Attachment 1 - KC-46A Aircraft Beddown Infrastructure Program Request for Qualifications 10.2.26.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

SECTION 1: OVERVIEW

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is seeking qualified Design-Build Team(s) to participate in a Progressive Design Build (PDB) via OT (Other Transaction) Agreement for the FY28 KC-46A Aircraft Beddown Infrastructure Program at Altus AFB, OK. This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) allows interested Design-Build Teams to submit qualification packages as the first step in a competitive, two-step selection process.

This acquisition emphasizes:

• Qualifications-Based Selection: Design-Build Team(s) will be selected based on partnering approach, experience, capability, and teaming strategy, not a price proposal.

• Collaborative Project Development: The selected Design-Build Team will work directly with USACE and Air Force partners to develop the project design, schedule, and price.

• Speed and Flexibility: The Government will evaluate Design-Builders’ Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) based on the criteria identified in this announcement using a qualifications-based process. The evaluation is intended to identify the Design-Build Team(s) most highly qualified to partner with the Government to further develop the project scope, technical solution, and agreement terms during subsequent phases of the process.

SECTION 2: OT FRAMEWORK

This acquisition will be conducted pursuant to the authority provided under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a using an Other Transaction (OT) agreement. The OT framework provides the Government with the flexibility to establish a collaborative, qualifications-based approach tailored to the complexity and requirements of this program.

The OT approach:

• Enables a collaborative Progressive Design-Build (PDB) process that encourages early engagement among the Government, Design-Build Team, and other project stakeholders.

• Supports selection of a highly qualified Design-Build Team based on demonstrated experience, capabilities, collaborative teaming approach, and ability to achieve project objectives.

• Enables the Government and selected Design-Build Team to establish tailored agreement terms addressing project risks, schedule requirements, performance expectations, and other mission needs.

• Facilitates innovative acquisition approaches focused on speed, flexibility, and successful mission outcomes.

• Is not subject to FAR-based procurement procedures; however, federal laws and requirements, including fiscal law requirements and required laws governing construction of public facilities will apply.

SECTION 3: STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Government reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to determine that a response which does not conform to the requirements or instructions contained in this announcement is ineligible for further consideration.

Design-Build Teams that submit SOQs determined to be the most highly qualified to the Government, based on the evaluation criteria identified in this announcement, may be invited to participate in Pitch Presentations.

Interested parties should prepare their SOQs in a clear, concise, and organized manner that enables the

Government to efficiently evaluate the proposed approach. To facilitate an efficient review, responses shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions and formatting requirements contained in this announcement. Failure to comply with these requirements may increase the risk that the response will not be considered for further evaluation.

3.1 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The SOQ shall be submitted by 2:00PM Central Time on 13 October 2026. All submissions should be in Adobe PDF format with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) applied to all documents that will enable word searches to be conducted using Adobe-compatible PDF software.

Offers should be submitted electronically via Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation at https://piee.eb.mil/. Respondents must be registered in PIEE before they can submit a proposal.

The page limitation for the SOQ is 10-pages. Title sheet, letter from the bonding company agent, formal teaming agreements, CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires or equivalent commercial owner evaluations are not included in the page limitation and shall not be numbered. A one-page cover sheet identifying the firm’s name, the file title, and any applicable design-build team arrangement and Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number for SAM registration is also excluded from page count.. Extraneous information or cover letters that provide additional information not requested by this RFQ will not be reviewed or evaluated.

All text shall be at least 10-point font and easily read (e.g., Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri), typed and single-spaced. Each page shall be 8½" × 11" (charts and graphics, including the organizational chart and past-performance matrix, are the only documents that may be submitted on 11" × 17" and count as one page). Margins shall be no less than 1" (right, left, top, and bottom). Pages that exceed the page limitation will not be reviewed and the information contained on those pages will not be considered for evaluation.

Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data: Respondents that include data they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall (1) mark the title page with the standard restriction legend and (2) mark each sheet of data they wish to restrict. The Government reserves the right to not consider responses, in part or in full, that fail to adhere to the pro-forma criteria listed above, at its sole discretion.

3.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PIEE

• How to Register for Access to PIEE o Every Vendor must register in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment for the specific applications they wish to use. During registration, respondents will need to register for the solicitation module with the relevant role (Proposal Manager).

o To use an application in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment system, you must establish a personal account in the system.

o This account is activated by your Government Administrator or the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment Customer Support Center.

o You will need to take several steps to establish your personal account:

On the PIEE Home Page, click the Help/Training button in the upper right-hand corner for steps needed to complete before registering.

Complete your vendor activation requirements (See Vendors Getting Started Section on the Help/Training page).

https://piee.eb.mil/

Set up your PC to use the applications (See Machine Setup link on the Help/Training page).

Self-register as "Vendor" or your Contractor role for your CAGE codes (See the demo below for help with Self Registration).

Have your contract administrator (CAM) activate your account.

o Additional registration instruction and step-by-step walkthrough can be found at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml

• How to Upload Proposals to PIEE o Detailed instructions on the uploading of proposals can be found at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml PIEE Web based training: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/ o In the event a respondent is unable to register for a PIEE account or otherwise is unable to upload their proposal to PIEE, the respondent shall email the individuals identified below no later than 24 business hours prior to the offer due date and time, stating the issue they are having with PIEE, and request instructions for an alternate method to submit their proposal.

This alternate method will be in the form of email to the following recipients:

Julie S. Hill: julie.s.hill@usace.army.mil Daniel Foyil: daniel.a.foyil@usace.army.mil o For the purposes of determining whether the SOQ was received "late", the date and time the file(s) are received by the USACE Outlook Server or uploaded into the PIEE Solicitation website as identified in the PIEE Solicitation notification e-mail sent to the Agreements Specialist(s)/ Agreements Officer will be the time and date the Government received the proposal. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal.

3.3 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS CONTENT (REQUIRED SECTIONS)

3.3.1. FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE, TEAM COMPOSITION, AND SAFETY

• Instructions: Submit a single, integrated Factor 1 tab (excluding the items listed in § 3.1). Address all elements below:

1. Prime Entity and Team Arrangement.

Identify the Prime Entity by legal name as registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). If a joint venture or other teaming arrangement is proposed, identify all members, the Designer of Record, and key design / trade partners (discipline or firm name). The Joint Venture must be registered in SAM with its own Unique Entity ID (UEI) to be eligible for award. A copy of the formal agreement (joint venture, mentor-protégé, partnership, or equivalent) shall be provided prior to the first Pitch Presentation; the agreement is excluded from the page count. The Agreements Officer will recognize the integrity of disclosed team arrangements; nothing in this RFQ authorizes arrangements in violation of the antitrust statutes.

2. Past Performance.

Demonstrate experience with projects recently completed or substantially completed. Focus on illustrating the ability to deliver this program rather than on the number of projects.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/portal/overview/vendorRegister.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xhtml https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/ mailto:julie.s.hill@usace.army.mil mailto:daniel.a.foyil@usace.army.mil

Preference will be given to designed and constructed aviation facilities such as hangars, projects on active airfields, and projects which demonstrate the ability to act as a Design- Build team on projects of a similar magnitude and complexity. Successful execution of collaborative delivery methods (progressive design-build, construction manager at risk, or integrated design and construction) will give additional consideration. The submission must summarize scope and performance clearly and factually.

For each project provide:

• Project name and location.

• Client and current reference (company, point of contact, email, phone).

• Final contract value and delivery method.

• Key features and relevance — the aspects of the project that are relevant to this program (aviation / hangar work, two-phase collaborative delivery, airfield-adjacent construction, and specialized industrial systems, , as applicable); the Design- Builder’s (or associated team member’s) role; and evidence of successful collaboration and integration.

• Outcomes — budget performance, adherence to schedule, quality of work, and whether the project was delivered without formal claims or unilateral change orders.

• Performance assessment — Federal CPARS, or for non-federal work an equivalent commercial owner evaluation or Past Performance Questionnaire. These documents do not count against the page limitation.

Federal / DoD experience on military installations is preferred but not required. The Government will also consider equivalent commercial owner evaluations, active reference checks, and relevant past-performance in the SOQ.

3. Organizational Chart and Key Personnel.

The respondent shall determine which positions are key to successful project delivery and shall identify those positions based on its proposed approach to project management, design integration, and construction execution. It is not necessary to identify by name every specific individual in key roles for this program, but the proposal should identify by name the specific individuals who the offeror intends to be present for a pitch presentation if the proposal is selected for that phase. For each person attending any pitch presentation, the proposal should provide the individuals experience and qualifications to execute the Altus program and their experience and qualifications as they relate to that role on this program. Provide the organizational chart with key positions; do not name personnel other than those you choose to demonstrate your team’s qualifications. These named individuals will be expected to attend and participate in the Step 2 Pitch Presentation. Corporate business-development representatives who will not have an active role in the design or build phase may not substitute.

Include an organizational chart depicting the proposed management structure. At a minimum the chart shall identify:

• Team Members and named key personnel supporting the program.

• Required roles in relation to the underlying organizational structure.

• Lines of authority, responsibility, and communication.

• The relationship among the Prime and its members, to include as applicable, Designer of Record, key design disciplines, major trade partners, and other principal team members, including any joint-venture, mentor-protégé, or other teaming relationship.

The chart may be submitted on 11" × 17" and counts as one page.

• Expectation: Evidence-based responses that demonstrate recent, relevant hangar or aviation-facility delivery; named personnel with documented PDB / CMAR / IPD experience at program scale; a satisfactory safety record; a credible, site-specific approach to construction adjacent to an active airfield;

and a construction and design team with proven joint performance. Generic safety slogans, unnamed “team” descriptions, projects lacking collaborative two-phase delivery or aviation relevance, and marketing biographies in lieu of resume-focused profiles will receive limited credit and will not support a High or Significant Confidence rating.

3.3.2. FACTOR 2: DESIGN-BUILD PROCESS & TECHNICAL APPROACH

• Instructions: Submit a factor 2 tab with written narrative describing your firm’s plan on the progressive design build process and technical approach. Address the elements below and demonstrate, how the approaches have been implemented successfully with past project experience. Narrative that restates the requirement without showing how the team will execute it will receive limited credit.

1. Open-Book Estimate and Cost Validation Strategy.

Describe the method for open book estimating to include sharing subcontractor quotes, labor-productivity factors, material-price volatility risk pools, and any contingency or risk-based pricing with the Government. Identify the proposed open-book database or cost-model format, the cadence of cost-reconciliation, and how the model will remain compatible with a commercial CSI MasterFormat Schedule of Values (SOV). Explain the plan to use open book estimating to help resolve scope and budget irregularities during the design process.

2. Design and Constructability Integration.

Provide explanation on how the Designer-of-Record (DOR) will incorporate the updated Unified Facilities Criteria, installation requirements, and applicable standards to the collaborative design process. Describe the process for integrating reviews - Schematic Design, Design Development, Pre-Negotiation Backchecks, and Post-Negotiation Verification of plans and specifications as biddable and constructable without creating unnecessary delays to the project schedule. Identify collaborative design roles, responsibilities, challenges and opportunities such as what constitutes a complete submittal, and how comments are closed before the next phase of design or procurement is released.

3. Subcontractor Sourcing and Labor Management.

Provide a credible methodology for identifying, securing, and maintaining major trade partners (concrete, structural steel, mechanical, and specialized electrical) in the semi-remote Altus market. Address importing, housing, and scheduling skilled trade labor, and when trade partners will be brought into open-book estimating during Phase 1 so that the Guaranteed Maximum Price / Firm-Fixed-Price negotiation is based on up to date quotes..

4. Execution Strategy and Risk Identification.

Describe the conceptual approach to resolving the program’s specialized technical constraints during Phase 1, before construction price is locked. At a minimum address the understanding of program objectives, risk identification and mitigation strategies, any innovative approaches to creating efficiencies while meeting quality objectives, experience delivering large, complex projects on target in time-constrained situations.

• Expectation: Responses demonstrate a feasible, transparent, commercially mature PDB process capable of holding the current affordability limitations and program duration assuming that all construction funds are available in FY28. Credit is given for specific open-book tools and formats, constructability reviews, a credible Altus labor and trade- plan, and an execution strategy applicable to the project that demonstrate an understanding of the project.

3.3.3. FACTOR 3: PARTNERSHP & COLLABORATIVE CHEMISTRY

• Instructions: Submit a Factor 3 tab addressing the elements below. Scoring emphasis will be on documented prior collaborative performance and the specificity of the proposed resolution framework.

Generic statements of “teamwork” will receive minimal credit.

1. Documented Collaborative Performance.

Provide specific examples - project name, owner, contract type, value, and outcome - of prior progressive design-build, integrated project delivery, or other high-collaboration contracts in which the Offeror resolved design / constructability issues without formal claims or unilateral change orders. Identify any shared risk/reward structures, open-book cost transparency, or joint decision-making protocols used on those projects. Evidence, not assertion, is required.

2. Project-Specific Collaboration Protocols.

Propose the real-time information-sharing rules that will govern this program, including common-data-environment (CDE) rules, co-location expectations, and decision-log practice, that prioritize early horizontal resolution. Describe how the Government team (Agreements Officer’s Representative, Project Manager, Design Authority Having Jurisdiction, and Air Force user groups) will be integrated into those protocols. Identify prior successful working relationships among proposed team members, if applicable, and the approaches that produced successful collaborative delivery.

• Expectation: Evidence of documented collaboration and issue-resolution framework. Provide actions taken on the projects cited in Factor 1 supporting your narrative. The Government desires a one team, project first approach to delivery. Short-listed teams should expect this factor to be further demonstrated at Pitch Presentations.

3.3.4. FACTOR 4: BONDING CAPACITY (Excluded from the Page Count)

• Instructions: The submission shall include a letter from your bonding company or surety certifying the current single and aggregate bonding capacity for the KC-46A Aircraft Beddown Infrastructure Program at Altus AFB, OK.

SECTION 4: EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 BASIS OF EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the SOQs of Design-Build Teams that meet the Factor 4 bonding-capacity gate using a qualifications-based, weighted qualitative approach. The evaluation is intended to identify the Design- Build Team(s) best suited to partner with the Government to further develop project scope, technical solution, and agreement terms during subsequent phases. Price is not an SOQ evaluation factor.

4.1.1 Weighted Factors

Factor Title Importance

Factor 1 Past Performance and Team Composition Most Important Factor

Factor 2 Design-Build Process & Technical Approach 2nd Most Important Factor

Factor 3 Partnership & Collaborative Chemistry 3rd Most Important Factor

Factor 4 Bonding and Legal Capacity Pass / Fail

4.1.2 Qualitative Confidence Ratings

A qualitative confidence-rating system evaluates submissions based on the evaluation board’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully execute the program within budget and schedule. This approach relies on narrative evaluations to identify true technical discriminators and collaborative fit:

Rating Definition

High Confidence The Government has outstanding confidence in the Offeror’s capability due to highly advantageous strengths and an absence of weaknesses.

Significant Confidence The Government has strong confidence in the Offeror’s capability; strengths significantly outweigh any minor weaknesses.

Satisfactory Confidence The Government has adequate confidence in the Offeror’s capability; strengths and weaknesses are balanced, and weaknesses can be easily mitigated.

Low Confidence The Government has low to no confidence in the Offeror’s capability due to weaknesses outweighing strengths or due to severe deficiencies, presenting significant risk.

4.2 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE AND TEAM COMPOSITION

The Government will evaluate:

• Past performance on relevant projects of comparable size and complexity, with preference for designed and constructed aviation facilities such as hangars or projects demonstrated to be of a similar magnitude and complexity. Evidence of successful execution of similar collaborative delivery methods (PDB, CMAR, or IPD). Sources include CPARS where available, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), or equivalent commercial owner evaluations, and active reference checks submitted in SOQ.

• The Key Personnel and organizational structure proposed to manage a program of this size, complexity, and technical scope. Demonstrated experience in the proposed roles and a history of success with identified individuals and teaming partners will be given greater consideration.

4.3 Factor 2: Design-Build Process & Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate:

• Open-book estimate cost-validation strategy — clarity, transparency, and feasibility of the method for sharing subcontractor quotes, labor-productivity factors, material-price volatility risk pools, and risk-based pricing. Consideration will be given to any demonstration of recent and relevant success with past projects. Compatibility with commercial CSI MasterFormat Schedule of Values.

• Design and Constructability Integration - the process for integrating Schematic Design, Design Development, Pre-Negotiation Backcheck, and Post-Negotiation Verification of plans and specifications as biddable and constructable without creating unnecessary delays to the project schedule. Subcontractor sourcing and labor management - a credible methodology for identifying, securing, and integrating as applicable any major trade partners (concrete, structural steel, mechanical, specialized electrical) in the semi-remote Altus market.

• Execution Strategy and Risk Identification - the conceptual approach demonstrating the understanding of program requirements, risk identification and mitigation strategies, and any innovative approaches to creating efficiencies while meeting quality objectives under specific time-constraints. Specific discussion of MILCON construction funds to be appropriated in Fiscal Year 28 for the execution of Phase 2 Services and the ability to deliver on-time and on-budget.

4.4 Factor 3: Partnership & Collaborative Chemistry

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s documented history and stated operating philosophy for non-adversarial, commercial-style collaboration. Objective indicators include:

• Specific examples (project name, owner, contract type, value, outcome) of prior PDB, IPD, or other high-collaboration contracts in which the Offeror resolved design / constructability issues without formal claims or unilateral change orders.

• Evidence of shared risk/reward structures, open-book cost transparency, or joint decision-making protocols used on those projects.

• Proposed project-specific protocols for real-time information sharing (CDE rules, co-location expectations, decision logs) that prioritize early horizontal resolution of issues that could impact schedule, cost, or quality.

4.5 Factor 4 - Bonding Capacity

Bonding capacity will be reviewed on a pass/fail basis. The Design-Builder shall demonstrate single project capacity of at least $300 million as well as the aggregate bonding capacity evidenced by a letter from a Treasury-listed surety. Submissions that do not demonstrate the required bonding capacity will be disqualified from further consideration.

4.6 Basis for Down-Select

Based on SOQ evaluations, the Government will down-select to a short list of up to three (3) of the most highly qualified firms. Short-listed firms will be invited to structured Pitch Presentations. A draft Scope of Services, draft Division 01 specification, proposed Agreement Articles, and early concept designs will be issued to the short-listed firms. Named key personnel identified in Factor 1 should attend the Pitch Presentation. Following Pitch Presentations, the Government will select the single most highly qualified firm to enter bilateral negotiations for the Phase 1 OT Agreement.

Greater consideration may be given to Design Build Partner(s) demonstrating:

• A corporate history of successful project execution.

• Proven success in PDB or other delivery models that demonstrate early collaborative involvement with Government or requirements owner.

• Ability to identify the unique challenges on complex projects and the associated solution(s) that overcame those challenges.

• Project management teams that have worked together on prior successful design build projects.

• Prime contractor and designer teams that demonstrate relevant and successful projects working together utilizing alternative delivery methods.

Upon completion of evaluation, the Government intends to conduct a comparative evaluation of all submissions to invite a target of three (3) of the most highly qualified Design Build Team(s) to the Pitch Presentations. Comparative analysis will consider the merits demonstrated by each Design Build Team.

The Government may seek clarifications or engage in communication(s) with one or more respondents.

The Government reserves the right to engage with any number of respondents as many times as it determines necessary to understand the respondent’s response.

The Government reserves the right to modify the evaluation approach as necessary, consider additional information obtained through this process, and/or select none, one, some, or all Design-Build Team(s) for Pitch Presentations.

SECTION 5: COMMUNICATIONS

All communications shall be directed at the Agreements Officer (AO). The Government will provide all design builders with notification whether they were selected for Pitch Presentations.

SECTION 6: FINAL COMPLIANCE CHECK

Before submission, confirm:

• All required sections included

• Page limit not exceeded

• Format compliance

• Organizational chart included

• References provided

• Submission instructions followed

Compliance: Your Statement of Qualifications must address all requirements outlined in this attachment.

Incomplete submissions may be deemed non-conforming and disqualified from further consideration.

***END OF ATTACHMENT 1***