Industry Day FTR- RFI list_FINAL.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted Jul 8, 2026

Attached to: Virtual Industry Day - Information Session on the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
Solicitation number: Not on record
Issued by: Department of the Army Corps of Engineers

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Jul 8, 2026

This file is a compilation of Questions and Answers (Q&As) from a pre-Industry Day Request for Information (RFI) process and subsequent Industry Day Q&As for the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. The document consolidates industry inquiries and Government responses regarding acquisition strategy, program scope, and execution methodology for what is anticipated to be approximately a $7 billion military construction program.

The Government (USACE Alaska District) will execute the FTR program using Other Transaction Authority (OTA) with a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) framework rather than traditional Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build approaches. Multiple large-scale OTA packages will be bundled by facility type, geographic zone, or other logical groupings, with solicitations anticipated to begin in Q4 FY26 and continue into FY27. Initial funding is expected in the FY27 defense appropriations bill. The horizontal infrastructure and utilities will be procured using the Integrated Design and Construction (IDAC) approach, while the Weapon Generation Complex will use Progressive DB under OTA. The acquisition strategy employs a multi-step process beginning with a White Paper Challenge, followed by down-selection to Phase 1 (detailed design and pricing development), and Phase 2 (construction). USACE Alaska District will serve as the Design Construction Agent (DCA) for all facilities, with no separate Owner Advisor or program management consultant anticipated. The Government will utilize phased bonding requirements tied to discrete work packages rather than full OTA agreement values. Small Business Act mandatory participation requirements do not apply to OTAs; however, the Government strongly encourages diverse team formation and small business utilization. Cold weather construction experience will be important, and contractors likely require CMMC Level 2 compliance, though no classified security clearances are currently anticipated for construction contracts. The specific execution phases, design maturity levels for Guaranteed Maximum Price establishment, payment structures, and collaboration mechanisms remain under development and will be detailed in forthcoming solicitations.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
FTR Industry Day meeting transcript for posting.docx	DOCX document	Jul 1, 2026
FTR Industry Day - Attendance report.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jul 1, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

RFI#	Name	Organization	Question	Gov Answer
Pre Industry Day RFIs
1	Jonathan Komplin (6/25/26)	North American Stainless	If it hasn’t been previously considered, is there any interest in using stainless steel rebar for construction of any of the facilities or infrastructure? Stainless steel has much better corrosion resistance, impact properties incl. blast resistance, seismic absorption, and life cycle costs than traditional carbon steel. As a representative of North American Stainless (located in KY) I’d be glad to send any relevant information or discuss in more detail.	This will be determined by the Prime contractor of each project.
2	Megan Hoen (6/24/2026)	ASRC Builders, LLC & ASRC Earthworks, LLC	1. Please confirm if there is any known timing for the release of solicitations on this fighter town program.	Solicitations are anticipated starting in Q4 FY26 and continuing into FY27
			2. Please confirm if any of this program has been funded, as well as expected future funding timeframes.	The first increment of funding is expected to be appropriated in the FY27 defense appropriations bill.
			3. Please confirm if any of the projects will be IDAC contracts, as previously indicated.	Yes. The infrastruture will be procured utilizing the IDAC approach. At this time, it is not known if other portions of the program will be procured utilizing the IDAC method.
			4. Are any of the facilities in this program expected to be contracted through other agencies (e.g., USAF)?	No, all MILCON facilities will be contracted through USACE Alaska District
3	George Chan (6/25/2026)	Jacobs	1. Will there be any consideration for an AE MATOC or DBB for this program in the future and if so, what may relevant factors (amount, PoP)?	No, the district will not be utilizing an AE MATOC or traditional DBB for this program. Per guidance, the Government will execute the FTR program using the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) pathway, with the intent to use a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) framework.
			2. How has this change in acquisition strategy affect the program execution timeline?	The shift to the OTA/PDB pathway is intended to accelerate the program execution timeline compared to traditional military construction procurement methods. It is designed to get industry on board earlier and streamline the design and construction process.
			3. Indicators from discussions with DoW agencies are that large programs such as FTR will be executed via OTA and/or some form of DB. If so, will POA still look to industry to develop some form of DB RFP?	No, no RFP is needed when procuring with OTA
			4. Is there a guide or document available to will help Industry to understand the process of how new or innovative delivery methods will be implemented?	Reference Design-Build Institute of America at https://dbia.org/
			5. Is bundling of projects a consideration under OTA execution? If so, will there be any considerations given to bonding requirements?	Yes, bundling projects into logical packages under the OTA is a key part of our strategy. Regarding bonding, the Government intends to use a phased approach. Bonds will be required for specific phases of work as they are authorized, such as for early civil work or the procurement of long-lead items, rather than for the full potential value of the OTA agreement at the outset.
			6. Draft solicitation for the AE MATOC had the requirement of design experience in ASHRAE Zone 7. In the new acquisition strategy, will this remain same or what will be the experience requirement?	Cold weather experience will be important for this program. Other evaluation criteria is not known at this time.
			7. Are there any anticipated DBE or small business requirements associated with OTA/PDB arrangements?	The Small Business Act does not apply to OTAs in the same way it does to FAR-based contracts, so there will not be mandatory, evaluated small business participation goals. However, the Government strongly encourages the formation of diverse teams and robust small business utilization to bring the best innovation and capabilities to the program.
			8. Under an OTA with PDB arrangement, what is the general process for execution (i.e. submittal phases)?	The specific execution and submittal phases will be detailed in the upcoming solicitation. However, we anticipate a multi-step process. This will begin with an initial White Paper Challenge, followed by a down-select to a detailed proposal and design phase (Phase 1). The selected partner will then collaboratively develop the design and pricing to a designated maturity level before transitioning to the physical construction phase (Phase 2). Our execution will be closely aligned with the principles of the DBIA Progressive Design-Build framework.
			9. Under an OTA with PDB arrangement, will there be a separate contract for an Owner Advisor role?	No. USACE, acting as the construction agent on behalf of the Government and the Air Force, does not anticipate hiring a separate 'Owner Advisor' consultant for this program. Our integrated project team, which includes USACE subject matter experts and installation stakeholders, will manage the program directly with the selected industry partner(s).
4	Kevin J. Osborne (6/26/2026)	Stantec	1. In recent Industry Days, the JBER Fightertown Recapitalization Projects (FTR) project lists have targets for award starting in FY28. Are any of these projects expected to be funded earlier? If so, would you please provide the latest project list with planned FY?
This is currently in development, but the first increment of funding is expected in FY27
			2. Will the White Paper Challenge for Phase I of the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) include a program / preliminary site or building layout / room data. Will this data be developed in-house or through existing acquisition vehicles (i.e. IDIQs) prior to the release of the White Paper Challenge?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
			3. Will the two Fightertown Recapitalization Projects (FTR) projects (i.e. weapon generation complex and infrastructure/utilities) listed as Integrated Design and Construction (IDAC) as an alternate delivery method for the USACE remain IDAC projects or will they become part of the OTA acquisition strategy process?	The horizontal construction (primary utilities and rough grading) will be procured using the IDAC approach and Weapon Generation Complex is anticipated to use Progressive DB under OTA
			4. At what level of classification will the General Contractor (GC) and/or A-E Design Firm be required to have a classified clearance (i.e. SECRET or TOP SECRET)?	At this time, we are not anticipating any construction contracts to require a clearance
			5. Will any of the General Contractor (GC) and/or A-E Design Firm technical disciplines be required to possess and/or maintain a SECRET or TOP SECRET clearance throughout the period of performance of a project under the Fighter Town Recapitalization Program? If so, which technical disciplines would you expect to have clearances?	At this time, we are not anticipating any construction contracts to require a clearance

6. What CMMC level will be required so the contractor’s information system will be cleared to process, store, or transmit Federal Contract Information (FCI) or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) during performance of the contract?	Likely CMMC Level 2
		7. Will consideration be given to allow the inclusion of either Design-Build (DB) or Progressive-Design-Build (PDB) projects outside of the Department of War (DoW)??	USACE anticipates giving consideration for projects outside the DOW
		8. Will the AF Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) pick up any projects as the Design Construction Agent (DCA) under the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program or will the USACE-Alaska District act as the sole DCA for the entire FTR program?	No, USACE Alaska District is the DCA for this program.
		9. Will competition be allowed during the solicitation period for A-E Design Firms to offer different Alternate Delivery Methods (ADM) to be considered for this Other Transaction Authorities (OTA) execution as laid out in the FY26 NDAA, Section 2809 (i.e. Progressive-Design-Build, Lean-Design-Build, Accelerated-Design-Build)? a. If Yes, and a down selection process is implemented, will A-E Firms be given a stipend for their design services?
b. If Yes, and a down selection process is implemented, will the USACE-Alaska District execute an interview process?	Yes

A. Possibly, this is under development B. Yes, an interview/presentation is part of USACE's process of conducting a procurement via OTA

10. Will consideration be given in providing the evaluation criteria earlier in the process so interested firms can best prepare for the solicitation in support of this Other Transaction Authorities (OTA) using Alternate Delivery Methods (ADM)?	Yes, if the acquisition timeline allows, the Government will consider releasing draft evaluation criteria prior to the formal solicitation. However, if an early release is not feasible, the final criteria will be provided at the time of the solicitation to ensure a fair and transparent process. In the interim, we encourage firms to use the Industry Day materials to begin shaping their team structures.
11. What will be the extent of small business participation goals for this contract?	The Small Business Act does not apply to OTAs in the same way it does to FAR-based contracts, so there will not be mandatory, evaluated small business participation goals. However, the Government strongly encourages the formation of diverse teams and robust small business utilization to bring the best innovation and capabilities to the program.
12. Will there be a requirement for a subcontracting plan for the part of the work intended to be subcontracted?	No. Because this will be an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) and not a FAR-based contract, a formal subcontracting plan as defined by the Small Business Act will not be a required deliverable.
13. Will an OTA Consortium be used for the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program? a. If Yes, will a consortium be created; or, will an existing consortium be used, and if so, which one?

b. What will be the role of the consortium throughout the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program process?	USACE does not anticipate managing this OTA through a pre-existing, third-party consortium manager. Our current intent is to engage directly with the industry team(s) that are selected. We do, however, anticipate that interested firms may form their own new consortiums or joint ventures to respond to the solicitation.
				14. Will the USACE-Alaska District follow a phase bonding approach; and, if so, what are the expected bonding levels to ensure project security without necessarily restricting market competition?	Yes, the Government intends to use a phased bonding approach. Bonds will be required only for the specific value of discrete work packages as they are authorized within the OTA agreement, such as for early site work or long-lead material procurement.
				15. If the USACE-Alaska District and contractor cannot reach an agreement on Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) or final design (i.e. Phase 1 Off Ramp), what specific compensation structure would the USACE-Alaska District use to compensate the contractor for pre-construction efforts (i.e. stipends, time-and-materials for design effort, etc)?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
				16. What milestone payment arrangement during Phase 1 would the USACE-Alaska District use to support a contractor’s cash flow and resource allocation since an OTA allows flexible payment structures (i.e. monthly progress, completion of design percentages, deliverable-based, etc)?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
				17. At what design milestone will the USACE-Alaska District lock in the Guaranteed Maximum Proce (GMP) in the Alternate Delivery Method chosen (i.e. 35%, 65%, 90%)?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
				18. Will an ‘Owner Advisor’ / ‘Owner Representative’ be solicited via a separate contract to assist the Federal Government (USACE-Alaska District or JBER’s 673rd Civil Engineer Group) in defining the review process, determine applicability of specific UFCs with a focus on speed of need, assist with collaboration across all spectrums of the project, etc?	No. USACE, acting as the construction agent on behalf of the Government and the Air Force, does not anticipate hiring a separate 'Owner Advisor' consultant. Our integrated project team will manage the program directly with the selected industry partner(s).
				19. Has the environmental review(s) been completed for the Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program campus, or will further approval be required after final design (i.e. has NEPA been completed, will a supplemental EA be required, etc)?	This is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed prior to any construction activities.
				20. Will subcontractors and consultants be required to provide a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
				21. Will the USACE-Alaska District use the DBIA Progressive Design Build Framework in the execution of JBER’s Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program?	Yes, our approach will be aligned with the principles and best practices of the DBIA Progressive Design-Build framework
				22. What collaborative mechanisms will the USACE-Alaska District implement in the first 30 - 90 days to rapidly transition from a "blank page" to a mutually agreed-upon baseline (i.e. joint design charrettes, target-value design workshops, or phased scoping approvals)?	This is currently in development, and exact details are not available at this time.
	5	Julie Eiter (6/29/2026)	Black & Veatch	1.	This is a large scope of work. Can you please discuss the acquisition strategy the Alaska District is planning to use?
a.	Will this be multiple awards or a single award?
b.	If multiple, will this be split into multiple OTAs, will it be some OTA and some design build to budget?
c.	How would the workload be spilt – by geographical area, grouping assets together, etc.?

a. The Government's strategy is to bundle the program's scope into multiple, large-scale Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs). The specific breakdown of how the workload will be split (e.g., by facility type, by geographic zone) is part of the Government's ongoing acquisition planning and will be defined in the forthcoming solicitations. b. USACE-Alaska has established an integrated program office to manage the FTR program. We will not be soliciting for separate 'owner's engineer' or program management support services; these functions will be handled by our internal Government team
			2.	How will the Alaska District manage the program office? Will there be owner’s engineering needs to support Alaska District?	See answer B above
			3.	Will there be a requirement to store classified documents on this program and will it apply to all awards?	TBD, but no construction contracts are anticipated to have a classification requirement at this time
6	Sterline Ingram (6/29/2026)	AECOM	Will USACE Alaska serve as the lead contracting agency for the entire FTR program, or will portions be executed directly by the Air Force?	Yes, USACE Alaska District is the DCA for this program
			Of the approximately $7B program, is ~$2B currently planned for FY27, and what is the anticipated funding and obligation profile for subsequent fiscal years?	At this time, we do not have a finalized funding structure, this is under development.
			Will funding be appropriated as discrete MILCON projects, or bundled under larger programmatic authorities enabled by NDAA FY26?	The program is being executed using the flexible programmatic authorities granted in the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act, which allows us to use an Other Transaction Authority for this effort, rather than traditional, discrete MILCON project appropriations.
			How early does USACE anticipate bringing design-build teams on board (e.g., concept validation, 10–15% design)?	As early as possible, likely at "concept validation" or similar
			What level of design maturity will be required before establishing a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)?	The target level of design maturity for establishing the GMP is a key component of the OTA agreement that will be collaboratively determined with the selected industry partner during Phase 1. We are also seeking industry's perspective on best practices for this in our questionnaire.
			Will the program be delivered as a single large-scale contract/OTA or multiple segmented packages?	The Government's strategy is to deliver the FTR program through multiple, segmented OTA packages rather than a single, all-encompassing award. The specific breakdown of these packages (e.g., by facility type, phase, or geographic zone) is currently being finalized as part of our acquisition planning and will be clearly detailed in the forthcoming solicitations."
			What is the anticipated contract size range (order of magnitude) for individual awards	The magnitude and specific duration for each OTA package will be defined in the solicitations. However, given the overall ~$7B program value, offerors should anticipate that each of the multiple OTA packages will be a large-scale, multi-year effort.
			Will USACE prioritize large integrators, or is there an intent to create multiple entry points for mid-size and small firms?	The Government's strategy is to bundle the program's scope into multiple, large-scale OTAs. While the prime agreements will likely be with firms or joint ventures capable of managing high-value, complex programs, we strongly encourage the inclusion of mid-size and small firms as critical members of those teams.
			Will there be small business participation goals / requirements?	The Small Business Act does not apply to OTAs in the same way it does to FAR-based contracts, so there will not be mandatory, evaluated small business participation goals. However, the Government strongly encourages the formation of diverse teams and robust small business utilization to bring the best innovation and capabilities to the program.
			What is the target overall program duration from initial awards through full operational capability?	The magnitude and specific duration for each OTA package will be defined in the solicitations. However, given the overall ~$7B program value, offerors should anticipate that each of the multiple OTA packages will be a large-scale, multi-year effort.
			Will any FTR program work be classified (SECRET or higher), and what security clearance, facility, and CMMC requirements are anticipated for participating contractors?	Likely CMMC Level 2, but at this time, no construction contracts are anticipated to have a classification requirement
Industry Day RFIs
	Hunter Goguen	AK Built	Will this OTA contract include A/E Design support services? Or is this primarily geared toward Prime contractors coordinating DB/CMGC style contracts?	OTA contracts will be with Prime contractors coordinating Progressive Design Build style agreements
			Will this be a MATOC style contract with multiple potential awardees and various scopes of work?	No
	Dean Hartman		What is the expected tranche structure/bundling of requirements through OTA acquisition to deliver the program?	This is still under development, and will be influenced by industry feedback and funding available among other constraints
	Jack Shriver	WSP	Is USACE seeking program management support services to implement this, or will that be handled by the District?	No, this will be handled by the Alaska District
			Do you plan to leverage the USACE PDB playbook, or more closely aligned to the DBIA "DB/PDB Done Right" methodology?	Yes, USACE Alaska District plans to utilize the USACE PDB playbook.

USACE has posted all PDB using OTA documents on SAM.gov. USACE is requesting industry feedback on the documents to include the placemat, playbook, and agreement articles through 08 JUL. These documents will provide a sense of how USACE intends to delivery military construction using PDB w/ OTA. The SAM RFI is available at https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/bbd3010cc14242e88b25eb2422a927fe/view

		How will this OTA initiative change the expected JBER AE Services IDIQ contract? will that contrt still remain a classified program contract?	The AE Services IDIQ contract is on hold, and is not likely to be revived in its current form.
Lori Kropidlowski		Are there sol. numbers assisgned yet	No, not at this time
Rob Clark		Can USACE share an example of an OTA contract with Industry? Understand the OTA contract will be negotiated but would be nice to see a "baseline" example.	USACE has posted all PDB using OTA documents on SAM.gov. USACE is requesting industry feedback on the documents to include the placemat, playbook, and agreement articles through 08 JUL. These documents will provide a sense of how USACE intends to delivery military construction using PDB w/ OTA. The SAM RFI is available at https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/bbd3010cc14242e88b25eb2422a927fe/view
Ted Champine	Ahtna	Will award be based on Best Value/tech accpetable or strictly based on lowest price	OTA is a qualifications based award
Travis Pital	WSP	Please confirm if the Design of the Horizontal Infrastructure project slated for IDAC is already awarded	No, the construction contract as part of the horizontal infrastructure project has not been solicited or awarded at this time.
Electa Kean	New Horizons	Is s PLA anticipated or waived for IDAC portion of project?	PLAs are not required when utiliting OTA for an acquisition
Jack Shriver	WSP	Will USACE need additional CM services to assist in managing construction of this program?	No, this will be handled by the Alaska District
Mike Huffstetler	DLR Group	Have owner/District personnel gone thru DBIA training on PDB?	Yes, we are working to develop our PDB playbook that will likely closely mirror DBIA practices.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Sep 29, 2026.