Altus AFB Market Research (2).pdf

Market Research Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Comprehensive Market Research Questionnaire

Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Originating Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Tulsa 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: Delivery Method Feasibility & Risk

1. Design Control vs. Single-Point Responsibility

2. Feasibility of Early Price Certainty

3. Rationale

4. Relevant Delivery Experience

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

5. Budget Realism

6. Primary Cost Drivers

7. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

8. Collaboration Priorities

9. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

10. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

11. Contract Incentives

12. Program Capability/Interest (Tinker AFB)

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

13. Recommended Project Delivery Path

14. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

15. Evaluation Strategy

16. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

Project Name & Location KC46A Simulator Facility Phase 4, Altus AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides an adequately sized, configured and conditioned Flight Training Center (FTC) required to support flight training, mission planning, flight operations in a secure environment, aircrew mission briefs and debriefs, and communications.

Facility Type & Scale Administrative – Secure Training / 2,035 SM add/alter to existing FTC

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay training simulator area with overhead crane

2. Secure classrooms for classified training

3. Secure briefing and mission planning rooms

4. Simulator computer room

5. Administrative offices

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $28M

Period of Performance ~540 Days

Critical Milestones Award (construction) in FY28

Project Name & Location Aircraft Maintenance Hangar, Altus AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides a fully enclosed 1-Bay General Maintenance Hangar to support maintenance tasks and inclement weather protection for KC- 35, C-17, C-137, and KC-46A aircraft. Project includes airfield apron and relocation of an existing aircraft refueler vehicle parking area.

Facility Type & Scale Industrial - Maintenance Hangar / 7,524SM

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay aircraft general maintenance bay

2. Blast booth and Hazmat storage

3. Consolidated Tool Kit

4. Supporting administration offices and break area

5. Airfield pavement and heavy vehicle parking area

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $99M

Period of Performance ~720 days

Project Name & Location Multipurpose Hangar, Altus AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides a fully enclosed 1-Bay Multipurpose Hangar specifically designed to conduct corrosion control and fuel cell maintenance operations while offering inclement weather protection.

Project includes relocation (demo and construction) Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Plant and its overhead protection structure and parking area.

Facility Type & Scale Industrial – Corrosion Control & Fuel Cell Maint Hangar / 7,746 SM

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay aircraft corrosion control & fuel cell maintenance area

2. Aircraft paint back shops

3. Fuel Cell Maintenance back shops

4. Supporting administration offices and break area

5. Separate LOX Plant facility

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $134M

Period of Performance ~720 days

Project Name & Location FY29 Main Gate Entry Control Facility, Altus AFB, OK

Mission Statement Project provides a compliant installation access control point to include a visitor control center, commercial vehicle search area and new intuitive traffic configuration adding appropriate approach lanes, rejection lanes, enhancing installation security, and providing additional security elements incorporating standardized facilities.

Facility Type & Scale Security, Site Infrastructure / Multiple Facilities, Roadways on approximately 40-acre site

Primary Functional Spaces 1. Roadways, Vehicle Parking

2. Traffic Check House (467 SF) w/ Canopy as required

3. Visitor Control Center (2004 SF)

4. Vehicle Inspection Facility (1763 SF)

5. Reinforced Security Fencing and Security Systems

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $21M

Period of Performance ~540 days

Critical Milestones Award (construction) in FY29

2. Industry Questionnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle (FAR-based or OTA) for the above facilities. Please email your response to Daniel Foyil – Daniel.A.Foyil@usace.army.mil, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (CECT- SWT), no later than 2:00PM CST 23 July 2026.

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.

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Company Name & CAGE Code [Insert Name & CAGE]

Point of Contact [Insert Name, Email, Phone]

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] Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount]

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

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

Part II: Delivery Method Feasibility & Risk

1. Design Control vs. Single-Point Responsibility

Given the projects scale and complexity described in Section 1, which foundational approach poses the least risk to cost and schedule?

☐ Owner-Controlled Design: The Government should retain the design team but hire a builder early for constructability/pricing (CM@Risk).

☐ Single-Point Responsibility: The Government should shift design-completion risk to a single Design- Build entity (DBtB or PDB).

2. Feasibility of Early Price Certainty

For the projects listed above, is it feasible to propose a reliable fixed-price early in the process (e.g., DBtB), or are the scopes too undefined, requiring progressive design development (e.g., PDB)?

☐ Yes, a reliable price is achievable early based on the provided requirements.

☐ No, there is too much risk. We would need the design to reach [Insert %] completion before offering a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

3. Rationale

Please briefly explain the top 1–2 factors driving your answers to Questions 1 and 2:

[Insert Response Here]

4. Relevant Delivery Experience

Has your firm successfully executed projects of similar size/complexity using your recommended delivery method in the last 5 years?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, please provide 1 brief project name/location:

[Insert Response Here]

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

5. Budget Realism

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

6. Primary Cost Drivers

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

7. 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

8. Collaboration Priorities

Please rank the areas that would benefit most from early builder involvement during the design phase of the above projects (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 [ ]

9. 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

10. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

In highly collaborative procurement methods (like DBtB), 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]

11. Contract Incentives

What specific contract 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 Response Here]

12. Program Capability/Interest (Tinker AFB)

Considering the four projects listed in Section 1 for Altus AFB with a combined estimated value of approx. $280M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor for all four projects?

☐ Yes ☐ No

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

☐ Yes. Please state your firm's current aggregate bonding capacity: $__________________ ☐ No

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

13. 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.

☐ 6CM@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.

14. 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):

15. 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]

16. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, or commercial best practices the Government should consider: