Attachment 001 - Barracks Maint SOO Rev02.docx

Draft OTA Barracks Maint. SOO-Rev01 July 22, 2026 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO) – Rev02 Fort Campbell Barracks Maintenance Sustainment & Modernization Prototype

1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW & SCOPE

1.1. The Department of War (DoW), acting through the Mission & Installation Contracting Command (MICC) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, is executing an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) under 10 U.S.C. § 4022 to prototype a modernized, comprehensive facility management model. The objective is to replace legacy, labor-intensive maintenance processes with an innovative, commercially derived approach that fundamentally improves the Quality of Life (QoL) for our Service Members while maximizing the utility of limited funding. The scope of this prototype includes the hands-on, physical execution of all maintenance and repair tasks necessary to resolve Demand Maintenance Orders (DMOs) and conduct the Preventative Maintenance Order (PMO) program.

1.2. The scope of this prototype encompasses approximately 58 unaccompanied housing facilities distributed across the Fort Campbell footprint. These facilities represent a highly diverse structural portfolio. Occupancy ranges drastically from small detachment barracks housing about 20 personnel to massive multi-story battalion complexes accommodating several hundred Service Members. Furthermore, the infrastructure age dictates bifurcated maintenance strategies, as the buildings range from Legacy and Vietnam-era structures with aging utility backbones to modern construction from the 2010s equipped with digital controls.

1.3. All proposed prototype solutions must be fully executable within a strict, estimated Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) annual budget cap of $5M. This ceiling must cover all elements of the prototype, including labor, materials, management, and any proposed technology integrations. The Government envisions a phased approach spanning up to five (5) years, consisting of a one-year baseline prototype execution phase followed by up to four (4) one-year option periods to scale and refine the model.

2. THE OPERATIONAL PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.1. Currently, the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) at Fort Campbell is constrained by siloed technology, manual administrative burdens, and reactive maintenance processes. These inefficiencies extend Time-to-Resolution (TTR) and rapidly consume our limited SRM budget. We are challenging industry to provide innovative solutions to the following specific friction points:

2.2. INACCURATE TRIAGE & DISPATCH:

Work orders submitted by customers often lack critical diagnostic details. Consequently, symptoms are routinely misdiagnosed (e.g., dispatching a plumber for an HVAC condensation leak). This forces technicians to close the initial ticket and re-dispatch a new crew, doubling the resolution time and frustrating Service Members.

2.3. INEFFICIENT SCHEDULING CAPABILITIES:

While the current Army Maintenance Application (ArMA) functions adequately for front-end ticket generation, it lacks the robust back-end capabilities required to intelligently schedule, route, and manage technician workflows in real time.

2.4. MANUAL ADMINISTRATIVE & FINANCIAL BURDEN:

Our operations suffer from a lack of software integration. Staff must dedicate excessive labor hours to manually "t-code" work orders, track materials across disconnected warehouse databases, and hand-jam performance data into the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) for financial reconciliation.

2.5. INADEQUATE ASSET HISTORY & DOCUMENTATION:

Technician closeout notes are frequently vague (e.g., stating only "Repaired" or "Complete"). Without a detailed historical record of the root cause or the specific parts replaced, subsequent technicians must restart the troubleshooting process from scratch during future equipment failures, compounding equipment downtime and labor.

2.6. SUPPLY CHAIN & PROCUREMENT DELAYS:

Our ability to execute rapid repairs is hindered by bureaucratic purchasing channels and rigid, quarter-by-quarter funding streams. These bottlenecks can delay the procurement of critical repair parts, leaving systems offline for extended periods and accelerating infrastructure degradation.

3. CORE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

3.1. The Government will not prescribe a traditional Performance Work Statement (PWS) dictating exactly how tasks must be performed. Instead, offerors must propose a holistic, integrated solution that blends innovative physical maintenance practices with modern technology to achieve the following operational outcomes:

3.2. TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY:

To streamline the heavy administrative burdens inherently associated with facility management, the Government seeks the integration of modern Property Technology (PropTech) or Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) tools. Rather than being the sole focus, these platforms should serve as powerful enablers that automate the work order lifecycle. The proposed technological approach should intelligently route routine work orders and ideally interface with the GFEBS. Establishing secure Application Program Interface (API) connections or automated batch processing to match completed work orders with GFEBS Lines of Accounting will drastically reduce manual financial reconciliation and accelerate fund drawdowns.

3.3. DEMAND MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DMO):

Current reactive maintenance is often delayed by poor supply chain logistics and inaccurate initial reporting. Offerors must propose a rapid-response triage system that ensures technicians arrive equipped with the correct parts on their first visit, utilizing data and smart logistics to drive decisions. The primary success metrics for this objective are a measurable decrease in the average TTR from ticket submission to completion, and a consistently high First-Time Fix Rate (FTFR).

3.4. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ORDERS (PMO):

A standardized PMO strategy is ineffective across buildings spanning 50 years of construction and renovation history. The Contractor must deploy a tailored, predictive maintenance strategy. Legacy buildings may require high-frequency physical inspections and preventative parts replacement, while 2010s-era buildings could leverage sensor data and analytics to trigger maintenance only when system degradation is actively detected. Success will be measured by high PMO compliance rates and a verifiable month-over-month decrease in catastrophic equipment failures.

3.5. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT & LABOR OPTIMIZATION:

Traditional maintenance models consume vast amounts of budget through inefficient travel time and rigid labor roles. Offerors must identify innovative ways to maximize actual "wrench time" and operational efficiency. This may include establishing decentralized parts caches—such as smart lockers positioned near high-volume repair zones—and fielding cross-trained "Zone Technicians" capable of addressing multiple trades in a single visit. All labor and process optimizations must demonstrate how they keep the overall program successfully under the $5M financial cap.

3.6. CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE (CX):

Service Members currently lack visibility into their maintenance requests, which negatively impacts QoL. The prototype must modernize this interaction through a user-friendly, mobile-responsive reporting interface. Soldiers must be able to easily submit issues (including photos), receive automated status updates, and rate the completed work. The Government will evaluate success based on user adoption rates of the streamlined reporting tools and sustained high Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) scores on post-repair surveys.

4. OPERATING CONSTRAINTS & ENVIRONMENT

4.1. The prototype must be executed securely and seamlessly within the active military ecosystem of Fort Campbell, balancing rapid commercial innovation with mandatory Department of War security protocols.

4.2. CYBERSECURITY & AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO)

Any commercial software, EAM platform, or digital tool proposed as part of the solution will handle unclassified installation infrastructure and financial data. Therefore, the technology must comply with DoW Impact Level 4 or 5 (IL4/IL5) security controls. The Contractor bears the responsibility for proposing a secure cloud hosting environment and successfully navigating the Risk Management Framework (RMF) to achieve the necessary Authority to Operate (ATO), particularly if integrating with GFEBS.

4.3. BUDGETARY AND SECURITY LIMITS

The $5M annual SRM cap is a hard fiscal ceiling; any proposed software licensing, cloud infrastructure, and API development must be balanced effectively against physical execution costs. Operationally, all contractor personnel must pass national agency check background investigations to secure base access. Because maintenance occurs in occupied living quarters, all scheduling and execution must be highly coordinated to respect Soldier privacy and secure military property.

4.4. TRANSITION & SCALABILITY

The Contractor must execute a "warm handoff" from the existing maintenance posture without degrading ongoing emergency support. The prototype must demonstrate immediate operational capability. The Government encourages a scalable approach, potentially testing the new management model and associated software on a smaller subset of the 58 buildings to validate operational workflows and financial integrations before scaling to the full portfolio.

2 | Page