DRAFT_Nellis_F47_MACH1_AOI_21OCT26_V5.docx

DRAFT MACH1 AREA OF INTEREST (AOI)

F-47 Future Campus at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB)

Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCES) Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada

PREPARED FOR:

772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS)

AOI Notice ID: [772 ESS/PKA to assign] MACH1 Umbrella Program Notice ID: FA8903-OT-MACH1

PREPARATION DATE:

October 22, 2026

Table of Contents

List of Tables

PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DELIVERY PHILOSOPHY

Program Overview and Objective The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) is undertaking the Nellis F-47 Future Campus at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, to deliver the facilities and infrastructure needed to support the F-47 mission. The approximately $1.057 billion total programmed project request includes construction, contingency, design, construction security, and other applicable project costs; it is not solely the construction budget.

The Air Force seeks the best possible value for the money entrusted to it and exceptional MILCON capabilities for its warfighters. AFCEC seeks a Progressive Design Build (PDB) vendor partner(s) that shares a commitment to maximizing mission capability, technical performance, quality, durability, and timely delivery while avoiding unnecessary costs. The current AOI contemplates initial award for the Rapid Delivery Projects under Milestones 2 through 4 only.

The Challenge with Conventional Military Construction Delivery Traditional competitive firm-fixed-price (FFP) Design-Build acquisitions often require construction pricing before significant design uncertainties have been resolved. Highly developed bridging documents can reduce uncertainty while limiting industry flexibility to offer more economical technical solutions. Underdeveloped bridging documents may force vendors to price speculative scope and schedule risks. Competitive pressure can favor either substantial contingency allowances or optimistic interpretations of unresolved requirements, potentially resulting in higher initial prices, disputes, and change orders. Neither approach reliably produces the lowest reasonable and achievable final price or a trusting delivery relationship.

Prescriptive requirements and administrative burdens can further increase construction costs. AFCEC believes improving MILCON value requires reconsidering both when prices are established and how the Government and construction industry collaborate.

A Different Approach to Military Construction Using 10 U.S.C. § 2808a and the MACH1 framework, AFCEC seeks to select a PDB vendor team utilizing a PDB model primarily on commercially relevant qualifications, execution capability, and demonstrated commercial market strength. The Government, its Owner’s Advisor (OA), and the selected team will advance design and construction solutions collaboratively, validate competitive market pricing, and negotiate construction commitments as scope and risk mature.

The objective is the best achievable mission value at a competitive, fair, and reasonable construction price, with commercially appropriate risk allocation and reasonable vendor profitability. The OA will provide extensive practical owner-side technical and commercial management support, while authorized Government officials retain inherently governmental decisions, evaluations, and approvals.

The Progressive Design-Build Delivery Model The PDB model begins design and preconstruction directly following completion of the Planning Charrette Reports (PCRs), which establish the initial mission requirements and planning basis. The selected team(s) will have a meaningful design period to consider alternative campus planning, facility space utilization, facility systems, industrialized construction, materials, Agreement approaches, and construction solutions before construction pricing is fixed, limited by the authorized facility gross square footage.

The Government anticipates negotiating FFP construction-phase authorizations at approximately 65% design completion, subject to fair-and-reasonable price validation and appropriate scope and risk maturity. The 65% target is not an inflexible requirement that every facility or construction package reach the same design percentage at the same time. Separate advanced design packages, early mobilization, authorized site preparation, and long-lead procurement may proceed when justified and separately authorized.

The initial PDB Agreement may contemplate Milestone 5 and subsequent program work within its authorized scope, but award or authorization of any such work is entirely discretionary and is not guaranteed by the initial selection. The Government will retain rights to all design work produced under Milestone 2 with the right to furnish that work to successor designers and constructors for completion of the program, as implemented in the Agreement.

What the Government Is Prepared to Do Differently AFCEC recognizes that Government requirements, administrative procedures, and execution practices directly affect construction cost, schedule, and vendor productivity. AFCEC is prepared to reconsider established methods where doing so improves mission value and reduces risk for both parties. Among contemplated measures are:

· Potential incentives for construction cost-reduction objectives;

· Collaborative evaluation and negotiation of construction periods of performance (PoPs) based on cost-schedule tradeoffs;

· Reconsideration and negotiation of UFGS Division 01 specifications and administrative requirements;

· Streamlining of submittal Quality Assurance (QA) review level of effort and These are examples, not an exhaustive list. AFCEC is also willing to consider alternative design criteria, construction methods, Agreement strategies, risk allocations, and commercial approaches. The Government intends to listen to its partner and to reduce unnecessary review cycles, duplicated records, and administrative burdens where effective oversight can be preserved. AFCEC recognizes that vendor commercial success and reasonable profit are important to sustainable program success.

What the Government Seeks in Its Selected Progressive Design-Build Partner The facilities will support the F-47 Aircraft system undergoing concurrent technological development. Mission systems, operational concepts, and technical requirements may evolve as facility design and construction advance. Some facilities will be affected more than others; change and downstream consequences are foreseeable. AFCEC does not intend to conceal or minimize these challenges but instead seeks a dynamic, technically capable, commercially disciplined, committed partner that anticipates downstream impacts, brings emerging risks forward early, recommends practical alternatives, and remains engaged as mission decisions evolve. AFCEC will seek to make timely decisions and to address Government-directed changes and their cost and schedule consequences fairly through the Agreement. The selected team should share AFCEC’s commitment to delivering the facilities and capabilities the F-47 aircraft demands.

Government Owner's Advisor Participation and Collaborative Execution AFCEC has retained an Owner's Advisor (OA) to provide substantial owner-side program management, design management, construction management, technical assurance, commercial analysis, and execution support throughout the Nellis F-47 Future Campus.

The Government envisions a close working relationship among AFCEC, its OA, and the selected PDB partner, with all three organizations contributing their expertise toward common mission and performance objectives. The OA will operate as an integrated extension of the AFCEC team, performing extensive practical owner-side management while preserving the authorities and responsibilities that must remain with authorized Government officials.

The Government intends for the OA and selected PDB partner to work directly and collaboratively, rather than relying upon conventional layers of correspondence, administrative reviews, and sequential Government coordination. AFCEC expects its OA and selected PDB partner to maintain open communication, identify emerging risks early, and develop coordinated recommendations that allow Government officials to make informed decisions efficiently.

Each organization will retain its respective responsibilities and authorities. The OA will provide recommendations and decision support, while authorized Government officials retain responsibility for approvals, binding commitments, Agreement modifications, and inherently governmental determinations.

AFCEC seeks a unified program team in which the Government, its Owner's Advisor, and the PDB vendor work toward shared mission objectives, challenge unnecessary cost and delay, and remain mutually committed to successful program delivery.

PROGRAM SCOPE, FACILITIES, AND MILESTONES

Scope and Initial Award The full Nellis F-47 Campus includes aircraft hangars, specialized laboratories, simulator and training facilities, airfield pavements, maintenance facilities, personnel support facilities, and associated utilities. The current AOI seeks initial PDB award for the four (4) Rapid Delivery Projects and their supporting utilities. The Remainder Program is described to provide context for overall campus planning and potential future capability, without guaranteeing subsequent authorization.

Anticipated Program Milestones Table 2‑1 - Anticipated Milestones

5 March 2031

selection not guaranteed

selection not guaranteed

selection not guaranteed

Milestones may overlap. Authorized early work and long-lead procurement may occur during Milestone 2. Milestone 5 and later services are not part of the guaranteed initial award and remain subject to Government discretion and applicable Agreement provisions.

Rapid Delivery Projects Combined Operations and Maintenance Hangar (COMH) Approximate size: 116,745 SF. Flightline operations and maintenance facility integrating aircraft accommodation, technical support spaces, mission systems, and apron interfaces.

Reprogramming Lab Approximate size: 39,200 GSF. Specialized mission laboratory with substantial computing, C4IT, secure technical spaces, power, cooling, and mission-system interfaces. The secure facility provides administration space, a briefing room, conference rooms, server rooms, labs support space, storage, generator and ancillary spaces. Supporting pavements will include POV parking, access drive and walkways.

Simulator Facility Approximate size: 40,903 SF. Aircraft simulation and training facility integrating simulator equipment, communications, computing, building systems, and security requirements.

Aircraft Apron with Sunshades Approximate size: 1,153,539 SF. Military airfield pavement, aircraft parking and movement, sunshades, drainage, utilities, and flightline interfaces. The area will be configured for the overall apron, trim pad, access to COMH, access toways to WLT and washrack, AGE readyline.

Supporting Utilities and Infrastructure Approximate size: To be determined. Electrical, communications, water, wastewater, roads, drainage, access, and other infrastructure required for permanent operation of the Rapid Delivery facilities.

Remainder Program (Potential Subsequent Work) Fuel Cell Hangar Approximate size: 17,871 GSF. Aircraft fuel-system maintenance with ventilation, fire protection, hazardous-operations controls, and aircraft access. The facility is sized to accommodate spaces for fuel maintenance operation areas, including an aircraft fuel hanger for one aircraft, a tool crib, equipment storage, HAZMAT storage, PPE, and locker rooms and restrooms. Two exterior covered mechanical yards and supporting pavement for POV and GOV parking and access drive and walkways.

Low Observable Corrosion Control Hangar Approximate size: 35,050 GSF. Specialized aircraft corrosion and low-observable maintenance, environmental controls, ventilation, and maintenance systems. The LOCRF is sized to accommodate spaces for corrosion treating, corrosion repairing, paint stripping, and repainting. A 7,200 GSF aircraft washrack and 775 GSF AGE washrack and 514 GSF washrack support building. Supporting pavements for POV parking and access with drive and walkways.

Weapons Load Training Hangar Approximate size: 22,400 GSF. Aircraft weapons-loading training, technical equipment, operational clearances, and safety requirements. The facility is sized to accommodate a hangar bay for live aircraft or aircraft trainer space, storage of training aids and equipment, tool kits, offices and classrooms. Supporting pavements will include POV parking, access drive and walkways.

Consolidated Maintenance Facility Approximate size: 22,246 GSF. Maintenance shops, technical support functions, equipment, material handling, and building services. The facility is sized to accommodate spare engines storage with driv-through-capability, classified secure storage, open-bay warehouse space, non-destructive inspection functions and various other storage. A covered mechanical yard and supporting pavements for POV parking and access drive and walkways.

Maintenance Training Facility Approximate size: 17,741 GSF. Classroom and practical aircraft-maintenance training with technical equipment and supporting systems. The facility is sized to support classroom spaces, instructor-led training, self-paced study via interactive workstations, and open-bay training area for trainers, training aids, operational equipment and training equipment, administrative and personnel support spaces. Supporting pavements for POV parking and access drive and walkways.

Flightline Satellite Dining Facility Approximate size: 4,710 GSF. Food preparation, service, sanitation, utilities, and personnel support near flightline operations. Sized to support accessible food and includes space to prepare and serve meals, storage space, seating area, building support spaces, a loading dock, outdoor mechanical yard and outdoor seating area. Supporting pavement for POV parking and access drive and walkways.

Technical and Security Requirements All building projects shall be assessed for applicability of ICD-705 and related secure-space requirements. Specific accredited boundaries and technical requirements will be determined by authorized Government security officials; airfield pavement and general site infrastructure are not themselves accredited SCIF spaces. Requirements may include SCIF/SAP construction, RF shielding, TEMPEST considerations, electronic security systems, secure C4IT, resilient infrastructure, and applicable UFC and building standards.

2.6 Location

The primary development is anticipated on the east side of Nellis AFB; certain facilities are located elsewhere on the installation. The Government is considering a construction Free Zone to improve workforce access, material deliveries, staging, and production efficiency, subject to installation security approvals. The PDB partner will coordinate multiple concurrent facilities and infrastructure systems.

Construction Packaging and Program Evolution The Government may consider advanced design packages, separately authorized early work, long-lead procurement, and differentiated construction-release packages. PCRs and existing program information form the initial planning basis, and mission-system requirements may evolve during design and construction. The Government and OA will coordinate owner-side decisions; the PDB partner remains responsible for its design, construction means and methods, and vendor quality control.

Government-Furnished Project Management Information System (PMIS) The Government has selected Kahua as the Project Management Information System (PMIS) for the Nellis F-47 Future Campus.

The selected PDB partner and its participating design and construction organizations shall use the Government-designated Kahua environment for applicable project management, design coordination, document control, submittals, requests for information, construction administration, and other workflows established for the program.

The Government's Owner's Advisor (OA) will support Kahua implementation, configuration, training, user coordination, and ongoing process improvements in collaboration with the PDB partner team.

The Government intends to adapt Kahua workflows and administrative procedures throughout program execution to improve efficiency, reduce duplicative documentation, accelerate reviews, and maintain reliable project records.

The PDB vendor shall cooperate in developing and implementing these procedures and shall ensure that its participating organizations use the designated system for required program activities.

All use of Kahua to process, store, or transmit Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) shall occur within an appropriately authorized or compliant environment meeting applicable Government cybersecurity requirements.

Authority and Phases This AOI is issued under MACH1 Umbrella Program Notice FA8903-OT-MACH1 and 10 U.S.C. § 2808a. Phase 1 is the Solution Brief; Phase 2 is the finalist oral presentation/pitch; Phase 3 is Submission development and direct negotiations. No Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price package is requested in Phase 1 or 2. Detailed Phase 2 instructions will be provided only to invited respondents.

Preferred Selection The Government strongly prefers one team capable of delivering all Rapid Delivery Projects and values additional capacity to undertake the Remainder Program, but reserves the right to select up to four (4) teams for Rapid Delivery and more for the Remainder Program where advantageous.

Organizational complexity is not inherently unfavorable, and actual performing firms shall be identified.

Communications and Reservations All communications shall be directed through the Agreements Officer at 772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil. Only authorized Government officials may modify AOI terms or make binding commitments. The Government may amend or cancel the AOI, request supplemental information, limit advancement, or make no award consistent with MACH1 and applicable authority.

ELIGIBILITY AND PHASE 1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Eligibility The Government seeks qualified Progressive Design Build (PDB) vendor teams using a PDB model with the technical expertise, construction capacity, regional market capabilities, and organizational resources necessary to deliver the F-47 Operational Test Facilities at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Respondents may propose individual firms, joint ventures, or other teaming arrangements that combine the qualifications and resources necessary to execute the program. The Government welcomes both federal and commercial construction experience and encourages teaming arrangements that bring together complementary capabilities.

The Government finds commercial merit in federal design qualifications demonstrating expertise in the specific facility types and technical criteria applicable to construction on Air Force installations, including Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and other applicable Department of War design requirements. The Government also values commercial design experience involving alternative construction systems, industrialized construction methods, and commercial facilities and infrastructure serving functions comparable to the buildings, utilities, and airfield facilities planned for this program. Successful teams will demonstrate the combined capabilities to deliver compliant federal facilities while identifying and developing technically sound, commercially proven alternatives. These qualifications may reside among multiple design firms, specialty consultants, manufacturers, or other participating technical resources. The Government does not require all such expertise to reside within a single design organization.

The Government anticipates awarding to one to four PDB teams, depending on the demonstrated qualifications and execution capacity of the respondents. Awarding multiple projects to a single PDB team, or distributing them among fewer teams, will require commercial merit that each selected team can adequately resource concurrent design activities during Milestone 2 and construction activities during Milestone 3 without compromising the program execution schedule. The Government does not prescribe particular teaming relationships, design organizations, or staffing models. However, corporate size, aggregate employee counts, and general statements of available resources are insufficient demonstrations of execution capacity. Respondents must present a credible, project-specific execution and resourcing plan demonstrating how their proposed organizations will staff, manage, and simultaneously execute the projects for which they seek consideration. The Government will place particular value on substantiated resource availability, clearly defined execution responsibilities, and demonstrated capacity to maintain the required schedule across multiple complex military construction projects..

Cybersecurity and Other Eligibility Requirements Performance of this requirement may require the selected participant and its subcontractors to process, store, transmit, handle, or disseminate Federal Contract Information (FCI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), including sensitive project documentation. The Government anticipates a minimum CMMC Level 1 (Self-Assessment) requirement for vendor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI. Level 1 applies only to FCI-only environments and cannot satisfy the CUI design-production requirement. If performance requires handling of CUI, the Government will identify the applicable CMMC level and CUI safeguarding, dissemination, incident-reporting, and flowdown requirements in the AOI and resulting Other Transaction Agreement. Any CUI will be handled in accordance with applicable requirements, including 32 CFR Part 2002, DoDI 5200.48, and 32 CFR Part 170.

For purposes of this acquisition, the Government anticipates that all facility designs and associated technical documentation will be designated Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Accordingly, the proposed PDB team must demonstrate that all participating A-E design firms and specialty consultants that will receive, process, store, transmit, or manage CUI have the capability to perform their assigned work within an information environment compliant with CMMC Level 2 cybersecurity requirements.

Respondents may demonstrate compliance through the individual cybersecurity capabilities of each participating firm or through a shared CMMC Level 2-compliant information environment that securely accommodates all participating design organizations. Where a shared environment is proposed, the respondent shall explain how each firm will access, develop, exchange, and manage CUI within that environment without transferring CUI to noncompliant systems.

The Solution Brief shall identify each proposed A-E firm, its anticipated CUI-handling responsibilities, its current CMMC Level 2 compliance status, and any shared systems or alternative arrangements proposed to satisfy this requirement. Third-party CMMC certification is not required; an applicable Level 2 self-assessment is acceptable.

This capability must be demonstrated during Phase 1, prior to down-selection, and must be fully operational no later than the issuance of Phase 2 Oral Presentation / Pitch invitations. At the time of invitation, selected respondents shall submit documentation demonstrating CMMC Level 2 compliance for all proposed A-E firms and specialty consultants that will handle CUI, or documentation establishing that those firms will perform their work entirely within an appropriately compliant shared environment.

The Government will provide a substantial package of technical information to selected Phase 2 respondents for preparation of their oral presentations. Submission and Government verification of the required cybersecurity compliance documentation shall be a condition of receiving this information. Respondents unable to demonstrate the required operational capability will not be provided access to the controlled technical package until the Government determines that the applicable requirements have been satisfied.

Phase 1 Submission Instructions Respondents shall use the exact headings and order below. Each page means one printed side; a double-sided sheet counts as two pages. Each technical factor has an independent page maximum, and unused pages may not be transferred. The Government will only evaluate the factor based on the data presented in that narrative section and will not seek addition data in other sections. Government review will not credit factor information located in another numbered narrative section. All information intended to be evaluated in a technical factor or appendix must be located within that section; however, Appendices will support the corresponding narrative factors.

Table 4‑1 - Submission Instructions

Formatting:

Submit one searchable PDF with bookmarks for the cover, executive summary, each numbered section, and each appendix. Use Arial at least 11 points and margins of at least 0.5 inch. With the exception of the required team organization chart, there will be no negative evaluation consideration for submissions prepared without images, graphics, advanced formatting, or professional submission design services. The Government places substantially greater value on the meaning, credibility, and supporting evidence of the written responses than on their visual presentation. Respondents are encouraged to devote their available time to developing substantive, project-specific responses rather than elaborate submission graphics or formatting.

Cover Sheet:

Identify legal respondent, SAM UEI, AOI identifier, point of contact, address, contact information, and any MACH1 Solutions Repository opt-out. Executive Summary: Summarize the team and delivery concept, and any other considerations the respondent wishes the Government to evaluate. Solution Briefs may be retained in the MACH1 Solutions Repository for 12 months unless the respondent opts out on the cover.

· Submission deadline: 18 November 2026 at 2100 PST to 772ESS.PKA.MACH1@us.af.mil.

· Planned AOI release: 30 October 2026.

· Questions: Questions received by 4 November are planned to receive responses by 6 November. Questions will not be accepted after 10 November 1700 PST and final responses are planned for 12 November.

· Classification: All Phase 1 submissions must be unclassified.

The Government has retained an Owner's Advisor (OA) to support AFCEC in the acquisition, evaluation, design management, construction management, and execution of the Nellis F-47 Operational Test Facilities Program. The OA will participate directly in the evaluation of submissions and subsequent program execution under AFCEC supervision. Submission of a response to this AOI constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of the OA's participation and confirms that the respondent has no objection to working directly with the OA throughout program execution.

The OA may review proprietary technical and commercial submissions in accordance with applicable confidentiality and organizational conflict-of-interest protections. The OA will perform its assigned responsibilities under Government oversight, with all evaluation decisions, approvals, and inherently governmental authorities retained by authorized Government officials.

All pages submitted in response to this AOI will be reviewed by human evaluators.

Qualification Appendices Appendix A - Organization Chart Provide one 11 x 17 inch chart identifying the prime, JV members, all Principal Construction Execution Firms, construction and management responsibilities, principal A-E firms, assigned facilities, and design disciplines. Identify subcontracting tiers and reporting relationships.

Appendix B - Construction Project Qualification Sheets Each prime vender, prime JV member, and Principal Construction Execution Firm may submit up to three (3) one-page construction project sheets per company, 1 project per page, with no minimum.

Recency: ALL submitted Construction project sheets must document 100% completed construction within the last five (5) years. Construction completion within five (5) years of AOI response submission data will be considered to have commercial merit as demonstration; however, older completed designs may also have commercial merit.

ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION SHEETS FOR AIRFIELD PAVING VENDOR: the identified actual military airfield pavement construction vendor (or subcontractor) shall submit up to three (3) completed airfield pavement construction project sheets, regardless of subcontract tier; these do not count within that company’s three-sheet limit if proposing as a prime or principal construction execution firm for scope other than airfield pavement.

RF shielding and SCIF ESS specialty firms do not require any submitted project qualification sheets unless they independently qualify as Principal Construction Execution Firms. Vendors may reference or summarize any number of additional projects within their applicable narrative page limits.

Each project qualification sheet shall identify:

· Project Identification: Project title, location, and owner.

· Project Owner and Reference: Owner or client organization, knowledgeable owner representative, and telephone number.

· Completion Dates: Year of construction completion or, for ongoing projects, current status and anticipated completion.

· Project Description: Principal facility functions, construction scope, approximate project size and value, and other description of commercial merit as technical or execution characteristics.

· Performing Organization and Role: The actual construction firm performing the work, its vendor team role, and the construction management, subcontract procurement, field supervision, or self-performance responsibilities it exercised.

· Relevance to the Nellis Program: Explanation of how the project demonstrates qualifications with commercial merit similar to the firm's proposed responsibilities, including comparable construction scale, complexity, concurrent execution, or Southern Nevada market experience, as applicable.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the actual proposed performing organizations. Federal and commercial construction experience may both have commercial merit, but the Government blends teams that leverage a complete portfolio of both. For instance, design of commercial hangars of similar size and complexity at competitive commercial prices has commercial merit, but projects describing design of an Air Force hangar to DoW design standards also has commercial merit. The Government intends to take a holistic look at the commercial viability of the approach, rather than take a quantitative evaluation of qualifications. Vendors may choose to blend traditional defense qualifications evidence with commercial qualifications evidence. Project qualification sheets are not required for construction subcontractors unless a firm will also perform Principal Construction Execution Firm responsibilities as defined above.

Appendix C - A-E Project Qualification Sheets Each proposed A-E firm may submit a maximum of three (3) one-page project qualification sheets, 1 project per page; no minimum. Each firm shall identify its proposed role (lead designer, Designer of Record, specialty consultant, etc.), assigned Nellis facilities, and proposed design disciplines.

Each project qualification sheet shall contain the following information:

· Project Identification: Project reference number, project title, and location (city and state).

· Completion Dates: Year of completion of professional design services and year of construction completion, if applicable. For ongoing projects, identify the current status and anticipated completion dates.

· Project Owner and Reference: Owner or client organization, name of a knowledgeable owner representative, and telephone number.

· Project Description: Brief description of the facility or infrastructure, including its principal functions, scope, size, construction value, major technical features, and specialized design requirements.

· Relevance to the Nellis Program: Explanation of how the project demonstrates qualifications directly commercially relevant to the facilities or technical disciplines the firm is proposed to design.

· Participating Design Firms: Identify each proposed team member that participated in the referenced project, including firm name, performing office location (city and state), and actual design responsibilities.

Respondents shall clearly distinguish between qualifications performed by the proposed A-E firm and those performed by other organizations. Experience of a parent company, affiliate, or other corporate entity shall not be represented as experience of the proposed performing firm without identifying the actual participating organization and its responsibilities.

Recency: ALL submitted A-E project sheets must document 100% completed design. Design completion within five (5) years of AOI response submission date demonstrates commercial viability; older completed designs may also demonstrate commercial viability depending on the completion dates. Vendors are encouraged to submit projects that are at or near the requested completion date; the government will evaluate the qualifications holistically in the package, not strictly or quantitatively. In this holistic review, a project near the recency request will not be entirely eliminated from evaluation for being past the strict cutoff. Completed PDB and conventional DB designs may be considered more commercially viable than otherwise comparable DBB designs, but a designers qualifications will be evaluated holistically for overall commercial viability. The Government will also consider actual size, scope, technical complexity, and performing responsibilities. Planning-only work, PCRs, preliminary design, Design-Build RFPs, and bridging-only documents are not considered to have significant commercial viability as a substitute for 100% design but again will be evaluated holistically.

Appendices D and E - Cybersecurity Appendix D (one page) shall identify each design firm expected to handle CUI, whether it uses its own or a shared compliant production environment, and readiness to receive and manage controlled technical information by Phase 2 invitation. Appendix E (one page) shall describe principal construction organizations’ anticipated FCI/CUI handling, safeguards, and flowdown approach. Phase 1 requires confirmation narratives, not certificates or detailed assessment reports. Supporting verification is required only from down-selectees as applicable before controlled information is released.

Tailored Phase 1 Technical Factors Section 1 - Integrated Design-to-Affordability Management (2 pages) Describe how the proposed PDB team will integrate construction management, architectural and engineering design, cost estimating, and major construction trade partners throughout progressive design to maintain the Government's established construction budget.

Explain the team's proposed process for:

· Developing and evaluating design alternatives that satisfy mission requirements while maintaining affordability.

· Obtaining timely construction-market input during design development.

· Coordinating designers, estimators, construction leadership, and trade partners.

· Identifying and resolving cost and constructability concerns before they advance into subsequent design stages.

· Managing design decisions and recommendations to support timely Government review and selection of alternatives.

Respondents may provide one commercially relevant example demonstrating how a similar process has been implemented on a previous project. Documented cost savings from prior projects are not required.

The response should demonstrate a practical, repeatable approach appropriate for the proposed Nellis PDB program.

Section 2 - Construction Team Organization (4 pages) Identify the construction organizations proposed to manage and execute the program, including the prime respondent, joint venture members, and Principal Construction Execution Firms.

Describe the proposed construction execution structure, including:

· The responsibilities of each principal construction organization and how the distribution of work amongst firms (if applicable) enhances the team’s delivery strategy;

· Construction activities the team anticipates self-performing;

· Activities expected to be performed by construction partners or subcontractors;

· Proposed field management, supervision, and construction execution responsibilities;

· How the team will obtain competitive construction pricing and exercise purchasing control in Southern Nevada; and

· How the proposed organization will manage subcontracting tiers and maintain transparent construction pricing.

The Government recognizes that the scale, complexity, and concurrent execution requirements of the Nellis F-47 Operational Test Facilities Program may demand substantial construction resources distributed among multiple organizations. Successful execution may require sophisticated teaming arrangements combining federal construction experience, Southern Nevada market capabilities, specialized technical expertise, and significant construction management and production capacity.

The Government does not consider organizational complexity, multiple construction partners, or additional subcontracting tiers to be inherently unfavorable and encourages respondents to develop the teaming arrangements they believe will best support successful program execution, without concern that organizational complexity alone will adversely affect their evaluation. Respondents will not receive negative evaluation consideration merely because their proposed execution structure involves multiple companies, joint ventures, or general-contractor-level subcontracting relationships.

Definition of Principal Construction Execution Firm For purposes of this AOI, a Principal Construction Execution Firm is any construction organization, including the prime vendor, joint venture member, construction partner, or subcontractor at any tier, that is proposed to perform general-contractor-level construction execution responsibilities for an entire facility or major construction package. Such responsibilities may include managing multiple construction trades; soliciting, negotiating, awarding, or administering trade subcontracts; providing principal field supervision; directing construction activities; or exercising substantial control over construction agreements, scheduling, quality control, and execution. This designation also includes construction organizations whose qualifications, regional purchasing capabilities, personnel, or construction production capacity are materially relied upon by the respondent to demonstrate its ability to execute the proposed work. Ordinary specialty construction subcontractors performing defined trade scopes are not considered Principal Construction Execution Firms solely because of the value, technical complexity, or importance of their specialty work.

All proposed Principal Construction Execution Firms shall be identified by name in the Phase 1 Solution Brief, with their anticipated responsibilities and team roles/relationships clearly described.

Section 3 - Industrialized Construction Qualifications and Specialist Resources (2 pages) Describe the proposed team's demonstrated experience evaluating, designing, or implementing industrialized construction systems.

Commercially Relevant experience may include:

· Modular and volumetric construction

· Panelized and prefabricated systems

· Pre-engineered metal buildings

· Insulated Concrete Formwork systems

· Off-site manufacturing and assembly

· Tensile fabric or other alternative structural systems

· Other industrialized construction approaches appropriate for large or specialized facilities.

Identify commercially relevant completed or ongoing projects, the organizations performing the work, and the specific experience gained. The Government recognizes that the primary Architects and Engineers of Record for individual facilities may not possess specialized expertise in every industrialized construction system. Respondents may choose to include specialty engineering consultants, manufacturers, specialty designers, or other technical resources to supplement the primary design team.

Where such resources are proposed, identify the organizations, their commercially relevant qualifications, their anticipated responsibilities, and how they will participate in evaluating and implementing industrialized construction alternatives.

These supplemental resources need not be the primary Designers of Record, provided the proposed arrangement maintains appropriate professional design responsibility.

The Government seeks demonstrated capability to evaluate the suitability of alternative construction methods, including their practical implementation.

Section 4 - Southern Nevada Construction Market Strength (2 pages) Demonstrate the proposed construction team's actual experience and capabilities within the Southern Nevada construction market. Identify commercially relevant completed and ongoing projects, including the performing organization, location, construction scope, approximate scale, and period of performance. Commercially relevant experience may include commercial, industrial, airport, municipal, military, or other federal construction. Explain how the proposed team will leverage its Southern Nevada experience to obtain qualified labor, construction trade participation, subcontractor competition, and reliable construction execution.

The Government recognizes that regional construction capability may reside with a significant construction partner rather than the prime respondent.

Federal and commercial construction experience will both be considered commercially relevant. The Government places particular importance on the demonstrated capacity and ability of the actual proposed construction team to execute work competitively and effectively in Southern Nevada.

Section 5 - Project-Specific A-E Design Qualifications and Capacity (3 pages) Identify the architectural and engineering organizations proposed to design the facilities and supporting infrastructure. The response shall identify the anticipated design responsibilities of each principal Architect-Engineer (A-E) organization, including specialty consultants and shared design resources.

The Government considers the following A-E qualifications offer commercial merit to the anticipated program:

· Federal facility design under applicable Unified Facilities Criteria and Department of War requirements.

· ICD-705 secure-facility design.

· Research and development laboratories and specialized technical facilities.

· Data centers, including smaller data centers and substantial communications or computing rooms.

· Military or commercial aircraft hangars.

· RF shielding design and integration.

· Military airfield pavement design under applicable Department of War criteria, for respondents proposing the airfield pavement scope.

· Design of Department of War (DoW) Classified and Unclassified C4IT Systems by a Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) Other qualifications commercially relevant to the proposed facilities may also be considered.

The Government places particular importance on demonstrated military airfield pavement design expertise for teams seeking consideration for the airfield pavement project.

The proposed design team shall include Nevada-licensed civil and electrical professional engineers capable of supporting the applicable design, utility coordination, and permitting requirements. Do not submit resumes but confirm firms with Nevada credentialed designers for these disciplines.

Respondents shall also explain how their proposed design organizations will execute multiple facility designs concurrently, where applicable to their proposed scope. The Government places significant value on the demonstration of a team resourced to produce these designs simultaneously and expeditiously. The response should demonstrate that the proposed design team has both the commercially relevant technical qualifications and the organizational resources to execute the anticipated design workload.

Identify the anticipated division of facility responsibilities, significant shared design resources, and the approach to maintaining sufficient design production capacity throughout Milestone 2.

Individual personnel résumés and binding resource commitments will be requested from selected finalists during Phase 2 but are not to be submitted now.

Section 6 - Concurrent Construction Production Capacity (2 pages) Demonstrate the proposed construction team's ability to execute the anticipated construction scope, including multiple major construction projects concurrently where applicable. The Government seeks credible evidence of available construction production capacity, including the ability to provide field leadership, supervision, labor resources, subcontractor participation, and management of simultaneous construction activities. Respondents should address how existing and anticipated project commitments may affect the proposed team's ability to undertake the Nellis program. Respondents may select the evidence they believe most effectively demonstrates their available capacity, including but not limited to commercially relevant backlog information, anticipated project completions, resource availability, or other quantitative information. General statements regarding corporate size, annual revenue, or total employee count are insufficient by themselves to demonstrate available production capacity.

The response should provide a credible basis for concluding that the actual proposed construction organizations can execute the work for which they seek consideration.

Section 7 - Bonding and Financial Delivery Capacity (1 page) Demonstrate the proposed team's financial and bonding capacity to support the anticipated construction scope.