Executive Web Infographic (BI)

Emergency / Ultimate Fall-Back ATC System — Kuala Lumpur ATCC (KL ATCC)

Audience: CEO / Board / Top Management
Purpose: Decision-focused tender overview
Technical 59%
Financial 41%
Pass Mark ≥ 75%

🚨 Why this project is critical

KL ATCC manages a major portion of national air traffic. Any extended disruption creates high safety exposure, reputational impact, and regulatory consequences. This project delivers an independent, ICAO-compliant contingency capability that can take over when the Main ATC System is unavailable.

Board message

This is not an IT upgrade. It is the last line of defence for national airspace safety and operational continuity.

Operational Impact
Mission-Critical
Design Principle
Independent (no MOS dependency)
Compliance
ICAO (Annex 11 / Doc 4444)

🎯 Project objective

Ensure uninterrupted Area & Approach ATC operations through an independent Ultimate Fall-Back System capable of rapid takeover with no operational disruption.

CEO takeaway

Priorities: Safety → Resilience → Operational continuity (not lowest price).

📊 How the tender is decided

Technical is weighted higher than financial. Vendors must pass technical first before price becomes meaningful.

Technical
59%
Financial
41%
🔥 High-Impact: T10 Transition Plan 🔥 High-Impact: T8A Integration Risk Mitigation ⬆ T11 Equipment List ⬆ T2/T2A ATM Experience

🧱 What CAAM is procuring (core scope)

Core Component Critical Function
ATM + CWP (5 units) Full ATC control: surveillance display, flight data, safety nets, e-strips
SDP Radar + ADS-B + MLAT data fusion and distribution to CWP
VCS ATC voice communications and coordination (sector-to-sector)
VHF Radios (5) Different OEM to prevent common failure mode
VVRS Voice + radar recording (≥ 30 days) for investigation & compliance
Independent Network Secure, isolated network — operational even if MOS is fully down
MANDATORY Must operate when Main System fails completely

🔥 Biggest risk area: Integration & OEM dependency

The highest project risk is dependency on existing OEMs/interfaces. CAAM expects a credible mitigation plan that works even if OEM cooperation is limited.

Risk CAAM expectation
OEM non-cooperation / delays Alternative solution required (Plan B/C)
Vendor lock-in Not acceptable — avoid single OEM dependency
Proprietary interfaces Use open standards and documented integration methods
Decision-critical

Appendix T8A (Integration Risk Mitigation) is a key pass/fail driver in technical evaluation.

🛡️ Non-negotiable principles

Independent system architecture Different OEM strategy No Single Point of Failure (SPOF) ICAO compliant (Annex 11 / Doc 4444 / Doc 9426)

🔄 Operational continuity (ATC perspective)

1) Parallel operations

  • Old + new run together
  • No disruption to live traffic
➜

2) Controller familiarisation

  • Training & on-console practice
  • Safety before cut-over
➜

3) Controlled transition

  • On-site vendor support
  • Formal acceptance testing

💰 Provisional Sum & governance

Provisional Sum is intended for uncertain third-party/OEM costs and requires CAAM approval. Overuse signals weak planning and elevated risk.

Rule Implication
Only for uncertain OEM / telco items Not a substitute for unclear scope
Excluded from main contract price Improves price transparency & control
Requires CAAM approval Stronger governance & auditability
⚠ Overuse = high risk signal Use minimal, justify clearly

🧨 Failure consequences

Auto-reject Missing mandatory documents
Rejected Company identity included in technical proposal
Fail technical Weak integration strategy / no viable mitigation
Blacklisting Integrity / anti-corruption violations