Market Intelligence - LO_RF - 03SEP2026.docx

Sources Sought & Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Market Research

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

FORT WORTH DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

819 TAYLOR STREET

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-0300

CESWF-CT 3 September 2026

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS AND INTERESTED INDUSTRY PARTNERS

SUBJECT: Sources Sought (RFI) - B-21 Low Observable / Radio Frequency Hangar

1. DISCLAIMER. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE ONLY. This notice is issued solely for market research, information, and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP), a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), or a commitment by the Government to write, issue, or award an agreement or contract. The Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this notice. All response costs will be borne solely by the interested party.

2. PURPOSE. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, is conducting active public market intelligence to gauge industry interest, capacity, and capability from commercial construction firms, design-builders, and Non-Traditional Defense Contractors (NDCs). The intent is to gather critical feedback regarding advanced commercial construction methodologies, project delivery risks, and acquisition preferences to support our upcoming project delivery selection.

3. ACQUISITION STRATEGY & NON-FAR MODEL.

a. Statutory Authority: This project will potentially be executed as a Progressive Design-Build (PDB), Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) or Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) project utilizing Other Transaction Authority (OTA) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

b. Non-FAR Environment: Prospective partners are advised that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does NOT apply to this procurement. The negotiated, bilateral Other Transaction Agreement will serve as the sole governing contract. Standard FAR clauses are inapplicable, though federal statutory constraints (such as federal fiscal law, criminal statutes, and general civil laws) remain fully applicable.

c. Agreement Mechanics:

(1) PBD Procurement Process: Phase 1, Design & Pre-Construction Services, a design-builder will be selected through a qualifications-based selection (QBS) process. The government will then negotiate a fee for Phase 1 services. There is no requirement to submit price proposals or design concepts during the initial selection.

Phase 2, Final Design & Construction, is executed via a bilateral modification to the OT Agreement upon successful negotiation of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) at approximately 65% design maturity. The Agreement contains an "off-ramp" clause allowing the Government to retain the design and procure construction separately if GMP negotiations fail.

(2) DBtB Procurement Process: Solicitation and evaluation during Phase 1 focuses on the qualifications, past performance, and integrated Design-Build experience of each offeror. The Government is evaluating the team and not necessarily how the offeror will design the structure. The Phase 1 evaluation results in the selection of three of the most highly qualified, competitive teams to proceed to Phase 2.

Phase 2, the Government will issue the final RFP exclusively to the down-selected teams. This RFP includes the validated, performance-based requirements, establishes the firm Construction Cost Limit (CCL), and clearly defines the basic scope.

(3) CM@Risk Procurement Process: Early involvement, separate contracts, guaranteed maximum price and collaborative delivery.

4. PROJECT OVERVIEW & SCOPE.

a. Title: B-21 Low Observable / Radio Frequency Hangar

b. Location: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

c. Scope: Construct a new 95,529 sq. ft. Low Observable Corrosion Control Hangar (LO) and a Radio Frequency Facility (RF) for the new B-21 weapons system. The project demands a highly collaborative and iterative design process to manage complexity and a critical schedule.

d. Target Price Range (TPR): The Government has established The Government's Target Price Estimate for construction is between $280,000,000 and $300,000,000.

e. Projected Award Date: The Government targets the formal award of the Agreement Phase 1 (Design and Preconstruction Services) on or about July 2027.

f. Current Design is at 100%. The Government is willing to revert to a 35% design, allowing the awardee and designer the ability to collaborate during an OTA procurement process.

g. Period of Performance (POP): The projected construction timeline is approximately 1217 calendar days following the execution of the Phase 2 Construction modification.

h. Product Service Code (PSC): Y1BG (Construction of Electronic and Communications Facilities).

i. NAICS Code: 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction).

(1) INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGIES & FEEDBACK AREAS. In accordance with Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) Design Instruction #3, the Government is seeking commercial industry feedback regarding the feasibility and market capacity for the following innovative methods:

i. Modular and Off-Site Prefabrication: Fabricating large sections of the facility or complex mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems in factory-controlled environments to compress the construction schedule.

ii. 3D Printing: Utilizing large-scale 3D printing for secondary building components, non-load-bearing walls, or perimeter security fencing.

iii. Advanced Materials: Incorporating self-healing concrete to reduce lifecycle maintenance and maximize structural integrity, or utilizing high-performance insulation (e.g., aerogels or vacuum-insulated panels) to meet high-performance building standards.

APPENDIX B

1. Project Overview & Mission Goal

· Project Name/Number: B-21: Low Observable/Radio Frequency Hanger (507486)

· Location: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

· Mission Statement: The US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, has a requirement from the U.S. Air Force to provide a Design-Bid-Build, Firm Fixed-Price contract to construct a new 95,529 sq. ft. Low Observable Corrosion Control Hangar (LO) and a Radio Frequency Facility (RF) for the new B-21 weapons system.

· The Government currently has a 100% design through an existing contract for the subject project and prefers to keep the existing A-E Designer involved in the project. This will mean the awardee for the subject project would partner with the existing A-E Designer, instead of choosing their own. The Government is willing to revert to a lesser design phase, no less than 35%, allowing the awardee and designer the ability to collaborate during an OTA procurement process (i.e., PDB, DBtB or CM@Risk).

2. Functional Requirements (The "What")

· Facility Type: Low Observable Corrosion Control Hangar (LO) and a Radio Frequency Facility (RF)

· Estimated Scale: 95,529 sq. ft.

· Primary Functional Spaces:

· Space A: The LO includes a steel frame, masonry walls, metal roof, secure spaces, and cybersecurity measures.

· Space B: The RF facility will have a reinforced concrete foundation, steel frame, metal roof, and powered hangar doors.

· Space C: Both will include fire protection, climate control, backup power, and RF shielding. Additional work includes a metal storage building, fenced staging area, and concrete pad for fuel tank storage.

· Key Performance Targets: All work will meet DoD standards for security, anti-terrorism, and cybersecurity.

3. Known Project Constraints

· Site Conditions: Site preparation covers clearing, grading, demolition of five buildings, utility rerouting, and roadways/parking improvements.

· Security/Access: Project is located inside the cantonment area; all personnel must undergo background checks for site access.

· Utilities: New utilities will be provided, including power, water, gas, sewer, and fiber optics.

4. The Construction Cost Limitation (CCL)

· The Fixed Budget: The Target Price Estimate is between $280,000,000 to $300,000,000.

· What it Includes: This amount covers all design services and construction. It excludes Government-furnished equipment (GFE).

· The DBB Challenge: USACE is seeking the design-build team that can provide the highest level of technical merit, quality, and mission-capability.

5. Proposed Project Schedule

· Period of Performance: 1,217 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed.

· Critical Milestones:

· Solicitation Release – JAN 2027

· Proposals Received – MAR 2027

· Proposal Revisions Submitted – APR 2027

· Contact Award – JULY 2027

6. OTA vs FAR Based Acquisition

· The purpose of this market research is to assist the Government in determining if OTA or a FAR based acquisition is appropriate. The next page provides information for two OTA procurement methods and one FAR based procurement method (i.e., Highest Technically Rated).

· Stipends: A stipend is not authorized.

· Incentives: Not mentioned in the source selection plan.

Progressive Design-Build – Progressive Design-Build is a collaborative project delivery method where the owner selects a design-builder based on their qualifications and experience, rather than on a detailed bid. Success hinges on proactive, early integration of construction expertise, a commitment to transparent "open-book" estimating, and a culture of collaborative decision-making.

The defining characteristics of PDB:

· One integrated team: The Government selects a design-builder—designer and constructor working as one team—at the beginning of project development, before a meaningful amount of design is complete.

· Qualifications led selection: Selection focuses heavily, and often exclusively in the initial stage, on relevant experience, past performance, technical capability, proposed personnel, and ability to collaborate—not a low construction bid.

· Construction not priced at award: The initial agreement award Phase 1 services. A price for construction, such as a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is set only once the design, scope, schedule, and risks have been sufficiently developed.

Design-Build to Budget – Design-Build to Budget is a project delivery method where the project's budget is established as a firm, fixed design constraint from the beginning. Its ultimate outcome is a fixed-price contract with a single, integrated design-build team.

The defining characteristics of DBtB are:

· Budget as a Primary Driver: Unlike other methods where the design determines the final cost, DBtB challenges the industry to innovate and provide the best possible technical solution within a pre-established, maximum budget.

· Performance-Based Requirements: The owner defines what the facility must achieve (performance, operational needs, quality) but does not provide a prescriptive design. This leaves the how entirely up to the competing design-build teams.

· Collaborative Refinement: The procurement process involves confidential, proprietary meetings with shortlisted teams. In these meetings, the owner provides feedback on preliminary concepts, allowing teams to refine their solutions to best align with the project's goals before submitting a final proposal.

Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) – Construction Management at Risk is a delivery method in which the owner hires a construction manager during design to provide preconstruction support and later serve as the general contractor. The CM@Risk firm commonly delivers the project under a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

The defining characteristics of CM@Risk are:

• Early Involvement: The CM@Risk provides cost estimating, scheduling, constructability reviews, and procurement advice during design.

• Separate Contracts: The owner contracts separately with the architect/engineer and the CM@Risk firm, which typically manages the trade subcontractors.

• Guaranteed Maximum Price: The CM@Risk develops a GMP and accepts defined cost and construction-performance risk within that agreement.

• Collaborative Delivery: The owner, designer, and CM@Risk coordinate throughout the project; phased construction may begin before design is fully complete.

Market Intelligence Report: Industry Day/First Look Questionnaire General Feasibility & Model Selection (DBtB vs. PDB vs. CM@Risk)

1. Agreement Preference: The Government is exploring the use of an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for this construction project to potentially increase collaboration, speed, and innovation. For this specific project, do you believe an OT agreement is the most appropriate vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract? Please explain your reasoning.

Your Answer:

[Please type your detailed reasoning here]

2. OT Risk & Barriers: If the Government chooses to proceed with an OT framework rather than a traditional FAR Part 15 procurement, does your firm foresee any barriers, risks, or hesitations in proposing on or executing this project?

[ ] No [ ] Yes [If yes, please explain the barriers, risks, or hesitations here]

3. Model Viability: Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet (Appendix B), does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price (including incentives) for this project after a 2-3 month collaborative design refinement period?

☐ Yes, a reliable price is likely achievable.

☐ No, there is too much risk/uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

4. Risk Justification: Please explain your reasoning for the answer above. What are the top 1-3 factors (e.g., project complexity, site conditions, clarity of functional requirements) that influenced your choice?

Your Answer:

5. PDB Threshold: If you answered "No" to Question 1, at what level of design maturity (e.g., 35%, 60%, 90%) would your firm feel confident in providing a reliable, fixed price or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) through a Progressive Design-Build process?

☐ 35% ☐ 60% ☐ 90% [Please type your detailed reasoning here]

I. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment: Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $280M - $300M for approximately 95,529 square feet complex facility appear realistic in the current local market?

[Please provide your assessment here]

2. Major Cost Drivers: From a high-level view of our functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs (e.g., specialized security, unique structural loads) that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

[Identify potential primary cost drivers here]

3. Market Precedents: Are there specific benchmarks or recent industry projects we should look at to ensure our expectations for quality and performance align with this budget?

[Identify potential projects and locations here]

II. Flexibility & Innovation (The "How")

1. Prescriptive "Showstoppers": Are there any requirements in our functional description that appear overly prescriptive or "locked-in" that might prevent you from offering a more innovative or cost-effective solution to meet the mission?

[Identify any restrictive requirements here]

2. Innovation Opportunities: In this building type, where do you typically see the most opportunity for an integrated design-build team to provide "more for the money" (e.g., modular systems, envelope efficiency, MEP coordination)?

[List innovation opportunities here]

III. Market & Supply Chain (External Risks)

1. Long-Lead Warning: Even without a full design, are there specific systems common to this facility type (e.g., generators, custom AHUs, specialized lab equipment) that are currently experiencing lead times that would threaten the proposed project schedule?

[List any long-lead items of concern here]

2. Local Labor Constraints: Are there specific trades in the project area that are currently over-extended or in short supply that could impact the project's risk profile?

[List any trades currently over extended or in short supply]

IV. Defining Value (The Betterment Search)

1. The Value Gap: If your team discovers or recommends any in design efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which "betterments/enhancements" (e.g., enhanced durability, lower life-cycle costs, better technology) should we prioritize in our evaluation criteria as the most valuable for this facility type? (List 3-5 options for industry to rank).

2. Sustainability Targets: Is the proposed level of sustainability (e.g., Specific energy goals, etc.) a standard "reach" for industry, or will it require significant premium pricing in this market?

[Provide your assessment on sustainability targets here]

V. Proposal Effort & Contract Incentives

1. Stipend Necessity: Given the requirement to participate in five proprietary meetings and develop a conceptual design for Phase 2 evaluation, is a stipend necessary for your firm to justify the pursuit costs of this procurement? Yes or no, and why?

☐ Yes ☐ No [Your answer here]

2. Stipend Alignment: If a stipend is offered, what amount (or percentage of the CCL) does the market currently consider sufficient to offset the level of effort required for a Phase 2 proposal of this complexity?

[Indicate the sufficient stipend amount or percentage here]

3. Effective Incentives: In a fixed-budget environment, what types of post-award contract incentives (e.g., award fee for exceptional quality, schedule acceleration, shared savings) are most effective at motivating your team to exceed minimum performance requirements?

[Describe the most effective incentives here]

VI. Additional Inquiries or Comments We have established a ProjNet, http://www.projnet.org/projnet, for additional inquires and questions. To self-register go to web page, click Quick Add link, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, click Continue. Fill in all required information and click Add User. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Solicitation Number: W9126G27RA002 Key Number: TWCVC7-7EJ9IC