and programmatic decisions. For the purposes of responding to this market survey, an Operational Evaluation is defined as "an evaluation involving a certified-for-intended-function system built to a defined standard (either a MOPS or a draft MOPS), for which use of the system has been granted Operational Approval by FAA Flight Standards, and where said approved system is used in daily NAS operations for a period of 6-12 months." In response to the ADS-B-In ARC recommendations, the FAA is considering the following Operational Evaluations (OpEvals):1. A "domestic" Interval Management OpEval beginning before the end of FY2015 in the airspace around one or more US airports. This OpEval would involve an end-to-end evaluation of the Ground Interval Management - Spacing (GIM-S) capability currently under development by the FAA, with aircraft having at least a FIM-S capability as defined in recommendation 8, subpart 2 of the ADS-B-In ARC report. In addition, aircraft will be equipped to perform CEDS per recommendation 8, subpart 5 of the ADS-B-In ARC report, but limited to along-track target aircraft. For additional information, see below text on Additional Information and Assumptions.2. An "oceanic" Interval Management OpEval beginning before the end of FY2016 in the Oakland Oceanic FIR. This OpEval would involve an end-to-end evaluation of FAA oceanic ATC automation with aircraft having at least an avionics capability to support the ADS-B-In application defined in recommendation 8, subpart 9 of the ADS-B-In ARC report. For additional information, see below text on Additional Information and Assumptions.3. A "domestic" Interval Management OpEval beginning in the FY2018-2020 timeframe in the airspace around one or more US airports. This OpEval would involve an end-to-end evaluation of a GIM capability that would include TRACON metering and scheduling, with aircraft having at least a FIM-DI capability as defined in recommendation 8, subpart 7 of the ADS-B-In ARC report. In addition, aircraft will be equipped to perform FIM-DI CSPO per recommendation 8, subpart 8 of the ADS-B-In ARC report, as modified by a follow-on ARC response contained in Attachment 1 hereto (i.e., limited to dependent parallel target aircraft). For additional information, see below text on Additional Information and Assumptions.4. A SURF-IA OpEval beginning in the FY2018-2020 timeframe at multiple US airports. See recommendation 8, subpart 7 of the ADS-B-In ARC report. For additional information, see below text on Additional Information and Assumptions. This market survey and associated information does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to execute the described OpEvals. The following additional information relating to the above OpEvals is provided. 1. OpEvals 1, 3, and 4 all require aircraft which perform multiple flights (takeoffs and landings) in a single day. Target aircraft for these OpEvals are expected to be regional jets, and/or business jets, and/or single-aisle aircraft produced by Airbus and Boeing.2. OpEvals 1 and 3 must be performed in airspace where FAA will have the requisite ATC automation in place (TBFM/ERAM/STARS) to support Interval Management operations.3. OpEval 2 requires aircraft which fly frequently in the Oakland Oceanic FIR, and in areas within this FIR where traffic is sufficiently dense to exercise the ADS-B-In application. Currently, the Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS) and the track system between the US mainland and Hawaii within the Central East Pacific (CEP) region are the candidate areas. Target aircraft for this OpEval are expected to be wide-body aircraft produced by Airbus and Boeing, and/or long-range business jets.4. OpEval 4 requires sites with the requisite airport layout complexity, traffic density, and Line-of-Sight issues to exercise the ADS-B-In application.5. FAA believes that there is potential synergy between OpEvals 3 and 4 for both technical and operational reasons, and encourages responses that consider such a combination. An integrated display installation (traffic display in the primary field-of-view) is highly desirable for these OpEvals, as such installations support the long-term FAA strategy for ADS-B-In. Vendors are encouraged to provide cost estimates (as described below) for such installations. However, some airlines have expressed interest in "auxiliary display" installations that are cheaper to retrofit on some aircraft. FAA notes that several of the applications recommended by the ADS-B-In ARC are to be used in critical phases of flight, and are therefore expected to have requirements for control and display of critical information in the "primary field-of-view" as described in FAA certification guidance material. Vendor responses which provide cost estimates for "auxiliary display" installations should consider how "primary field-of-view" information requirements will be met and their potential costs. Vendors are to use the following assumptions for use in responding to this market survey:1. All OpEvals will require the ability to capture and record aircraft/transponder data for post-flight analysis. 2. Vendors shall assume that FAA will record data from ATC automation and that FAA will arrange for a 3rd-party to correlate this data with aircraft-recorded data for analysis purposes. Vendors shall also assume that FAA will insure that such a 3rd-party arrangement provides for appropriate "de-identification" per the various pilot and controller union agreements.3. Vendors shall assume that the avionics standards needed for OpEval 1 will be included in RTCA DO-317B and that DO-317B will be finalized by the end of FY2013.4. Vendors shall assume that the avionics standards needed for OpEvals 2, 3 and 4 will be included in RTCA DO-317C and that DO-317C will be finalized by the end of FY2015.5. Vendor responses shall assume that aircraft operators participating in these OpEvals will be "fleet operators" with in-place capabilities to install equipment per manufacturer instructions and adequately train flight crews in use of the ADS-B-In system application. However, vendors shall account for providing the necessary technical materials to operators to enable them to install the equipment and train their flight crews.6. Vendor responses shall assume that avionics development activities for the subject ADS-B-In application system can begin as early as one quarter year prior to MOPS completion (beginning of 4Q FY13 for DO-317B and beginning of 4Q FY15 for DO-317C).7. Vendors shall assume that all ADS-B-In avionics are compatible with other aircraft ADS-B broadcasts that comply with 14 CFR 91.225 and 14 CFR 91.227.8. Vendors may assume that ADS-B-In avionics are capable of receiving and processing ADS-B broadcasts using the DO-260 and DO-260A standards, per FAA regulatory guidance.9. For OpEvals 1, 3, and 4, vendors shall assume that a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 100 aircraft are to be equipped/provisioned to participate in the OpEval.10. For OpEval 2, vendors shall assume that a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 30 aircraft are to be equipped/provisioned to participate in the OpEval. It is requested that vendors submit the following information in response to this market survey:A. Development and certification Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs, by year, of the ADS-B-In application that will be used in the OpEval. These estimates shall include all development and certification costs that the vendor would expect to incur up to delivery of the first certified unit.B. ROM costs (exclusive of NRE), by year, for the vendor to supply any needed equipment and/or software license fees to "equip" each aircraft for the OpEval (new or modified hardware units, software updates, etc). Vendor responses should includes cost estimates for both the minimum and maximum numbers described in Assumptions 18 and 19. Also, supporting narrative describing the cost variability between the minimum and maximum numbers is requested; at a minimum, this shall include vendor commentary on the linearity of cost with number of aircraft equipped.C. Vendor cost estimates need not include aircraft downtime, aircraft installation labor, or pilot training. If such estimates are provided, they must be clearly broken out.D. Vendor ROM cost estimates shall be expressed to the nearest integer $M. More precise ROM cost estimates are acceptable, but not required.E. A narrative describing how the Vendor would expect to proceed from MOPS to certified avionics for the OpEval. Generic descriptions are acceptable, but any special considerations should be described.F. Vendor narrative commentary on the proposed schedule from MOPS to OpEval is solicited, but not required.G. Any additional key assumptions made by the Vendor in arriving at the ROM cost estimates in A or B.H. Vendors may respond for one, some or all of the OpEvals described herein.I. Vendors may also provide other commentary with their submissions as they deem appropriate and informative to the FAA.J. Vendor responses should address technical means for recording aircraft/transponder data on each aircraft participating in the OpEval, as well as means for retrieving this data from the OpEval aircraft on a daily or weekly basis without impacting the efficiency of flight operations. All submitted ROM cost estimates shall be provided according to the US Government fiscal year, which begins 1-Oct and ends 30-Sep. For example, FY12 began on 1-Oct-2011 and ends on 30-Sep-2012. All vendor responses will be treated as Proprietary and Confidential if appropriately marked. This announcement is NOT A SCREENING INFORMATION REQUEST (SIR) or REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP). It is requested that vendor responses be submitted to Stephen B. Manley at contact@example.gov February 3, 2012. If hand or express mail delivery is chosen, the address is: Federal Aviation AdministrationATTN: Steve Manley FOB 10B Room 3W21FN600 Independence Avenue S.W.Washington D.C. 20591 Delivery through the U.S. Mail System is discouraged. All communications and questions shall be directed to Stephen B. Manley by E-mail at:contact@example.gov ATTACHMENT 1 - Follow-on information from the ADS-B-In ARC regarding ARC recommendation 8, subpart 8 ARC RECOMMENDATION 10The ARC recommends its continued efforts to further define Flight-deck-based Interval Management (FIM-DI) for Closely Spaced Parallel Runway Operations (CSPO). FAA INITIAL RESPONSE TO ARC RECOMMENDATION 10SBS Program to ask ARC for more definition regarding what efforts the ARC recommends that it conduct to further define FIM-DI for CSPO. FAA also will request clarity on why ARC chose to define this application in this way, versus a variant of the Paired Approach application in the AIWPv2. ARC CLARIFICATION TO FAA, PROVIDED 22-DEC-2011Needed by 2017: FIM-DI to support simultaneous approaches (previously categorized as dependent parallel approaches) and paired approaches with angled-in final approach segment. After 2017: Paired approach using Simplified Aircraft Based Parallel Approach (SAPA). Note 1: In its end state we expect FIM-DI to account for wake vortex mitigation, however we don't believe this capability is achievable by 2017. Note 2: It is important that any pilot tools for precise position keeping, be it FIM-DI or CSPO be very similar with only "nuance" differences. That is why these were lumped together. A CSPO pilot tool that is totally different from that used for FIM-S or FIM-DI will require lots of additional training, and will become a "one off" tool, just as PRM became. The reason we grouped these the way we did was to preclude any more "one off" solutions. FIM-S should look like FIM-DI, which should look like CSPO (or Paired Approach)(with only nuance differences that would require minimal additional pilot training).