LBNF NSCF RFI - EPA.pdf

February 25, 2026

Request for Information (RFI) Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Methodologies for Construction Work

1. Purpose

Fermi Forward Discovery Group LLC (“FFDG”), the manager and operator of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (“FERMILAB”), under its Prime Contract Number 89243024CSC000002 with the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”), is leading the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) Project to enable a world-class program in neutrino physics. The LBNF Project (https://lbnf-dune.fnal.gov/) provides the infrastructure for a new high-intensity neutrino beam generated at Fermilab to be aimed at neutrino detectors located nearly a mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, SD.

The LBNF Near Site Conventional Facilities (NSCF) Subproject at Fermilab in Batavia, IL would like your thoughts and opinions concerning some questions on the LBNF/DUNE-US Project. The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to obtain industry input regarding preferred approaches to Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) provisions for construction contracts. We have structured the questions so that your time commitment should be minimized.

2. Background

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory anticipates future construction solicitations at Batavia, Illinois that may include Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) provisions to address cost volatility. Multiple EPA approaches are under consideration, including commodity-based indices, work-type–specific adjustments (e.g., excavation, concrete, steel), and broad construction cost indices.

As part of FFDG’s initiative, the Laboratory is evaluating the potential use of Fixed-Price contracts with Economic Price Adjustment (FP-EPA) structures. Industry feedback is requested to help inform the selection of EPA mechanisms that are effective, auditable, and equitable for both the Government, FFDG and contractors.

Respondents are encouraged to provide input on:

• Market preferences for various EPA methodologies

• Administrative burden and implementation complexity

• Risk allocation between the Government and contractor

• Impacts on pricing, competitiveness, and bid strategies

This feedback will support the Laboratory’s future efforts to develop EPA provisions that appropriately mitigate cost volatility while maintaining fair risk distribution and pricing transparency.

The LBNF/DUNE-US Near Site Conventional Facilities project will construct the above- and below-ground buildings and enclosures, roads, utilities, and sitework to needed to house and support the LBNF/DUNE-US

Craig G. Schmitz LBNF NSCF Procurement Manager

LBNF/DUNE-US /

Procurement P.O. Box 500, MS 123 Kirk Road and Pine Street Batavia, Illinois 60510-5011

USA

Mobile: 630.992.0933 schmitzc@fnal.gov mailto:schmitzc@fnal.gov proton and neutrino beamlines and the DUNE near detector. Due to its extensive underground facilities and beamline shielding requirements, the LBNF/DUNE-US Near Site Conventional Facilities project is dominated by concrete, earthwork, and steel. The 2.4 MW LBNF beamline requires substantial medium- and low-voltage electrical infrastructure and corresponding heat rejection.

3. Scope of Information Requested

Respondents are requested to provide input on the EPA approaches described below, including advantages, disadvantages, and any recommended best practices.

4. EPA Approaches Under Consideration

4.1 Commodity-Based EPA

EPA tied to specific commodities commonly used in construction (e.g., steel, concrete, cement, copper, asphalt, fuel).

Discussion Points:

• Commodities typically subject to significant price volatility

• Preferred published indices or data sources

• Thresholds or triggers for adjustment (e.g., percentage change, time-based)

• Administrative complexity and tracking requirements

• Risk allocation between owner and contractor

4.2 Type-of-Work–Based EPA

EPA applied to defined construction work categories (e.g., earthwork, concrete, structural steel, electrical, mechanical).

Discussion Points:

• Work categories where EPAs are most beneficial

• Appropriate indices or benchmarks for each work type

• Ease of estimating and administering adjustments

• Impacts on subcontracting and change management

• Potential for disputes or ambiguity

4.3 General Construction Index EPA

EPA based on a single, broad construction cost index covering overall construction activity.

Discussion Points:

• Appropriateness of a single index for diverse construction activities

• Accuracy in reflecting actual contractor cost experience

• Simplicity versus precision trade-offs

• Impacts on bid pricing and contingency inclusion

5. Market Research Questions Supporting Future Solicitation Decisions

The following questions are structured to support documentation of market research, acquisition planning, and potential solicitation justification. Respondents are encouraged to provide concise, experience-based answers.

5.1 EPA Necessity and Applicability

Based on current and anticipated market conditions, is the inclusion of an EPA clause necessary to obtain fair and reasonable pricing for construction work? Please explain the conditions under which an EPA is or is not appropriate.

5.2 Preferred EPA Structure

Which EPA structure most accurately reflects your cost exposure and pricing risk for construction projects?

• Commodity-based EPA

• Type-of-work–based EPA

• General construction index EPA

• Hybrid approach (please describe)

Please explain your selection and identify any conditions that would change your preference.

5.3 Risk Allocation and Pricing Impact

How does each EPA approach affect risk allocation between the owner and contractor? Identify which approach most effectively reduces the need for contingency pricing while maintaining reasonable administrative controls.

5.4 Impact on Competition and Small Business Participation

Does the presence or absence of an EPA clause affect your decision to bid or your ability to submit competitive pricing? Please address any impact on subcontractor participation, including small or specialized firms.

5.5 Index Accuracy and Representativeness

Which published indices best represent actual changes in your labor, material, and equipment costs? Please identify specific indices and explain why they are appropriate for construction work of this nature.

5.5 Administrative Feasibility

From an industry perspective, which EPA approach is the least burdensome to administer while still providing meaningful cost protection? Please identify documentation, tracking, or reporting challenges.

5.6 Historical Experience

Based on prior projects, which EPA methodologies have performed as intended, and which have led to disputes, inefficiencies, or unintended consequences? Please provide general examples where possible.

5.7 Solicitation Clarity and Predictability

What EPA terms or structures improve bidder understanding and confidence at the time of proposal submission? Identify any provisions that should be clearly defined in a future solicitation to avoid ambiguity.

6. Implementation Considerations

Please provide any recommendations regarding:

• Frequency of adjustments (monthly, quarterly, annually)

• Caps, floors, or neutral zones

• Documentation requirements

• Treatment of subcontractor pricing

7. Response Instructions

• Responses should be submitted in writing.

• Clearly identify your company name and point of contact.

• Submission deadline: March 12, 2026

• Submit responses electronically to: schmitzc@fnal.gov

8. Disclaimer

This RFI is issued for information-gathering purposes only. Participation is voluntary and does not confer any advantage or disadvantage in any future procurement. This RFI does not commit the United States Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of any response to procure any supplies or services.

Respectfully, Craig G. Schmitz

LBNF/DUNE-US Near Site Procurement Manager mailto:schmitzc@fnal.gov