Tenders in the aerospace industry: Between OEM RFQs, ESA procurement and certification evidence
OEM RFQ, ESA procurement or R&D call: how suppliers combine technical requirements, Part 21, ECSS, costs and evidence in a viable bid. An analysis for Austria and DACH.
Introduction
Austria does not build large commercial aircraft. It builds the parts without which they could not fly: structural and cabin components, engine and landing-gear technology, power electronics, sensors and de-icing systems. FACC, Austria’s largest aerospace supplier, generated EUR 984.4 million in revenue in 2025 alone and employed 3,907 people. This is reported in FACC’s current company profile.
Space is also growing. At the 2025 ESA Ministerial Council, Austria increased its subscription from EUR 260 million to EUR 340 million. Around 150 domestic companies generate roughly EUR 250 million a year in this sector and employ 1,300 people. The Austrian Ministry of Infrastructure cites the new subscription, while its overview of the space sector provides the industry data.
Anyone seeking to bid in these markets encounters three different procedures. Airbus or a Tier 1 supplier issues a confidential Request for Quotation. ESA publishes an Invitation to Tender with a Statement of Work, contractual terms and cost forms. In an FFG research programme, impact, consortium and eligibility for funding matter alongside the technology. In every case, what a bidder commits to within a few weeks must still hold up years later through development, certification and series production.
In this article, “tender” refers both to formal institutional procurement and to industrial RFQ/RFP procedures. Purely military procurement is not the subject of this article.
There is no shortage of orders. Delivery capability is scarce.
Airbus delivered exactly 793 commercial aircraft in 2025 and booked 1,000 gross orders. At year-end, 8,754 aircraft were in its order book, a record. At the 2025 delivery rate, it would take more than eleven years to work through that backlog. The Airbus 2025 annual results also identifies what is slowing the ramp-up: missing engines and supply chains whose cadence does not match final assembly. Airbus does not expect to build 70 to 75 A320 family aircraft a month until the end of 2027.
And demand extends further still. The Airbus Global Market Forecast 2025–2044 expects around 43,400 new passenger and freight aircraft over twenty years. By 2044, the global fleet is expected to grow to more than 49,000 aircraft. What is therefore needed are suppliers that can master qualified parts in prototype production and then deliver them month after month at consistent quality.
In space, the scales are different. The ESA Space Economy Report 2026 puts worldwide public investment in 2025 at EUR 119 billion. Europe’s public budgets grew by 12% to EUR 13.5 billion. The upstream market for spacecraft manufacturing and launch services reached EUR 75 billion worldwide; 80% of demand came from public buyers, now mainly defence. The predominantly commercial downstream market for satellite-based services was more than six times larger, at around EUR 490 billion. Depending on its position in this chain, a company bids for an institutional ITT, responds to an RFQ from a prime contractor or sells directly to commercial customers.
Sources: Airbus Orders & Deliveries 2025, Global Market Forecast 2025 and ESA Ministerial Council 2025.
DACH: large plants, small specialists
Germany is the region’s industrial heavyweight. According to the BDLI industry data for 2026 Germany’s aerospace industry generated around EUR 62 billion in revenue in 2025. It employed 130,000 people. Revenue rose by 19% in one year and employment by a good 8%. Germany hosts ESA sites in Darmstadt and Cologne, Airbus plants in Hamburg and Bremen, and significant engine, sensor and satellite clusters in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg.
Austria occupies smaller, often highly specialised fields. The Aviation FTI Strategy 2040+ sets the domestic aerospace industry a target of 15,000 employees and EUR 4 billion in revenue. Its strengths lie in lightweight construction and composites, cabin, propulsion technology, power electronics, drones, and icing and de-icing. In space, thermal protection, mechanisms, navigation, Earth observation and quantum technology are added.
Switzerland contributes aircraft manufacturing, MRO, avionics, precision engineering, drones and space. In 2024, its civil aviation generated CHF 9.8 billion in direct value added and supported 49,000 full-time jobs. This is reported by the FOCA study on civil aviation. The more narrowly defined Swiss Space Industries Group comprises 21 companies, more than 900 employees and annual revenue of CHF 270 million, as the official dossier “Switzerland in Space” explains.
Sources: BDLI industry data 2026, FOCA study on civil aviation, BMIMI Aviation FTI Strategy 2040+ and BMIMI overview of the space sector.
Three procurement logics
The umbrella term “aerospace tender” conceals more than it explains. Access, proposal structure and award follow their own rules depending on the contracting authority.
Civil aviation: every commitment requires evidence
A functioning component is not enough in aviation. The supplier must also explain under which Design Authority it is created, how its production ensures conformity and which evidence feeds into aircraft certification. The legal framework is set by Part 21 of Regulation (EU) No 748/2012. According to EASA’s requirements for design organisations the organisation, procedures, competences and resources must fit together.
Certification Specifications such as CS-25 for large aeroplanes set the safety objective. Analyses, tests, inspections, simulations or similarity demonstrations prove compliance. New technologies may require Special Conditions, Equivalent Safety Findings or deviations. The current EASA procedure for type certification therefore describes the Certification Basis as a project-specific foundation that evolves during development.
Anyone who confirms mass, service life, software function, failure rate, temperature range or maintenance interval in a bid determines two things: the later product characteristic and the route to prove it. Analyses, tests, test equipment and configuration data thus become part of the deliverable. If the commitment remains vague, it becomes an expensive evidence gap in the development programme.
The standards cascade behind a single requirement
A single customer requirement can sit atop an entire chain of standards. EASA Part 21 and the applicable Certification Specification set the regulatory framework. AMC and Guidance Material describe accepted means of compliance. SAE ARP4754A and ARP4761A generally serve system development and safety assessment, ED-12C/DO-178C software and ED-80/DO-254 electronic hardware. In addition, there are EN 9100 for quality management, EN 9102 for first article inspection, sometimes a Nadcap approval, and the OEM’s standards, drawings and Supplier Requirements.
The documents form a chain. A system requirement allocates functions to hardware and software. The Development Assurance Level follows from the Safety Assessment; it determines the rigour of development and verification. Ultimately, the verification matrix refers to specific test cases, analyses and review records. If the requirement changes, the change travels through every link in this chain.
Rate readiness: why full order books tighten requirements
A contract for aircraft components can secure revenue for twenty years. It ties the supplier to price, quality and cadence for just as long. The proposal already raises the tooling concept, make-or-buy, capacity, automation, material sources, inspection times, yield and ramp-up curve. At 75 A320s a month, every work package must maintain the same cadence. Ten flawless components from the qualification phase do not yet prove series-production readiness.
Despite higher deliveries, Airbus spoke of a “desynchronisation” between production and deliveries in 2025. Pratt & Whitney could not commit the engine volumes for the planned A320 ramp-up. For new RFQs, this means capacity, resilience and a transparent sub-supply chain are hard requirements.
Space: ESA procures and shapes the market
ESA’s annual budget was exactly EUR 7.68 billion in 2025. In November, Member States subscribed to further programmes worth EUR 22.3 billion at the Ministerial Council, more than ever before. According to the ESA industry portal, the Agency awards around 85% of its budget through industrial contracts. DACH companies can therefore prepare for years of programmes in Earth observation, navigation, telecommunications, science, exploration, launchers, safety and resilience.
However, ESA is more than a public buyer. It pursues industrial policy. Geographic return is intended to secure each Member State an appropriate share of industrial contracts, measured against its financial contribution. ESA’s rules on geographical distribution therefore directly affect workshare, partner selection and subcontracts. Even a technically strong consortium can be set up incorrectly if its countries do not fit the funded programme or the expected distribution of work.
Austria’s new subscription of EUR 340 million opens access for domestic companies to additional optional ESA programmes. It does not guarantee contracts. To benefit from geographic return, companies must position their technology early, approach primes, register in esa-star and compete successfully.
Sources: ESA Business with ESA, ESA SME Office and BMIMI.
From Intended ITT to contract
ESA distinguishes nine steps from planning to debriefing. It publishes new business opportunities through esa-star. For bidders, work begins with the Intended ITT. In this phase, they may approach technical officers, look for partners and explore the scope. Once the ITT is published, all communication runs through the named Contracts Officer. ESA points this out in its guide “How to prepare a good proposal”.
Clarify strategic fit, country eligibility, technology maturity and possible partners before formal publication.
Turn the Letter of Invitation, Statement of Work, Special Tender Conditions, Special Contract Conditions and Clarifications into a shared requirements baseline.
Build the Technical Proposal, Management Plan, Product Assurance, development logic, deliverables, milestones, risks and exploitation consistently.
Reconcile PSS forms, ECOS costing, payment milestones, subcontracts, geographic return and financial conditions with the technical scope.
Check signatures, file formats and native attachments. ESA expressly recommends a test upload before the deadline; the system does not accept late proposals.
For esa-star, PDF files must be unencrypted, password-free and free of dynamic content. ESA additionally requires individual forms and plans in native format. A proposal that is technically impeccable can therefore fail on a signature, file format or upload. The formal checklist deserves the same care as the Statement of Work.
ECSS is not a checklist
Space projects rely on standards from the European Cooperation for Space Standardization. They govern project management, engineering, Product Assurance and Space Sustainability. Since April 2025, software has been subject to Revision 1 of ECSS-E-ST-40C. The standard extends from requirements definition through design, production and verification to operations and maintenance. It applies to product software in the space, launch and ground segments.
No space project adopts every ECSS clause unchanged. In a Requirements Applicability Matrix, the contracting authority defines what applies, is omitted or is adapted for the project. The bidder must understand this tailoring clause by clause. What was removed from the standard may reappear elsewhere as a project requirement. And a small deviation quickly becomes an additional review, a new document and several tests.
Austrian calls: research with the market in mind
National programmes bring Austrian technologies from the laboratory into the international supply chain. The space programme ASAP 2025 made around EUR 12.85 million available for space technologies, satellite applications and space sciences. Depending on the instrument, applicants had to demonstrate the project, costs, consortium, expected impact and eligibility for funding.
The Take-Off Call 2025 focused on Austrian market segments, Sustainable Aviation Fuels including hydrogen, and international cooperation. Up to EUR 2 million per project was possible. Via the AREANA network, national funding rules, different rates and further conditions for the consortium came into play.
Two examples show how specific such projects become. AUTARK develops technologies for cryogenic liquid-hydrogen tanks. The project brings together material behaviour, leak-tightness, crash and fire safety, thermal management, weight and manufacturing. IWTresearch investigates an icing wind tunnel for Mach numbers above 0.7. It is intended to simulate altitude, supercooled large droplets and ice crystals. Here, the research infrastructure itself becomes a building block for later certifications.
Innovation and impact matter in the funding application; product, certification, rate and price matter in the subsequent OEM RFQ. Cleanly managed requirements and evidence can be carried from the research project into industrial qualification. If only the funding report remains, work on the first customer proposal starts almost from scratch.
New propulsion, new evidence
By 2050, international aviation is to emit no net CO₂. ICAO has set itself this goal. In the EU, ReFuelEU Aviation has required at least 2% Sustainable Aviation Fuel at covered airports since 2025; by 2050 the share will rise to 70%. The first EASA market report on SAF shows how far there is to go. In 2024, only 0.6% of the volume supplied by covered fuel suppliers at EU airports was SAF. Worldwide, production covered only 0.53% of jet-fuel consumption, according to EASA’s overview of sustainable aviation fuels.
A new energy carrier does not merely replace the old one in the specification. Hydrogen changes the tank, lines, insulation, sensors, fire protection and airport infrastructure. Electric systems shift mass and thermal balance, while high-voltage and battery requirements are added. Open-rotor concepts alter acoustics, icing and safety zones. Even SAF requires evidence of material compatibility, emissions and origin. Each technical innovation creates new interfaces and needs its own Means of Compliance.
Binding minimum share of sustainable aviation fuels under ReFuelEU Aviation. Source: EASA SAF Policy Actions.
Five reasons proposal work is difficult
Customer, Design Authority, certification authority, programme agency and operator define requirements with different degrees of binding force. Not every sentence in the data room has the same legal status.
Test reports, analyses, compliance documents, material certificates, software lifecycle data and as-built configuration are part of the deliverable. A product without accepted evidence cannot be accepted.
Obsolescence, repairs, Continuing Airworthiness, spare parts, data rights and configuration changes have effects far beyond series delivery.
Primes pass requirements on to Tier 1, Tier 2 and special-process suppliers. Each level must recognise which clauses it fulfils, passes on or leaves with the higher-level system.
Technical data, cryptography, sensors and space components may be subject to export controls. Connected aviation systems also expand the requirements for development and information security.
How documents become a proposal
The most dangerous gaps rarely sit in a single document. They lie between documents. An RFQ includes a technical specification, drawings, list of standards, quality annex, logistics requirements, draft contract and price templates. The same obligation often appears more than once and in slightly different forms. Those who only distribute files miss these relationships. Those who manage individual requirements can compare, assign and track them through to evidence.
Each document receives a revision, validity and order of precedence. Clarifications and Amendments supplement the original baseline without invisibly overwriting it.
Separate technology, certification, quality, programme, commercial, export, information security, deliverables and formal submission without losing the cross-connections.
Design, Safety, Software, Industrial Engineering, Quality, Procurement, Legal and Finance receive clearly defined review packages. Sub-suppliers receive the relevant requirements together with their context.
Every commitment includes deviation, assumption, Means of Compliance, evidence, effort and risk. Open points must not slip into the submission as an implicit yes.
Every technical commitment appears in the WBS, schedule, resources, non-recurring cost, unit price and risk reserve. A delta must reach all these views.
AI is well suited to preparatory work: it extracts requirements from different documents, assigns topics, finds similar clauses and flags changes. Experts must still decide on certification routes and compliance commitments. A premature “Compliant” helps no one; a well-prepared, traceable decision does.
From proposal to development programme
After award, the requirements of major aerospace programmes usually move into RM and PLM systems. There, configuration, Product Breakdown Structure, changes and certification evidence are managed. Yet the bid is still often created in emails, Excel spreadsheets and Word comments. Under time pressure, external tender documents can be distributed quickly this way, but their relationships can scarcely be managed.
The connection between bid and project must not break. A response becomes a contractual requirement, then a development task and later evidence. Specialised platforms such as Tendric structure tender documents, support classification and expert routing, and retain the source reference for every response. They do not replace a PLM or the Design Authority. Instead, they create an auditable proposal baseline for the handover to engineering and project delivery.
What matters now
Airbus must build 8,754 ordered aircraft. Germany’s aerospace industry generated the record figure of EUR 62 billion in revenue in 2025. EUR 22.3 billion is available for the next ESA programmes; Austria is contributing EUR 340 million. Demand therefore exists. At the same time, decarbonisation, connected systems, autonomy and stricter safety requirements increase development effort.
That promises good business for suppliers, but not a comfortable seller’s market. OEMs buy capacity only when it is demonstrated. Agencies fund ideas only with convincing technology, a suitable team, clear workshare and credible costs. Authorities, in turn, do not accept a statement of intent. They require documented compliance.
Competition therefore begins with selecting the right procedure and precisely understanding the requirements baseline. Every commitment must be costed honestly. If requirement, certification route, industrialisation and business case fit together, the proposal will hold up in the project. If they are optimised separately, a won contract can quickly become loss-making.
Conclusion
An aerospace tender combines three clocks: weeks to submission, years to certification, decades in operation. A single sentence in the compliance sheet can later determine tooling costs, software level, the test campaign, supplier selection or maintenance programme.
Austria’s specialised suppliers and research teams have access to Airbus programmes, ESA contracts and European calls. Whether this becomes good business is decided in the reading: those who grasp extensive tender documentation quickly and understand its implications for evidence and lifecycle can commit in good conscience. Everyone else may be buying a risk with the contract that they recognise only years later.
- Airbus delivered a total of 793 commercial aircraft in 2025; another 8,754 were in the order book at year-end. For suppliers, delivery capability and rate readiness matter just as much as price and technology.
- Germany’s aerospace industry generated around EUR 62 billion in revenue in 2025 and employed 130,000 people. Austria focuses on specialised suppliers and around 150 companies in the space sector.
- ESA Member States subscribed to programmes worth EUR 22.3 billion in 2025. Austria contributes EUR 340 million. Around 85% of ESA’s budget flows to industry through contracts.
- OEM RFQs, institutional ITTs and funding calls each require a different proposal. In all three procedures, every commitment must remain traceable through to cost, schedule and evidence.
- Part 21, Certification Specifications, development-assurance standards, EN 9100 and OEM standards interlock. With compliance, the bidder always also promises an acceptable route of proof.
- ReFuelEU raises the minimum SAF share from 2% in 2025 to 70% in 2050. Hydrogen, electric systems and new aircraft architectures create further interfaces and certification questions.
- A well-managed bid connects source, owner, response, assumption, Means of Compliance, evidence, effort and risk. This creates a project baseline engineering can continue working with after award.
Das tendric-Team entwickelt KI-gestützte Werkzeuge für die Ausschreibungsbearbeitung in der Industrie. Wir schreiben über Best Practices, Branchentrends und die Zukunft des Angebotsmanagements.