Eielson RFLP Q and A GCN 2.pdf
PDF 153 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AFCEC26R0009
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers summary document from a site visit conducted at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) on July 30, 2026, regarding a Request for Long-term Lease Proposal (RFLP) for Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) opportunities.
The base is seeking solutions to address a warehouse storage shortfall of approximately 180,000 square feet and other mission support needs that cannot be fulfilled internally. The RFLP is not a joint effort with the Army and focuses on identifying offerors capable of meeting current base requirements to better support mission success. Four candidate sites were evaluated during the visit, with Site 3 identified as the most move-in ready due to its location, existing infrastructure, and historical use. Site 1 requires U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) involvement due to levy concerns; Site 2 requires coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a local dog-sledding team holding an easement; Site 3 requires no outside consultation; and Site 4 requires coordination with the Army due to proximity to an active training area. The base currently has 910 homes on base and requires warehouse storage facilities that meet Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) requirements and sub-arctic building standards. Personnel typically deploy for 3 to 4 years, and the area experiences snow from Halloween through mid-April, with average winter temperatures around -20 degrees Fahrenheit. The Air Force Civil Engineer Command (AFCEC) is the relevant federal authority overseeing the proposal process and will address several unresolved questions regarding offeror communication with adjacent landowners and post-submission coordination procedures.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Eielson AFB EUL Site Visit – Q&A Summary
Date: 30 July 2026 | Time: 1200 – 1400
Attendees: Mr. Don Cardon, Capt Wilkens, Lt Col Kohlhepp, Tyler Ellsworth
Sites Visited: 1, 3, and 4
1. Which sites are the most move-in ready?
Answer: It depends entirely on the offeror's planned build. However, from the base's perspective, Site 3 is the most move-in ready due to its location, existing infrastructure, and historical use.
2. Is this a joint effort with the Army?
Answer: Not currently. The purpose of the RFLP is to see if an offeror can meet the current needs of the base to better support mission success.
3. What are "Scout" and "Magoo's" roles?
Answer: We are not aware of who "Magoo" is, but "Scout" is Col Johnston (Base Commander), who spearheaded submitting the RFLP.
4. How long has the base been planning this RFLP?
Answer: We have been tracking this since February to meet the current demand signal.
5. What is AFCEC?
Answer: Air Force Civil Engineer Command.
6. General Discussion Note on Encroachment:
Note: We informed Mr. Cardon that the Dyke range has an encroachment concern that USACE is currently working to resolve.
7. Where would the Dyke range fit in the list of Air Force Priorities?
Answer: We cannot speak directly to which available plot would be of the greatest benefit to the base. Instead, we will evaluate the offers side-by-side to determine the best fit for Eielson.
8. Are the base's exact storage concerns listed anywhere in the proposal?
Answer: We are not tracking the specific concerns in the proposal, but the base currently has a warehouse shortfall of roughly 180,000 sq ft.
9. Can the offerors speak directly to the adjacent landowner on the encroached property (Site 1)?
Answer: We are unsure at this time. We will pass this question to AFCEC to answer in the formal submission.
10. Are these sites ready to use, or does USACE have a stake?
Answer:
• Site 1: Requires USACE involvement due to the levy.
• Site 2: Requires coordination with the BLM and a local dog-sledding team that currently has an easement on the property.
• Site 3: Does not require outside consultation.
• Site 4: Requires coordination with the Army due to its proximity to an active Army training area.
11. Why should investors take on this risk when very little is available for a short turnaround?
Answer: We acknowledge there is a large risk associated with this endeavor. The base is not looking to profit from the deal, but rather to meet mission needs we cannot fulfill internally.
Follow-up Question from Mr. Cardon: Can AFCEC, the base, and the offeror work out more details after the submission?
Response: The team was unsure and informed him we would seek AFCEC's guidance.
12. When is there typically snow on the ground?
Answer: Typically, from Halloween through mid-April.
13. What are the demographics of the housing needs?
Answer: This question was also asked by another offeror and sent to AFCEC for input. However, we informed him that the typical home on the base is a 3-bed, 2-bath unit.
14. What are the specifications for the base's warm storage needs?
Answer: Facilities must meet UFC requirements and be built to sub-arctic standards.
15. Is there a concern for explosives on Site 4?
Answer: Yes, but our EOD team surveys the area to reduce those concerns.
16. What are the average winter temperatures?
Answer: This past year was an outlier with 40 consecutive days of -40 degrees. Typically, the winter average is around -20 degrees.
17. What does the community do during the cold season?
Answer: People adapt to the climate and introduce new lifestyle activities, including hunting, fishing, ATVing, and snowmachining.
18. What is the typical deployment period?
Answer: Typically, 3 to 4 years.
19. Can offerors solicit the base populace to gauge interest in needs?
Answer: We will ask AFCEC for an official stance, but we informed him that the Fairbanks
North Star Borough (FNSB) offers existing studies they have conducted on this matter.
20. What is the current number of homes on base?
Answer: 910.
21. What type of storage does the base need (e.g., residential, U-Haul style, warehouse)?
Answer: Warehouse storage.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .