DRAFT Attachment 1 - KC-46A Aircraft Beddown Infrastructure Program Request for Qualifications.docx

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 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, collaborative evaluation process. The evaluation is intended to identify the Design-Build Team(s) best suited 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, applicable federal laws and requirements, including fiscal law requirements and required laws governing construction of public facilities.

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 advantageous 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 must 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 12-pages, allocated as follows: Factor 1 — five (5) pages; Factor 2 — four (4) pages; Factor 3 — three (3) pages. Title sheet, letter from the bonding company agent, formal teaming agreements, CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires or equivalent commercial owner evaluations, OSHA 300A logs, and insurance EMR letters 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 is recommended. 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

· 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).

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

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

· 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).

· 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 GAM activate your account.

· 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

· 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/

· 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 48 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

· 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 volume (not to exceed five (5) pages, excluding the items listed in § 3.1). Address all five 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 with the SOQ or, if not yet executed, 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.

1. Project name and location.

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

1. Final contract value and delivery method.

1. 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, specialized industrial systems, or SCIF / ICD 705 work, as applicable); the Design-Builder’s (or associated team member’s) role; and evidence of successful collaboration and integration.

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

1. 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 the past-performance matrix submitted in the SOQ.

3. Key Personnel.

Identify by name the specific individuals who will execute the Altus program in the required roles below. Provide a resume-focused profile of each individual’s experience and qualifications as they relate to that role on this program — not a marketing biography. Additional roles may be shown on the organizational chart; do not name personnel other than those required. These named individuals shall attend and actively lead the Step 2 Pitch Presentation. Corporate business-development representatives may not substitute.

1. Design-Build Project Principal (Project Executive / Project Director or equivalent) -proven experience leading two-phase collaborative projects (PDB, CMAR, or IPD) exceeding $100 million, with the ability to operate under non-FAR, commercially aligned parameters.

1. Lead Hangar / Simulator Designer (A/E Lead) - registered professional (RA or PE) with technical expertise in clear-span structures, corrosion-control air handling, explosion-proof systems, and SCIF-standard ICD 705 secure-facility acoustic and network design.

1. Construction Superintendent - field experience managing vertical industrial and heavy-civil projects in semi-remote regions, with a track record of importing, housing, and scheduling skilled trade labor.

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

1. Corporate entities and associated leaders (by name) supporting the program.

1. Required roles (by name) in relation to the underlying corporate structure.

1. Lines of authority, responsibility, and communication.

1. The relationship among the Prime Design-Builder, 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 of Factor 1.

4. Corporate Safety Track Record and Operational Airfield Planning.

Because construction will take place directly adjacent to active runways and taxiways at Altus AFB, address all of the following:

· Corporate safety metrics for the past three calendar years, including Experience Modification Rate (EMR) and OSHA Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate. Append insurance EMR letters and historical OSHA 300A logs (excluded from the page count).

· A draft Corporate Airfield Safety and FOD Containment Plan addressing Foreign Object Debris (FOD) mitigation, airfield height limitations, crane safety lighting, taxiway security clearances, and physical dust / debris containment in proximity to active military aircraft engines.

· Evidence of familiarity and past success implementing the USACE Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM 385-1-1) under fast-track timelines.

· 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 measurable three-year safety record; a credible, site-specific approach to construction adjacent to an active airfield; and a prime–designer pairing 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 written PDB Project Management and Budget Validation Plan (not to exceed four (4) pages). The Plan is the Design-Build Team’s functional and commercial roadmap for this program. Address all four elements below and demonstrate, with past project evidence, how the same approaches were implemented successfully. Narrative that restates the requirement without showing how the team will execute it will receive limited credit.

1. Open-Book Cost Validation Strategy.

Describe the method for sharing subcontractor quotes, labor-productivity factors, material-price volatility risk pools, and structural contingency usage 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).

2. Design Maturity Gates (BCOES Alignment).

Describe the process for integrating the mandatory USACE BCOES reviews - Schematic Design, Design Development, Pre-Negotiation Backcheck, and Post-Negotiation Verification - without stalling the collaborative fast-track timeline. Identify who owns each gate, 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 how 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 real buyout, not allowances.

4. Technical De-risking and Relocation Sequencing.

Describe the conceptual approach to resolving the program’s specialized technical constraints during Phase 1, before construction price is locked. At a minimum address:

1. Specialized fuel-cell drainage - Ignitable Liquid Drainage Floor Assemblies (ILDFA).

1. Corrosion-control (paint booth) air handling, explosion-proof electrical systems, and dedicated hazardous-waste collection.

1. Physical demolition and relocation sequencing of the existing Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Plant to a new, secure, oil-free concrete-paved site.

1. Long-lead mechanical and electrical equipment (electrical switchgear, transformers, fire pumps, large air handlers, and hangar doors) currently experiencing fabrication timelines of 40 to 50 weeks, and the Phase 1 early-procurement actions that will protect the construction notice-to-proceed.

1. Active-airfield phasing, height limitations, and taxiway tie-ins that cannot disrupt student-pilot training operations.

1. SCIF-standard ICD 705 briefing and classroom spaces and specialized HVAC for simulator computer rooms in the Simulator Facility Phase 4 expansion.

· Expectation: Responses demonstrate a feasible, transparent, commercially mature PDB process capable of holding the $304 million affordability limit and the 1,125-calendar-day program duration. Credit is given for specific open-book tools and formats, named BCOES integration points, a credible Altus labor and trade-buyout plan, and technically literate de-risking of ILDFA, corrosion-control ventilation, LOX relocation, long-lead equipment, and airfield constraints. Generic design-build process descriptions, uncosted innovation claims, and plans that defer specialized-systems definition past GMP negotiation will not support a High or Significant Confidence rating.

3.3.3. FACTOR 3: PARTNERSHP & COLLABORATIVE CHEMISTRY

· Instructions: Submit a Factor 3 volume (not to exceed three (3) pages) addressing all four 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. Culture and Operating Philosophy.

Provide a narrative of the Design-Build Team’s non-adversarial, commercial-style collaboration philosophy. Correlate that philosophy to actions actually taken on the projects cited in Factor 1 (or additional projects cited here). State the team’s definition of successful program execution. Describe the corporate approach used to partner with Owners and industry, and the approaches enacted on prior projects to facilitate issue resolution and the corresponding outcomes.

2. 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.

3. 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 over positional bargaining. Describe how the Government team (Agreements Officer’s Representative, Project Manager, 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.

4. Issue Resolution Ladder.

Provide a written ladder that identifies decision authorities and time limits at each level, beginning with the Project Engineer / Site Superintendent pair. Explicitly describe how constructability and design clashes will be resolved at the lowest practical level before elevation. Identify the named individuals who will hold those roles on this program and their demonstrated experience exercising similar authority on prior projects. The ladder submitted in the SOQ is the ladder the Government will expect to see applied, in real time, during the Step 2 Interactive Workshop.

· Expectation: Evidence of mature, documented, claims-light collaboration and a specific, named, time-boxed issue-resolution framework. The Government is looking for a unified design-builder - not a hierarchical prime-sub relationship. Paper claims of partnership without project-specific proof, an operable ladder with named authorities, and a program-specific CDE / co-location protocol will not support a High or Significant Confidence rating. Short-listed teams should expect this factor to be tested, not re-read, at Pitch.

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

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

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.

4.1.2 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:

4.2 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE, TEAM COMPOSITION, AND SAFETY

The Government will evaluate:

· Past performance on projects of comparable size and complexity, with preference for recently (within the last 7 years) designed and constructed aviation facilities such as hangars, and evidence of successful execution of similar collaborative two-phase delivery methods (PDB, CMAR, or IPD). Sources include CPARS where available, equivalent commercial owner evaluations, active reference checks, and the past-performance matrix submitted in the SOQ.

· The specific named individuals who will execute the Altus program - Design-Build Project Principal, Lead Hangar / Simulator Designer (A/E Lead), and Construction Superintendent - against the experience thresholds stated in § 3.3.2, together with the organizational structure proposed to manage a program of this size, complexity, and technical scope.

· Corporate safety track record (EMR and DART for the past three calendar years) and operational airfield planning, including FOD mitigation, height limitations, crane safety lighting, taxiway security clearances, dust/debris containment adjacent to military aircraft engines, and demonstrated EM 385-1-1 implementation under fast-track timelines.

· Teaming history and synergy between the proposed prime entity and lead designer on past completed projects.

4.3 Factor 2: Design-Build Process & Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate:

· Open-book cost-validation strategy — clarity, transparency, and feasibility of the method for sharing subcontractor quotes, labor-productivity factors, material-price volatility risk pools, and structural contingency usage.

· Design maturity gates (BCOES alignment) - the process for integrating Schematic Design, Design Development, Pre-Negotiation Backcheck, and Post-Negotiation Verification without stalling the fast-track timeline, and compatibility with a commercial CSI MasterFormat SOV.

· Subcontractor sourcing and labor management - a credible methodology for identifying, securing, and maintaining major trade partners (concrete, structural steel, mechanical, specialized electrical) in the semi-remote Altus market.

· Technical de-risking and relocation sequencing - the conceptual approach to specialized fuel-cell drainage (ILDFA), paint-booth air handling, and the physical demolition and relocation sequencing of the LOX Plant, together with long-lead MEP and active-airfield constraints.

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 over positional bargaining.

· A written Issue Resolution Ladder identifying decision authorities and time limits at each level, beginning with the Project Engineer / Site Superintendent pair; how constructability and design clashes will be resolved at the lowest practical level; and the named individuals who will hold those roles, with demonstrated experience exercising similar authority.

4.5 Factor 4 - Bonding Capacity

Bonding capacity will be reviewed on a pass/fail basis. The Design-Builder shall have at least a $304 million 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 shall attend and actively lead 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 respondent. 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***