Most UAS RFPs are written to describe what an agency already owns — not what they actually need.
The result: procurement officers believe they’re running a competitive process while the requirements language has already predetermined the outcome. When the selected platform underperforms in the field, nobody can explain why — because on paper, it met every requirement.
Here are three requirements we see in government solicitations that consistently eliminate better solutions.
Requirement 1: “Must be compatible with [specific GCS software]”
When a solicitation mandates compatibility with a particular ground control station, it either locks you into the vendor ecosystem you already have, or it signals to the market which vendor wrote the requirement.
The problem: Compatibility with a specific GCS eliminates vendors with superior platforms operating on open-source ground control systems — systems that are often more capable, more customizable, and better suited to mission-specific requirements.
The fix: Specify the communication protocols and data output formats you require (MAVLink, RTSP, etc.), not the software package. This keeps the field competitive and focuses the requirement on actual operational outcome.
Requirement 2: “Minimum 45-minute flight time”
This number almost always comes from a Chinese platform spec sheet. As-tested mission time in a realistic operational environment — accounting for transit, FAA reserve margins, wind loading, and payload penalty — is typically 40-60% of advertised flight time.
The problem: If your actual mission requires 90-120 minutes of on-station time, a 45-minute flight time requirement is the wrong number to optimize. You either need a platform with 3+ hours of advertised endurance, or you need a multi-platform rotation plan.
The fix: Define on-station time requirements based on your actual mission profile — with your payload, at your site distance, in your typical wind conditions — not a round number borrowed from a previous procurement.
Requirement 3: “NDAA-compliant per manufacturer certification”
Self-certification without independent Bill of Materials verification is not a meaningful compliance control. It’s paperwork.
A manufacturer can certify that their platform is NDAA-compliant. That certification is only as reliable as their supply chain documentation — which, for most manufacturers, doesn’t exist at the component level. Motors, ESCs, battery cells, and PCBs sourced from Chinese manufacturers through US distributors are still non-compliant. The distributor address doesn’t change the country of origin.
The fix: Require a complete Bill of Materials with country of origin for every component, supplier verification certificates from authorized distributors, and PCB fabrication location documentation. Vendors who can provide this have it ready. Vendors who can’t are guessing at their own compliance status.
The Common Thread
Each of these requirements optimizes for a familiar answer rather than a correct one. The fix in all three cases is the same: write requirements around mission outcomes, not platform specifications.
What operational gap are you actually trying to close? Start there.
Forge & Flight Labs designs and manufactures NDAA-compliant UAS platforms with full supply chain documentation to the component level. Questions about platform selection for your operational requirements: contact us.