26RA020 JA BON NL1 Bridge Design_Redacted.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

Control Number: NWP-26-016

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

JUNE 2025

a. Background: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is the original DOR for the Bonneville BN 1 Old NL Bridge replacement project. Jacobs provided stamped plans, specifications, and related design document IAW the prior contract with USACE. USACE is proceeding with a construction solicitation to construct the project as designed by the DOR.

b. Justification: In accordance with USACE Engineering Pamphlet 715-1-7 (12 Jan 2026) Chapter 8, the DOR retains responsibility to address design errors, omissions, and provide responses to design clarification RFIs on full designs. The Construction Phase services (CPS) firm cannot make changes to stamped drawings unless the CPS firm is also the DOR or unless the government agrees to assume liability of the design. Furthermore, extending the DOR POP facilitates mandatory compliance with DFARS 236.604, which requires a final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation on DOR design quality upon substantial completion of construction. If the DOR POP ends sooner, CPARS will require a final evaluation that, if not completed, will remain as a reportable delinquent CPARS action.

c. Alternatives: Absent rehiring the DOR, USACE’s only theoretical alternative is to self-perform technical review of the DOR developed product. However, as detailed in Section d.

below, this alternative is technically unfeasible and introduces unacceptable operational and safety risks because USACE lacks the internal structural modeling tools and specialized technical expertise required to safely verify or alter the bridge design. Based on the responses, or lack thereof, to the Notice of Intent (NOI) posted to SAM.gov as part of this J&A, it assumed other A-E firms are not interested in performing this work for the government and so are assumed to not be viable alternatives to perform this work.

However, even with an A-E firm that is not the DOR, the impacts below would be similar to USACE self-performing the work.

d. Impact if not approved: Awarding the CPS to any source other than the original DOR will result in an unsatisfactory risk to the government by having a firm other than “one responsible source” providing engineering support during construction. Risks to the government are as detailed below:

USACE does not currently possess the internal capacity or specific specialized technical expertise required to safely render judgments on contractor submittals, interpretation of construction documents as it relates to DOR decisions, and to review and modify the design based on contractor proposed changes to Jacobs Engineering's design. USACE would need to develop new engineering documentation and modeling inputs to prove and adjust original design intent; this poses schedule risks to meet construction contract contractual submittal return timelines, and associated costs to rebuild engineering documentation that USACE currently only has in visual format (e.g. USACE has calculation pdfs, but not native calculation model files to modify internally). Utilizing internal teams that did not author the design would severely impair the technical interpretation of the product, limiting USACE to making critical structural decisions based merely on the face-value of the documents rather than the foundational engineering intent. Modifications to the design developed by the DOR would potentially relieve the DOR of some or all of their engineer’s liability for the project.

A non-DOR AE firm would have many of the same issues as noted for USACE. Specifics in terms of capacity might be avoided depending on individual AE capacity, but the issues with