ACC004 RFI_Market Intelligence.pdf

Market Intelligence Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Comprehensive Market Intelligence Questionnaire Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Originating Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Alaska District

Document Type Sources Sought / Request for Information (RFI) Template

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

Classification Unclassified / Pre-Solicitation

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Accelerating the Flight Simulator Facility

2. Inter-Project Coordination

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction at JBER

4. Zero-Downtime Operations & Security

5. Structuring the OTA for Success

6. Secure Space Accreditation

7. CUI Requirements

8. Temporary Space Requirements

9. Streamlined Design Alignment & A-E Resource Management

10. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

11. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness

12. Unidentified Project Risks

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

13. Budget Realism

14. Primary Cost Drivers

15. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

16. Collaboration Priorities

17. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

18. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

19. Agreement Incentives

20. Program Capability/Interest

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

21. Recommended Project Delivery Path

22. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

23. Evaluation Strategy

24. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

Project Name & Location Flight Simulator, JBER, AK

Project Description This project encompasses construction of a new Flight Simulator facility at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. The project includes spaces for 12 simulator devices, academic classroom instruction, briefing rooms, equipment support, and staff offices. The facility will include controlled space(s) that meet Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 criteria and standards. The project is also authorized to have a back-up/standby generator. A key constraint is that the new facility’s telecommunication infrastructure must tie into the Joint Integrated Test and Training Center (JITTC). Therefore, the project will be sited directly adjacent to the JITTC.

There is also potential for other MILCON projects ongoing in the general area.

Facility Type & Scale CAT CODE 171-212 | 38,401 SF

Primary Functional Spaces Simulator bays Classrooms Briefing rooms Staff offices Equipment support areas

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $90-$140M

Period of Performance 5 years

Critical Milestones ICD 705 Accreditation

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Company Name & CAGE Code

Point of Contact

Socioeconomic Status (Check all that apply)

☐ Large Business ☐ Small Business (SB) ☐ 8(a) Business Development Program ☐ HUBZone Small Business ☐ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB) ☐ Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

Bonding Capacity Single Project Limit: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________ Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR based or OTA) for the above facility.

Please email your response to Danielle Sprague at danielle.sprague@usace.army.mil and Michelle Nelsen at michelle.nelsen@usace.army.mil by 28 September 2026 at 14:00 Alaska Time.

Accelerated Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) FAR-based delivery approach where the Government develops sufficient project definition to competitively establish a Firm-Fixed-Price before collaborative design development.

Construction Manager at Risk (CM At Risk) - OTA Project delivery method where a construction manager acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and transitions to a general contractor role during construction.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – OTA Single design-build agreement. Phase 1 collaboratively matures the design and negotiates a Guaranteed Maximum Price before the Government decides whether to proceed with construction.

Anticipated Teaming ☐ Standalone Prime ☐ Joint Venture (JV) ☐ Mentor-Protégé ☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Accelerating the Flight Simulator Facility The critical path of this program requires the new Flight Simulator Facility to be fully constructed, accredited, and operational as soon as feasible. Under a PDB w/ OTA model, how would you structure your design phases and early work packages to accelerate the schedule?

What specific long-lead materials do you recommend identifying and procuring as early as possible?

2. Inter-Project Coordination

This facility’s telecommunications infrastructure will be required to tie into the Joint Integrated Test and Training Center (JITTC), which is currently under construction under a separate contract. What schedule and quality risks do you foresee in tying in to work completed by a third party? How would you mitigate risks associated with this constraint, and what specific validation criteria would you require upon tie-in?

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction at JBER

Given the aggressive timeline and the realities of the short Alaskan construction season, how would you mitigate weather delays? Please describe off-site prefabrication strategies, modular construction, winter-enclosure techniques, and/or other strategies that you would propose to maintain construction momentum year-round. How could the Government best structure the Phase

1 collaborative period to evaluate the cost-versus-time tradeoffs of these methods before finalizing the GMP?

4. Zero-Downtime Operations & Security

JITTC operations may not be interrupted while the new Flight Simulator Facility is being built. How would you recommend using the collaborative Phase 1 (Pre-construction) period to develop phasing plans with USACE and the Air Force end-user to ensure zero operational downtime while also delivering the project as quickly as possible?

5. Structuring the OTA for Success

Under the OTA framework, how should the Government structure payments in both phases to incentivize schedule alignment? What performance metrics or strategies do you recommend we build into the agreement to mitigate the risk of project delay?

6. Secure Space Accreditation

Achieving ICD 705 accreditation for the Flight Simulator facility is a critical schedule risk. To prevent delays, what steps should the Government take to facilitate timely accreditation?

7. CUI Requirements

This project will require handling of CUI materials. All personnel that handle these documents must be trained in, and practice, CUI handling procedures per DoD Instruction 5200.38. What impacts do you foresee, if any, in relation to CUI requirements?

8. Temporary Space Requirements

What is your estimated space requirement for temporary space such as staging, material laydown, offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, with this project being in close proximity of an active construction site, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporting infrastructure, such as access roads or port facilities, to support construction logistics?

9. Streamlined Design Alignment & A-E Resource Management

Traditional MILCON execution relies on sequential design charrettes for each facility, which may create an unacceptable schedule bottleneck for a project of this complexity. At the same time, attempting to design the facility aggressively may introduce Architect/Engineer resource constraints. Under a PDB framework, how do you recommend we prioritize, phase, standardize, etc. the design of this facility to maximize limited design resources? Specifically, how can we structure the design schedule and stakeholder alignment workshops to achieve rapid design consensus without overwhelming the project's design team?

10. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

What do you believe is a realistic and reasonable timeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete the full design and construction of this facility?

11. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness

Assuming an agreement award is made, what is your firm's estimated lead time to mobilize Phase 1 (Design and Preconstruction Services) and Phase 2 (Final Design & Construction Services)? What is the optimal time of year for an agreement award to align with your mobilization and maximize the active construction season?

12. Unidentified Project Risks

Outside of the challenges already identified, what other significant risks do you foresee for a project of this complexity at JBER? What are factors that the Government should address to reduce costs or increase competition?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

13. Budget Realism

Based on current market data, does the target budget appear realistic for this facility type and scale?

14. Primary Cost Drivers

What specific functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

15. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead MEP, local labor)?

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

16. Collaboration Priorities

Please rank the areas that would benefit most from early builder involvement during the design phase of the above project (1 = Greatest Benefit, 5 = Least Benefit).

Area of Collaboration Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time Estimating _______________

Schedule Certainty & Phasing _______________

Constructability & Quality Control _______________

Innovation & Scope Betterments (Getting more for the money) _______________

Overall Risk Reduction / Site Mitigations _______________

17. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

If the Government utilizes a delivery method that allows for confidential, one-on-one proprietary meetings during the solicitation phase to collaboratively discuss innovative solutions, would your firm participate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

18. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

In highly collaborative procurement methods (like DBtB, PDB, CM@R), offerors will incur design and proposal development costs. Would the Government's offer of a stipend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable stipend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert Amount/Percentage Here] ______________________________

19. Agreement Incentives

What specific agreement incentives would best drive innovation and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

☐ Shared Cost Savings (e.g., within a GMP Structure)

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

20. Program Capability/Interest

Considering the project listed in Section 1 for JBER with an estimated value of approximately $80-$120M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor?

☐Yes ☐ No

b) If yes, does your firm have the necessary bonding capacity to cover the total estimated project value?

☐Yes ☐ No

c) If yes, Please state your firm’s current aggregate bonding capacity. [Insert Amount Here]

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

21. Recommended Project Delivery Path

Considering all factors, which project delivery path is optimal for these specific projects?

(Provide a response for each project listed in Section 1 above)

☐ Design-Bid-Build (DBB): Scope is simple and fully defined (closer to 30-35%); traditional FAR Part 36 and FAR 15 is sufficient.

☐ CM@Risk: Government needs to control the design but needs early builder collaboration.

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a competitive (10-15%), fixed-price solution, use of proprietary meetings to advance design solutions (highly collaborative).

☐ Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Scope is highly complex/undefined. Requires a single contract to collaboratively mature the design before locking in a GMP.

22. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

Please explain your selections above for each project. Indicate if you recommend executing this via a standard FAR-based contract or an Other Transaction Authority (OTA):

23. Evaluation Strategy

For these specific projects, what evaluation criteria do you believe the Government should weigh most heavily to ensure success? (Rank top 3: 1 being most important)

☐ Past Performance

☐ Technical Approach/Design

☐ Price/GMP

☐ Key Personnel & Team Integration

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

24. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, or commercial best practices the Government should consider.