Flight Information Management System (FIMS): Request for Proposal

The RFP has concluded

As part of our role in Australia’s proposed UTM architecture, Airservices Australia is inviting proposals from industry relating to participation in the Flight Information Management System (FIMS) Prototype initiative. This initiative will be used to inform Airservices' future FIMS solution and result in selection of a Strategic Partner for UTM.

This site has been established to openly and transparently engage with industry throughout the Request For Proposal (RFP) process. Information and resources to support you to respond to the RFP will be included on this site, including ready access to a Question & Answer Tool and the ability to contact Airservices for further information or assistance. All questions and answers provided through the process will also be published on AusTender.

The RFP can be found here or in the document library to the right.



As part of our role in Australia’s proposed UTM architecture, Airservices Australia is inviting proposals from industry relating to participation in the Flight Information Management System (FIMS) Prototype initiative. This initiative will be used to inform Airservices' future FIMS solution and result in selection of a Strategic Partner for UTM.

This site has been established to openly and transparently engage with industry throughout the Request For Proposal (RFP) process. Information and resources to support you to respond to the RFP will be included on this site, including ready access to a Question & Answer Tool and the ability to contact Airservices for further information or assistance. All questions and answers provided through the process will also be published on AusTender.

The RFP can be found here or in the document library to the right.



The RFP has concluded

We welcome your questions regarding the FIMS Request For Proposal.

To support our Probity Requirements, please submit all questions via this webpage or via iap@airservicesaustralia.com instead of contacting Airservices personnel directly. All submitted questions, along with corresponding answers, will be published both on this website and in a consolidated format as an Addendum to the RFP Document Suite on AusTender unless there are items of a confidential nature. Questions may be consolidated into similar questions and answers if appropriate.

Please ensure you identify any confidential information in any of your questions such that we can treat accordingly.

  • Schedule 1 – Statement of Requirements Section 5.2 – In-Field Trial Part (f) – Trial Site Question 1 – Is Air Services Australia responsible for selecting the trial site? Question 2 – Is the equipment listed in the table in this section provided by Air Services Australia? Part (g) – Traffic Density Question 3 – Will Air Services Australia provide the UAS operations including the 100 Question 3 - UAV’s if required, along with the pilots, support staff and operating expenses to conduct this testing?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    Q1 - Airservices is responsible for selecting the trial site. This will be determined in conjunction with our Test & Evaluation (T&E) provider in the coming months.

    Q2 - Yes. Airservices will provide all equipment listed in the table in section 5.2.

    Q3 - No. Airservices will provide a small fleet of UAS in conjunction with the T&E provider (~5 UAV). The remainder UAV to exercise in-field testing at a dense traffic level are expected to be simulated by the UTM developer. Correctly implemented, whether a UAV is simulated and actual should be invisible to the FIMS.

  • If we submit our response prior to the current closing date, will we be able to ammend our response if further ammendments and extensions are issued by Airservices?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    AusTender does not allow respondents to directly correct or add to a response that has already been lodged. Should respondents need to update their response, they would need to lodge a new response and contact iap@airservicesaustralia.com to advise of the correct response for evaluation.

  • The AUS Tender Site still has a closing date of the 10th of June. Can you please update to the new closing date and time as per addenda no 5 to 2359h local time in the ACT on 23 June 2021.

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    The closing date on AusTender has been corrected to reflect 23 June 2021.

  • Requirements TS02 and SI01 reference the FIB, and the Reference section itself states [7] ICD/FIB/SOAP/001, FIB SOAP Interface Control Document. Please would Airservices provide this ICD so that we can confirm compliance to those requirements. Can a sample dataset supplied?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    Airservices are unable to provide the FIB ICD at this point in time. We will provide the ICD to the successful applicants on contract signature.

     

    Please see the sample request/response from the FIB data feed in the document library.

  • Section 2.6, SI04 What types of NOTAMs does AsA expect to be decoded into digital NOTAM format? There are a large number of NOTAMs that include temporal spacial data that apply to the SFC to 400ft and above airspace.

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    For the purpose of the prototype, Airservices is not applying filtering on NOTAMs other than those that do not impact operations below 400ft (i.e. filter all NOTAMs with a lower limit above 400ft). 

     

    Learnings from the Prototype activity and other internal analysis activities will result in a suitable filtering model.

  • In section 6.2 Foreground IP (a) there is a reference to clause 6.4, feedback and suggestions. Is this reference correct? Could you elaborate how the clause 6.2 is subject to feedback and suggestions clause?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    Clause 6.4 is to ensure that Airservices is not prevented from using any information discussed in working groups, meetings, or general discussion that is not identified as Foreground IP by the Developer. This kind of information is considered to be distinct from clause 6.2 given the nature of collaborative working groups, meetings, or general discussion.

  • Will Airservices interpret a "does not comply" and/or "partial compliance" in response to Annex E as a Partial or Alternative Proposal as defined by Item 9 and Item 10 respectively.

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    For clarity, the following explanations are provided:

    • A Partial Proposal is one that proposes to deliver only part of the solution requested in Schedule One (Statement of Requirements), for example delivery of only a specific component of the protype. Airservices requires proposals to provide a complete solution and as such will not be accepting partial proposals (Item 9).
    • Annexure E (Compliance Statement) requires tenderers to indicate compliance, partial compliance or noncompliance with a) the draft agreement and b) the System Requirement Specifications (Schedule 4). Whilst Airservices prefers compliance with all clauses of the agreement and the System Requirement Specifications, partial compliance or noncompliance with these requirements will form the basis of matters for negotiation with the preferred tenderer/s and will not lead to a tenderer being deemed to have submitted a partial proposal.
    • An alternative proposal (item 10 and Section 5.8) is one that does not comply with the requirements and proposes an alternative means to that outlined in the Statement of Requirement, of delivering the solution required by Airservices. An alternative proposal cannot be submitted unless a compliant proposal is also submitted. Therefore Airservices could not deem a proposal to be an alternative proposal based on responses to Annexure E. Airservices will not accept alternate proposals.

  • Various questions regarding the FIMS Prototype System Requirements Specification.

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago


    Req_idClarificationAirservices Answers
    USS-CM01Is the expectation that track data provided from FIMS will include the track state (e.g. conforming, non-conformance, contingency)The FIMS will not be a source of track data for UAV within UTM. All track data for UTM participants will enter the UTM system via a USS.
     Track data from the ATM (Flight Information Broker) will enter the UTM via FIMS. For the purpose of the prototype, this track data will not incorporate a track state of relevance to UTM.
    USS- RI05 Refer (REQ: TS05). Confirm USS is expected to provide track data to FIMS (via DSS) every 1 second.Confirmed. The requirement is for an update rate of greater frequency than 1Hz or no slower than 1 second.
     It is not expected that the DSS has any role with respect to passing of track data to the FIMS.
    TS05Requirement is dependent on reporting capability of UAV. Confirm that FIMS requirement is to support a reporting rate of at least every 1s.Confirmed. The requirement is for an update rate of greater frequency than 1Hz or no slower than 1 second.
    SU19 Clarification: This requirement infers that FIMS Airspace Admin can only revoke "FIMS authorised" OIVs.
     Should a FIMS Admin have revocation rights over all approved OIVs (i.e. those approved by USS and FIMS) - provided that notification service informs the relevant USS?    		The FIMS Airspace Admin shall only revoke FIMS authorisations, not USS authorisations. Respondents are invited to propose means of cancelling airspace authorisations in the instance where FIMS identifies a need for cancellation via notificaiton and delegated USS authority.
    CM07 Confirm that the non-conforming state is only applicable to UAV capable of reporting position (as per CM09).Correct. Other means of declaring non-conforming or contingency states for UAV incapable of reporting position may be proposed.
    CM08 Is the time-out period expected to be communicated to the USS?For consistency, the same timeout period should be adopted across the UTM system via a means proposed by the developer.
    CM11Does this exclude returning tracking data to the responsible USS?The only means by which FIMS will receive track data for the contingency operation is from the responsible USS. There should be no reason for FIMS to return the track data to the responsible USS.
    XM16How will UTM airspace be defined? At some point, CASA, in collaboration with Airservices, will define UTM airspace. For the purpose of the FIMS Prototype, UTM airspace will be fictitiously geospatially defined by Airservices.
    XM19 ASTM WK63418 draft (Version 0.3) Para 5.6.2.7 prohibits creation of constraint with start time < 10 mins in future. Is this restriction to be applied? (applies also to XM16)Where there is a conflict between the FIMS Prototype System Requirements and the ASTM WK63418 draft requirements, the FIMS Prototype System Requirements shall take precedence.

     In this instance, UAS Volume Reservations should be considered a special class of constraints that aren't strictly in compliance with the ASTM WK63418 draft constraint management requirements since they are time critical.
    NM08Does this mean that a constraint is only raised after an approved OIV causes the threshold to be exceeded?
    For example, if current cumulative noise for a NTM cell = NTM_threshold - small_amount, then a large dBA increase could be allowed? Should the threshold be set to be "within" xx dBA of absolute limit?    		The Airspace Authorisation services should confirm that an NTM cell would not be breached based on the proposed operation. If the operation would result in breaching an NTM cell, it should not be authorised.

    For the purpose of the prototype, a constraint for a particular region will not be raised until the threshold is exceeded.
    NM09 Confirm that below also covers AT (i.e. At or below the noise threshold). Note: Assume that USS should not approve OIV if any CNM result is ABOVE.Correct. NM09 should read as 'At or below'.
    RA04Confirm that new rules are only published on request (by whom - FIMS?) Correct. Published on request/approval by the FIMS Administrator.
    TS08Confirm this refers to Operational Intent States per ASTM WK63418 draft (Version 0.3)Developers are free to propose an applicable suite of states for OIV and tracks. The intent of TS08 is that both track and OIV should always be the same state.
    WS07 Confirm this filtering is restricted to products that provide vertical range in the data definition.Where vertical range data is available, filtering should be applied on that data. Where a data set does not include vertical range data but has been provided by the BOM, that data should be considered applicable.
    WS04Could Airservices clarify if the BOM Data will be made available by Airservices for the prototype?
    or shall the supplier procure the data from the BOM?    		The weather data from the BOM will be made available by Airservices for the purpose of the prototype.

  • Is AsA seeking only UTM developers, or will bids from data and system integrators with demonstrable capability in the FIMS component be eligible?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    Airservices will accept submissions from any organisation and the merits of that submission will be determined against the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP under Schedule 5.

  • Notwithstanding the answer to the consolidated list of questions from the RFI phase (Page13) regarding ASTM WK63418, the SRS Document CM03, XM02, DSS02 and USS SD01 all use the term "shall comply" regarding compliance with WK63418. As the SRS refers, this standard is in Draft form and not available to anyone other than members of the working group. The Manager, Technical Committee Operations, ASTM, confirmed this policy as an immutable position overnight. Given that the SRS requirements seem to indicate, using the word "shall", mandatory compliance with a draft standard, can ASA provide a copy of this draft to potential respondents as it seems apparent that the writers know of its contents?

    IAP asked almost 3 years ago

    In all references to ASTM standards in the SRS document, each requirement has been listed as 'Classification 2' or 'desirable'. Airservices will not be providing access to industry standards, it is up to the respondent to organise access to any standards documentation required for their submission.