Attachment 02 -Industy Questionnare.docx

DOCX document 24 KB Posted

Attached to
Sources Sought- Repair B6413 Second Floor Secure Space, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.
Solicitation number
Not on record
Issued by

About this file

This is an Industry Questionnaire template designed to assess contractor feasibility and market viability for a federal construction project delivery model selection.

The questionnaire is structured in five primary sections seeking contractor input on project delivery approaches, budget realism, innovation opportunities, supply chain risks, and contract incentives. In the General Feasibility & Model Selection section, respondents evaluate whether an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement or traditional FAR-based contract is appropriate, identify barriers to OT execution, assess feasibility of providing fixed pricing after a 2-3 month design refinement period, and indicate the design maturity level required for Progressive Design-Build (PDB) confidence. The Budget & Financial Realism section requests evaluation of the Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) at $6,146,595.02 to $6,385,000 for approximately 14,000 square feet, identification of major cost drivers, and relevant market benchmarks for the B6413 Second Floor Secure Space project at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. The Flexibility & Innovation section explores prescriptive requirements that may inhibit cost-effective solutions and identifies opportunities for integrated design-build value creation. The Market & Supply Chain section addresses long-lead equipment risks and local labor constraints specific to the project location. The Defining Value section requests prioritization of potential betterments or enhancements if design efficiencies are discovered, and assesses sustainability target feasibility. The Proposal Effort & Contract Incentives section determines stipend necessity for proprietary meeting participation, recommends appropriate stipend amounts or percentages of CCL, and ranks preferred post-award performance incentives including award fees, schedule acceleration, shared savings, and sustainability performance incentives. Respondents provide certification upon completion.

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

General Feasibility & Model Selection (DBtB vs. PDB) Project Type: [Insert Project Type] Project Name: [Insert Project Name] Project Number: [Insert Project Number] Date: [Insert Date] Purpose: The answers to this section are critical. They will guide the PDT in determining whether Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) is viable, or whether the project’s complexity and risk profile require a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) approach.

Respondent Information Firm Name: _______________________________________________ Primary Point of Contact: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________________

General Feasibility & Model Selection

1. Agreement Preference The Government is exploring the use of an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for this construction project to potentially increase collaboration, speed, and innovation.

For this specific project, do you believe an OT agreement is the most appropriate contractual vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract?

Please explain your reasoning in detail, including any considerations related to risk allocation, flexibility, procurement efficiency, commercial terms, and project execution.

Response:

2. OT Risk & Barriers If the Government chooses to proceed with an OT framework rather than a traditional FAR Part 15 procurement, does your firm foresee any barriers, risks, or hesitations in proposing on or executing this project?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify and explain the barriers, risks, or concerns, including any potential mitigation strategies.

3. Model Viability Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet (Appendix B), does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price (including incentives) for this project after a 2–3-month collaborative design refinement period?

☐ Yes – A reliable price is likely achievable.

☐ No – There is too much risk or uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

Additional Comments:

4. Risk Justification Please explain your reasoning for the answer provided above.

What are the top 1–3 factors that influenced your assessment? Examples may include:

· Project complexity

· Site conditions

· Clarity of functional requirements

· Design maturity

· Unknown existing conditions

· Specialty systems or equipment

· Schedule constraints

· Market volatility

· Supply-chain risks

· Regulatory or permitting requirements

· Other factors Response:

Factor 1: ________________________________________________________________

Factor 2: ________________________________________________________________

Factor 3: ________________________________________________________________

5. PDB Threshold If you answered “No” to Question 3, at what level of design maturity would your firm feel confident in providing a reliable, fixed price or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) through a Progressive Design-Build process?

☐ 15% Design ☐ 35% Design ☐ 60% Design ☐ 90% Design ☐ Other: ______________________________ Please explain the rationale for your selection.

I. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $[Amount] for approximately [Number] square feet appear realistic in the current local market?

☐ Yes – The CCL appears realistic.

☐ Generally – The CCL is achievable with certain qualifications or adjustments.

☐ No – The CCL appears insufficient for the stated requirements.

Please explain.

2. Major Cost Drivers From a high-level review of the functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

Examples may include:

· Specialized security requirements

· Unique structural loads

· Specialized MEP systems

· High-performance building envelope

· Mission-specific technology

· Specialty equipment

· Resiliency requirements

· Site or utility requirements

· Other project-specific requirements

3. Market Precedents Are there specific benchmarks, comparable projects, or recent industry projects the Government should consider to ensure expectations for quality, performance, functionality, and cost are aligned with the proposed budget?

Relevant Project/Benchmark (if applicable):

Project Name: ______________________________________________________________ Location: _________________________________________________________________ Approximate Size: __________________________________________________________ Approximate Cost: __________________________________________________________ Completion Year: ___________________________________________________________

II. Flexibility & Innovation – The “How”

1. Prescriptive “Showstoppers” Are there any requirements in the functional description that appear overly prescriptive or “locked-in” and might prevent your firm from offering a more innovative or cost-effective solution that meets the mission requirements?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify the requirements and explain how they could be modified to enable greater innovation or value.

2. Innovation Opportunities For this building type, where do you typically see the greatest opportunities for an integrated design-build team to provide “more for the money”?

Examples may include:

· Modular systems

· Standardization

· Envelope efficiency

· MEP coordination

· Structural optimization

· Prefabrication

· Building systems integration

· Space planning

· Construction sequencing

· Energy efficiency

· Materials selection

· Technology integration

· Other opportunities

Top Innovation Opportunity: ______________________________________________ Potential Benefit: ______________________________________________________

III. Market & Supply Chain – External Risks

1. Long-Lead Warning Even without a full design, are there specific systems, equipment, or materials common to this facility type that are currently experiencing extended lead times that could threaten the proposed project schedule?

Examples may include:

· Generators

· Custom AHUs

· Electrical switchgear

· Transformers

· Specialty laboratory equipment

· Security systems

· Specialty glazing

· Controls systems

· Other mission-critical equipment

Recommended Mitigation Strategies:

2. Local Labor Constraints Are there specific trades in the project area that are currently over-extended or in short supply and could impact the project's risk profile, cost, or schedule?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify the affected trades and describe the anticipated impact.

Potential Mitigation:

IV. Defining Value – The “Betterment” Search

1. The Value Gap If your team discovers $[Amount] in design efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which betterments or enhancements should the Government prioritize as most valuable for this facility type?

Please rank the following from 1–5, with 1 being the highest priority.

Betterment / Enhancement
Rank
Enhanced durability / maintainability
_____
Lower life-cycle costs
_____
Improved energy efficiency
_____
Improved technology / systems capability
_____
Improved mission functionality / flexibility
_____
Schedule acceleration
_____
Improved resiliency / redundancy
_____
Other: ______________________________
_____

Please explain your ranking:

2. Sustainability Targets Is the proposed level of sustainability (e.g., specific energy goals, energy-use intensity targets, certifications, carbon-reduction goals, etc.) a standard “reach” for industry, or will achieving the target require significant premium pricing in this market?

☐ Standard / Routinely Achievable ☐ Achievable with Moderate Additional Cost ☐ Significant Premium Pricing Likely ☐ Target Requires Further Definition Comments:

Recommended Sustainability Target(s), if applicable:

V. Proposal Effort & Contract Incentives

1. Stipend Necessity Given the requirement to participate in approximately [Estimated Number] proprietary meetings and develop a conceptual design for Phase 2 evaluation, is a stipend necessary for your firm to justify the pursuit costs associated with this procurement?

☐ Yes ☐ No Please explain your response.

2. Stipend Alignment If a stipend is offered, what amount—or percentage of the CCL—does the market currently consider sufficient to offset the level of effort required for a Phase 2 proposal of this complexity?

Recommended Stipend Amount: $____________________________

OR

Recommended Percentage of CCL: __________________________% Please explain the basis for your recommendation, including anticipated proposal/design effort, staffing requirements, and proprietary meeting participation.

3. Effective Incentives In a fixed-budget environment, what types of post-award contract incentives would be most effective at motivating your team to exceed minimum performance requirements?

Please rank your top three:

Incentive Type
Rank
Award fee for exceptional quality
_____
Schedule acceleration incentive
_____
Shared savings
_____
Sustainability / energy-performance incentive
_____
Life-cycle cost reduction incentive
_____
Innovation / value-engineering incentive
_____
Customer satisfaction / mission performance incentive
_____
Other: ______________________________
_____

Please explain your ranking and identify any incentive structures you believe would be particularly effective:

Additional Industry Feedback Please provide any additional observations, recommendations, risks, or concerns that the Government should consider when determining the appropriate acquisition and project delivery model for this project.

Respondent Certification Firm Name: ______________________________________________________________ Respondent Name: ________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________________________________________ End of Questionnaire

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .