772 ESS.PKA.MACH1_Umbrella Program Notice_3AUG26.pdf

MACH-1

Modernized Agile Construction Horizons Umbrella Program Notice ID: [FA8903-OT-MACH1]

Department of the Air Force 772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS) In Coordination with AFIMSC, AFICC, and AFCEC Email: 772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil

BLUF Disclaimer: This umbrella notice is issued pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a. Any resulting agreement will be an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) for facility construction and repair and NOT a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Consequently, neither the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), nor the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) constraints of 10 U.S.C. § 3458 apply to this notice or any resulting agreements.

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & GENERAL

GUIDELINES

1.1 Background and Authority

The 772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS) was activated on October 28, 2010, serving as a cornerstone of strategic acquisition for the Department of the Air Force. As one of the Air Force's premier enterprise sourcing squadrons, the 772 ESS is vectored to create massive efficiencies while providing cross-functional, installation-level strategic sourcing and global engineering acquisition solutions.

In coordination with the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC), the Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC), and our primary mission partners—the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Fuels Division—our mission is to become premier acquisition innovators, shaping and executing global engineering solutions. Our vision is to be the acquisition center of choice for global business solutions - Battle Ready, Bought Right!

To achieve this, the 772 ESS utilizes the MACH1 (Modernized Agile Construction Horizons) framework. MACH1 is designed to bypass the administrative lag of traditional procurement and leverage industry expertise, leading capabilities, and highly flexible project delivery models.

mailto:772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil

The 772 ESS executes this program under the standalone statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a(a), which authorizes the Secretary concerned to enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants) to carry out repair and construction projects for facilities, including the planning, design, engineering, prototyping, piloting, and execution of such repair and construction projects.

Unlike Other Transactions for Prototype Projects authorized under 10 U.S.C. § 4022, 10 U.S.C.

§ 2808a does not require the project to be a prototype, nor does it mandate non-traditional defense contractor participation or cost-sharing requirements. It is a standalone, flexible construction and repair execution tool designed to align with modern business practices.

1.2 General Guidelines for Respondents

• Unclassified Submissions: All White Papers, Pitches, and Proposals must be unclassified.

• Simplicity: Unnecessarily elaborate brochures, designs, or proposals are not desired.

Clear, concise, and industry-standard documentation is highly preferred.

• System Registrations: To receive an OTA award under this MACH1, companies must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and the prescribed Government electronic invoicing system (e.g., Wide Area Work Flow [WAWF], iRAPT).

The specific platform will be specified in the resulting agreement.

• Government Reservations: The Government reserves the unilateral right to cancel an Area of Interest (AOI) or proposal request at any time prior to award. Proposals will only be requested, and awards made, if appropriate funding is available.

1.3 The "Living Document" MACH1 Procedure

MACH1 serves as an umbrella notice framework (the "Parent Notice"). The 772 ESS will periodically publish specific facility requirements and project statements as individual AOIs via amendments to this notice. No proposals are being requested against this parent document;

proposals will only be accepted in response to active, published AOIs.

AOIs will seek innovative, agile, or modernized construction and delivery capabilities, including but not limited to:

• Owner's Advisor (OA) Models: Professional oversight, engineering, and advisory services to protect the Government's interests during complex delivery.

• Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Collaborative, early-phase contractor involvement to progressive pricing and risk allocation.

• Accelerated Design-Build (ADB): Overlapping design and construction phases optimized for rapid, mission-critical delivery.

• Design-Build to Budget (DBtoBudget): Target-price design and construction modeling that maximizes scope within capped funding thresholds.

• Industrialized Construction (IC): Off-site manufacturing, modular assembly, and pre-fabricated building components.

• Advanced & Emergent Technologies: 3D printing of infrastructure, automated civil engineering systems, and smart facility integrations.

MACH1 outlines a competitive, streamlined three-phase procedure to submit a response to an active AOI:

1. Phase 1 - Solution Brief (White Paper): A written technical brief or presentation communicating the delivery concept and relevant capabilities.

2. Phase 2 - Pitch (Oral Presentation): An interactive presentation of the proposed project approach which may include but is not limited to topics such as, logistics, rough orders of magnitude (ROM), and schedule.

3. Phase 3 - Full Proposal (As Applicable: Collaborative project planning and direct negotiation of the OTA via either direct pathway or a competitive "bake-off."

Note on Delivery Methods: The requirement for a Phase 3 Full Proposal prior to award is dependent on the acquisition strategy of the specific Area of Interest (AOI). For certain collaborative delivery models, such as Progressive Design-Build (PDB), the Government may elect to forego a Phase 3 Full Proposal during the initial selection process. In such cases, the Government may select an OT-holder based on the results of Phases 1 and 2 to negotiate an initial agreement for pre-construction and design services. The 'full proposal' (e.g., a Guaranteed Maximum Price) would then be developed post-award during the collaborative design phase, incorporating established 'off-ramps' if an agreement on final construction costs cannot be reached.

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS

“Agreements Officer” (AO) means a Government official with authority to enter into, administer, or terminate Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs). For all transactions executed under this framework, the AO must be a warranted Contracting Officer appointed in accordance with Air Force policy.

“Area of Interest” (AOI) means a specific construction challenge, facility repair requirement, or project delivery statement posted as an amendment under this MACH1, which may result in the award of an OTA.

“Facility Construction or Repair Project” under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a refers to projects covering the planning, design, engineering, prototyping, piloting, and execution of physical facility repair, modernization, or construction.

SECTION 3 - EVALUATION PHASES AND STANDING

CRITERIA

Note: The formatting requirements and page limitations detailed in this section represent the Government's standard baseline for all submissions. To ensure flexibility for complex projects, the Agreements Officer (AO) reserves the right to tailor or adjust these limitations within an individual Area of Interest (AOI) as technically justified.

3.1 Phase 1: Solution Brief (White Paper)

When an AOI is published, interested companies will submit a Solution Brief. These briefs should not exceed five (5) written pages or fifteen (15) presentation slides, focusing on construction capability. Submissions must include:

• Format: Maximum five (5) page White Paper (or 15-slide deck) unless otherwise specified in a specific AOI.

• Title Page: Must include Company Name, Title, Date, POC Name, E-Mail, Phone, SAM UEI, Address, and the specific AOI being addressed.

• Executive Summary: One (1) page overview of the construction approach.

• Core Concept: Outline of the construction/repair methodology, estimated schedule, disruption mitigation strategy, and a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price.

• Credentials: Past performance and credentials on similar construction or alteration projects.

Standing Evaluation Criteria for Phase 1:

The Government will evaluate Phase 1 submissions on their own merit (not compared against other submissions) using the following standing criteria:

1. Relevance to AOI: Does the executive summary accurately target the problem outlined in the AOI? (If irrelevant, evaluation stops here).

2. Merit of Constructability Concept: Does the submission outline a methodology that is technically reasonable, credible, and worthy of further investigation?

3. Company Viability: Does the company demonstrate the necessary experience to execute the work, and are they in good standing (including verification that the company is not on the federal excluded parties list)?

3.2 Phase 2: Oral Presentation / Pitch

Companies whose Phase 1 Solution Briefs are evaluated to have merit may be invited to Pitch.

Pitches may be conducted in-person or virtually.

• Format: An oral presentation accompanied by aa 15-slide deck.

• Content: Detailed technical methodology, site logistics plan, constructability approach, and specific strategies for meeting the criteria outlined in the AOI.

• Participation Limits: The Government reserves the right to limit the number of companies invited to pitch.

Standing Evaluation Criteria for Phase 2:

Individual pitches will be evaluated on their own merit using the following standing criteria:

1. Technical & Logistical Depth: How effectively does the presentation detail the means, methods, site footprint, and operational integration?

2. Schedule Approach & Acceleration: Does the team demonstrate a credible strategy to accelerate project delivery in alignment with the intent of the OTA authority? While a final construction schedule is not required at this stage for collaborative delivery methods (e.g., PDB), does the team present a realistic timeline for the pre-construction/design phases and outline effective methods for schedule management and risk mitigation?

3. Responsiveness to Criteria: How well does the solution address the specific criteria identified in the AOI (e.g., safety protocols, advanced manufacturing, or specialized facility requirements)?

3.3 Timeline & Collaborative DoW Sharing Notes

• Timeline Holding Status: If a solution is highly rated but Government resources or funding are currently unavailable to move to Phase 3, the Company may be placed in a holding status The Government may re-engage with the Company to proceed to the next phase once resources become available.

• Collaborative DoW Access: To maximize the utility of advanced engineering solutions and prevent duplication across defense agencies, the Government may, with appropriate confidentiality protections, share Phase 1 or Phase 2 submissions with other Department of the Air Force (DAF) units to leverage for similar construction requirements.

3.4 Future Use & Solutions Repository

To maximize acquisition agility and speed-to-capability across the enterprise, the Government will establish a Solutions Repository from the Phase 1 Solution Briefs (White Papers) submitted in response to published AOIs under this MACH1.

• Validity Period: To maximize acquisition agility, submitted Phase 1 Solution Briefs may be placed in a Solutions Repository. Submissions are considered current and valid for twelve (12) months. For submissions being considered for a new project after this period, the Government reserves the right to request that the respondent refresh or revalidate their submission to ensure the information regarding their capabilities, personnel, and approach remains current.

• Future Projects: Other Government Program Managers (PMs) or Agreements Officers (AOs) managing construction, design, or engineering projects requiring modernized project delivery services (e.g., Owner’s Advisor, Progressive Design-Build, Accelerated Design-Build, Industrialized Construction, etc.) may review the submissions in this repository. If a previously submitted Solution Brief aligns with a new project’s specific requirements, the Government may invite that respondent directly to Phase 2 (Oral Presentation / Pitch) or Phase 3 (Full Proposal) for a separate OTA award under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a, without re-advertising the requirement on SAM.gov.

• Opt-Out: Respondents may elect to opt-out of the Solutions Repository by explicitly stating so on the cover page of their Phase 1 submission. Opting out will not prejudice the evaluation of a submission for the current, active AOI project.

• Other Arrangements: The Government may consider a teamed approach with multiple respondents should the AOI, Solutions Briefs, or Pitches present an opportunity to meet program goals more effectively with a combination of several respondents. This decision will be based on agreement between the affected respondents and the Government collectively.

• No Award: The Government reserves the right to make no award if the AO determines that it is in the Government’s best interest.

3.5 Menu of Evaluation Criteria for AOIs

To ensure evaluations are tailored to the unique needs of each construction, repair, or alteration project, individual AOIs will draw from this comprehensive menu of evaluation criteria. Each published AOI will specify which of these criteria (and any specific weighting) will be applied.

Menu of Evaluation Criteria Industry Standard & Government Focus

Constructability & Delivery

Expediting design and delivery using industrialized construction methods, advanced manufacturing, modularization, or novel building techniques.

Schedule & Execution Risk

Realism of the proposed timeline for pre-construction, mobilization, execution, and project closeout, including schedule risk mitigation.

Site Logistics & Disruption

Means, methods, staging footprint, traffic control, and operational workflows designed to minimize disruptions to ongoing base operations.

Financial Risk & Bonding

Evaluation of the company's financial health, cash flow stability, and capacity to provide payment and performance bonds.

Site Safety & Prevention

Adherence to OSHA standards, strength of the site-specific safety plan, and historical safety metrics (e.g., EMR).

Differing Site Conditions

The proposed risk-sharing model and rapid mitigation strategy for managing unknown subsurface, utility, or hidden structural anomalies.

Environmental Considerations

Mitigation of environmental impact, SWPPP, hazardous materials handling, and compliance with local environmental regulations.

Quality & Inspection Criteria

The proposed quality management plan, methods for independent third-party testing, milestone inspections, and final commissioning.

Energy & Lifecycle Cost

Incorporation of high-efficiency systems (e.g., HVAC, building envelope) and durable materials that reduce utility consumption and total cost of ownership.

Commercial Warranties

The breadth, duration, and robustness of standard and extended warranties covering both materials and workmanship.

Cybersecurity Security protocols for Facility-Related Control Systems (FRCS), smart building infrastructure, and safeguarding digital architectural data.

Intellectual Property

Allocation of data rights, digital twins, or design licenses allowing the Government to operate, maintain, and potentially replicate the project.

Adaptability & Scalability

The degree to which the construction solution can be rapidly scaled or adapted to a variety of geographical locations and environments.

Safety & Building Standards

Ensuring permanent infrastructure complies with industry building codes (e.g., IBC, NEC) and site-specific hazard mitigation.

DoD Engineering Compliance

Adherence to applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and Anti- Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) requirements, where mandated by the AOI.

Access & Security Strict adherence to Base access, badging, and security protocols.

Specialized Credentials

Requirements for specialized certifications and professional qualifications, including SCIF construction standards (ICD 705), IT infrastructure credentials, or unique structural/engineering certifications.

3.6 Phase 3: Full Proposal

Following Phase 2, the AO will transition the process to Phase 3. The AO will select one of two execution pathways:

Pathway A: Direct Negotiation

If a single respondent’s solution is evaluated to be uniquely advantageous and of outstanding merit, the AO may issue a Request for Solutions (RFS) directly to that respondent. The selected Company will collaboratively develop a detailed written proposal, statement of work, and negotiate the final OTA terms and conditions.

Pathway B: Competitive "Bake-Off"

If multiple respondents submit solutions of merit and the AO determines that a competitive environment is beneficial to refine technical approaches, design options, or pricing structures:

1. Evaluation Amplification Letter (EAL): The AO will issue an EAL to the selected qualified respondents. The EAL serves as a customized addendum to the AOI, detailing the specific, amplified criteria, deliverables (e.g., conceptual designs, target pricing, scheduling milestones), format requirements, and evaluation weights that will govern the final evaluation phase.

2. Bake-Off Evaluation: Respondents will submit their refined proposals in accordance with the EAL. The Government will evaluate these submissions against the criteria established in the EAL to select the single partner for final OTA negotiation and execution.

Mandatory Price Validation:

Validation of a Fair and Reasonable Price is mandatory and will be evaluated for all projects during Phase 3, regardless of the specific menu options selected for the AOI. Price proposals must include information allowing the Government to make a fair and reasonable determination.

The Request for Solution will specify the information required which may include commercial price catalogs or other published price information, subcontractor quotes financial information, similar item comparison, historic price information provided to other clients, or parametric estimates to support validation).

SECTION 4 – AWARDS, LIMITATIONS, & FOLLOW-

ON TRANSACTIONS

4.1 General Award Guidelines

The AO will negotiate terms directly with the Company and execute the OTA on behalf of the Department of the Air Force. In accordance with Air Force policy for the MACH1 framework, only a designated and warranted Agreements Officer (AO) has the authority to enter into or modify a binding agreement on behalf of the Department of the Air Force.

To support the rapid and collaborative nature of modernized project delivery, agreements awarded under this MACH1 may be structured using any pricing or payment arrangement that best aligns with the solution, risk profile, and execution strategy as determined by the AO.

Permissible pricing structures include, but are not limited to:

• Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP): For highly defined, lower-risk construction scopes.

• Fixed-Price Incentive (FPI) / Target Cost: To incentivize schedule acceleration or cost savings through shared incentive pools.

• Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP): Commonly utilized in Progressive Design-Build structures where design progressively matures and a cap on project costs is collaboratively established.

• Expenditure-Based or Cost-Reimbursable Equivalents: For early design, exploratory sitework, or high-uncertainty repairs where fixed pricing is not viable.

• Hybrid Milestone Structures: Combining fixed design services with incentive-based or GMP construction phases.

The specific agreement type, milestone criteria, and payment arrangements will be tailored to each AOI and negotiated directly by the AO to maximize alignment with industry standards and protect the Government’s interests.

4.2 Congressional Notification Requirement

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a(d), the Air Force must submit a notification of the intent to use this authority to the congressional defense committees in an electronic medium. This notification must occur not later than 14 days before entering into a transaction under this section. Each notification must include:

1. The project title;

2. A description of the project and its location;

3. The estimated project cost and source of funds;

4. The recipient or contractor selected to execute the project, if known; and

5. The rationale for using 10 U.S.C. § 2808a instead of the standard military construction/repair procurement processes under Chapter 169 of Title 10.

4.3 Follow-On Transactions

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a(c), a transaction entered into under this section for a project may provide for the award of a follow-on transaction or contract to the participants without further competition, if:

1. Competitive procedures (i.e., this competitive MACH1 and subsequent AOI selection process) were used for the selection of parties for participation in the original transaction;

and

2. The participants in the original transaction successfully completed:

o (A) A complete and useable facility; or o (B) A complete and useable improvement to a facility.

This statutory mechanism allows the 772 ESS to scale successful projects (such as an initial PDB, ADB, or IC pilot) into full installation-wide delivery, campus modernization, or subsequent regional phases with the same participant, rapidly and non-competitively, provided the initial project successfully met its completion criteria.

4.4 Funding and Appropriation Flexibility ("Colors of Money")

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a(b), the Air Force may carry out projects under this authority using any funds legally available for such purposes. The specific source and type of funding will be determined by the Government for each individual project.

Non-FAR Statutory Compliance Note: Agreements Officers must comply with any non-FAR statutory or regulatory requirements that apply to the selected funding source or authority (including statutory cost or scope variation limits that are tied to specific appropriation streams, such as MILCON or FSRM limits under 10 U.S.C. § 2853, or minor military construction thresholds).

4.5 Statutory Labor Compliance

The applicability of statutory labor requirements (such as the payment of prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA)) to Other Transaction Agreements is a complex and evolving area.

Therefore, this framework does not make a universal determination. Each Area of Interest (AOI) will specify the particular labor standards and prevailing wage requirements, if any, that will apply to that specific project based on Government policy and the nature of the work.

Respondents will be required to adhere to the labor standards specified in the AOI and resulting agreement.

For inquiries regarding active AOIs, formatting submission materials, or coordinating internal Air Force civil engineering requirements with the MACH1 framework, please contact the 772 ESS Agreements Officer team at: 772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil mailto:772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil