Attachment 02- Industry Questionnaire.pdf

Market Research Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Industry Questionnaire

(To be completed by Industry Respondents)

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

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 project 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 (IDAC / 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

Is it feasible to propose a reliable fixed-price early in the process (e.g., DBtB), or is the scope 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 a project 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:

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

5. Budget Realism

Based on current market data, does the $[Amount] budget appear realistic for this facility type 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 (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 [MILCON ONLY — DELETE IF CIVIL

WORKS]

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 this project?

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

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

☐ Other: [Insert Response Here]

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

12. Recommended Project Delivery Path

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

(Select One)

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

☐ IDAC / 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.

13. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

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

14. Evaluation Strategy

For this specific project, 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]

15. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

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