Market Intelligence Questionnaire EIE483 EIE484.pdf

Market Intelligence Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Market Intelligence Questionnaire

Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Originating Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Alaska District

Document Type Sources Sought / Request for Information (RFI) Template

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

Classification Unclassified / Pre-Solicitation

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Site and Environmental Constraints ………………

2. Schedule Risks & Limited Construction Window

3. Temporary Space Requirements ………………………………………..……………………………..................… 8

4. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

5. Construction near Airfields (EIE483)

6. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness (EIE483)

7. Mobilization & Start Work Readiness (EIE484) …………………

8. Unidentified Project Risks…………………………………………………………….……...............…………………10

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

2. Primary Cost Drivers

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

1. Collaboration Priorities

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

3. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

4. Contract Incentives

5. Program Capability/Interest

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path

2. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

3. Evaluation Strategy

4. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints EIE483 – Joint Mobility Center Expansion

Project Name & Location Joint Mobility Center Expansion, Eielson AFB, Alaska

Mission Statement Design and construction of a new Deployment Processing Facility.

The new facility will be occupied by 354th Logistics Readiness

Squadron personnel. The facility will contain areas for the Personnel

Deployment Function, Cargo Deployment Function, and

Deployment Control Center, plus building support spaces. The

Personnel Deployment Function area will contain a non-sterile holding area for processing passengers, a manifesting office for weighing passengers with their gear, a sterile holding area for passengers who have been manifested and are awaiting mission briefing, and a second sterile holding area for mission briefings.

Facility Type & Scale Deployment Processing Facility (53,809 SF), Hazardous Materials

Storage (38,782 SF), Exterior Covered Storage Canopies (25,349 SF)

Primary Functional Spaces The new Deployment Processing Facility will be appropriately sited relative to the airfield and supporting facilities and will house all spaces necessary to support Deployment Processing operations.

These spaces include Deployment Control Center with three double-occupant offices and open office area with 8 workstations;

non-sterile holding area for 250 passengers and 20 personnel;

sterile holding area for 250 passengers and 10 personnel; second sterile holding/briefing area for 250 passengers and 10 personnel.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $249.2M

Period of Performance FY27 – FY31

Critical Milestones Design Starts FY27 and Construction Starts FY29

EIE484 -225-Bed Permanent Party Dormitory

Project Name & Location 225-Bed Permanent Party Dorm, Eielson AFB, Alaska

Mission Statement Eielson’s current unaccompanied housing is at 129% utilization rate

(795 airmen and 615 beds) with more personnel still arriving in support of the F-35 bed down and other missions. Eielson currently has six permanent-party dormitories providing 615 rooms. This project is required to provide enough housing for enlisted personnel at Eielson with the construction of a 225-Bed Permanent

Party Dorm.

Facility Type & Scale Airmen Dormitory Housing (127,546 SF)

Primary Functional Spaces Construct a 3-story permanent party dormitory to house 225 unaccompanied enlisted airmen. Construction will include slab-on-grade and steel frame with concrete masonry unit block veneer and insulated metal panel over metal studs at exterior walls. Supporting facilities include 200 parking spaces, extension of steam, water, and sewer utilities, power distribution, and land scaping to service the new facility. Main facility spaces include 225 dormitory units, activity space, communal kitchens, dorm management office, public restroom, laundry, theater/meeting space, elevator, and mechanical/utility space.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $305M

Period of Performance FY27 – FY31

Critical Milestones Design Starts FY27 and Construction Starts FY28

2. Industry Questionnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle (FAR-based or OTA) for the above facilities. Please email your response to

Mark Corn (Mark.R.Corn@usace.army.mil), Kim Tripp (Kimberly.D.Tripp@usace.army.mil), Theresa Afrank (Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil), and Jennifer Gosh (Jennifer.Gosh@usace.army.mil) by 27 October 2026 at 14:00 Alaska Time.

Accelerated Design-Build to Budget (DBtB)

FAR-based delivery approach where the Government develops sufficient project definition to competitively establish a Firm-Fixed-Price before collaborative design development.

Construction Manager at Risk (CM At Risk) - OTA

Project delivery method where a construction manager acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and transitions to a general contractor role during construction.

Design-Build (DB) - FAR

Design-build is a project delivery method where a single entity provides both the architectural design and construction services under one unified contract.

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – FAR

Design-bid-build is a traditional, sequential construction project delivery method where an owner hires a designer and a contractor under two separate, independent contracts.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – OTA

Single design-build agreement. Phase 1 collaboratively matures the design and negotiates a Guaranteed

Maximum Price cost before the Government decides whether to proceed with construction.

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Company Name & CAGE Code

Point of Contact

Socioeconomic Status

(Check all that apply) ☐ Large Business

☐ Small Business (SB)

☐ 8(a) Business Development Program

☐ HUBZone Small Business

☐ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB)

☐ Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) mailto:Mark.R.Corn@usace.army.mil mailto:Kimberly.D.Tripp@usace.army.mil mailto:Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil mailto:Jennifer.Gosh@usace.army.mil

Bonding Capacity Single Project Limit: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________

Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________

Intent to Propose on EIE483 ☐ Yes as Prime

☐ Yes as Sub

☐ No

☐ Undecided

Anticipated Teaming for EIE483 ☐ Standalone Prime

☐ Joint Venture (JV)

☐ Mentor-Protégé

☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Intent to Propose on EIE484 ☐ Yes as Prime

☐ Yes as Sub

☐ No

☐ Undecided

Anticipated Teaming for EIE484 ☐ Standalone Prime

☐ Joint Venture (JV)

☐ Mentor-Protégé

☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Site and Environmental Constraints

Site location contains a high-water table (3’ below ground level in several areas) and likely soil contamination to include PFAS. Projects requiring utilidor demolition and construction may encounter asbestos or PCB contamination. Some site locations for the projects are impacted by permafrost creating ground instability when thawed requiring specialized foundation designs and engineering strategies to maintain structural integrity of the projects. What risks do you anticipate associated with the high groundwater conditions, the potential for permafrost, and contaminated soils during construction? What methods would you use to help mitigate these risks? What information or project requirements would you recommend be established during preconstruction to reduce these risks?

2. Schedule Risk & Limited Construction Window

Given the timelines required to complete design and construction for these projects and the realities of the short Alaskan limited construction window, how would you mitigate weather delays? Please describe off-site prefabrication strategies, modular construction, winter-enclosure techniques, and/or other strategies that you would propose to maintain construction schedule. How could the

Government best structure initial design phase collaboration to evaluate the cost-versus-time tradeoffs of the described acquisition methods before finalizing a Guaranteed Maximum Price for

Construction phase services?

3. Temporary Space Requirements

For each project identified (EIE483 and EIE484), what is the estimated space requirement for temporary facilities including, but not limited to: material laydown, worksite offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporting infrastructure, such as access roads or port facilities, to support construction logistics for each of the identified projects?

4. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

What do you believe is a reasonable timeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete each projects’ (EIE483 and EIE484) design and construction phase, assume the awarded agreement is in the fourth quarter of the identified fiscal year?

5. Construction near Airfields (EIE483)

For EIE483 Joint Mobility Expansion center project the site location is near an active airfield.

Describe coordination strategies for design and construction activities. Active planning and deconfliction will need to take place between the project, the installation, and airfield management.

Which OTA acquisition strategy do you believe would lend itself best for the required coordination strategy to accomplish the project?

6. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness (EIE483)

Which OTA acquisition strategy for each separate project (EIE483), CM at Risk or PDB, would be best for the project and what would be the advantages/disadvantages? Assuming an award is made, for each separate project (EIE483), what is your firm's estimated lead time to mobilize

Phase 1 (Design and Preconstruction Services) and Phase 2 (Final Design & Construction

Services)? What is the optimal time of year for a contract award to align with your mobilization and maximize the active construction season?

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness (EIE484)

EIE484 Permanent Party Dorm is currently at a 65% Design. Which OTA acquisition strategy, CM at

Risk or PDB, would be best for the project and what would be the advantages/disadvantages?

Assuming an award is made, what is your firm's estimated lead time to mobilize Phase 1

(Preconstruction Services) and Phase 2 (Construction Services)? What is the optimal time of year for a contract award to align with your mobilization and maximize the active construction season?

8. Unidentified Project Risks

Outside of the challenges already identified, what other significant risks do you foresee for projects by project (EIE483 and EIE484) of this scale, type and complexity at Eielson AFB? Which project delivery method best supports potential offeror’s ability to address unidentified project risks with minimal cost and/or delay of project delivery?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

Based on current market data, do the target budgets appear realistic for these facility types and scale?

2. Primary Cost Drivers

What specific project needs or functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead MEP, local labor)?

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

1. Collaboration Priorities

Please rank the areas that would benefit most from early builder involvement during the design phase of the above projects (1 = Greatest Benefit, 5 = Least Benefit).

Area of Collaboration EIE483 Rank (1–5) EIE484 Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-

Time Estimating _______________ _______________

Schedule Certainty &

Phasing _______________ _______________

Constructability &

Quality Control _______________ _______________

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

If the Government utilizes a delivery method that allows for confidential, one-on-one proprietary meetings during the solicitation phase to collaboratively discuss innovative solutions, would your firm participate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

3. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

EIE483 – Joint Mobility Center Expansion

In procurement methods with significant proposal phase efforts, would the Government's offer of a stipend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable stipend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert

Amount/Percentage Here] ______________________________

EIE484 -225-Bed Permanent Party Dormitory

In procurement methods with significant proposal phase efforts, would the Government's offer of a stipend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable stipend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert

Amount/Percentage Here] ______________________________

4. Contract Incentives

EIE483 – Joint Mobility Center Expansion

What specific contract incentives would best drive innovation and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

☐ Shared Cost Savings (e.g., within a GMP Structure)

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

Innovation & Scope

Betterments (Getting more for the money) _______________ _______________

Overall Risk Reduction /

Site Mitigations _______________ _______________

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

EIE484 -225-Bed Permanent Party Dormitory

What specific contract incentives would best drive innovation and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

☐ Shared Cost Savings (e.g., within a GMP Structure)

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

5. Program Capability/Interest

Considering the projects listed: EIE483 and EIE484

a) Which projects would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor?

b) Does your firm have the necessary bonding capacity to cover the total estimated project(s) value?

☐Yes ☐ No

c) If yes, please state your firm’s current aggregate bonding capacity. [Insert Amount Here]

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path

Considering all factors, which project delivery path is optimal for these specific projects?

(Provide a response for each project listed in Section 1 above)

EIE483 – Joint Mobility Center Expansion

☐ CM@Risk: Government needs to control the design but needs early builder collaboration.

☐ Design-Bid-Build (DBB): Scope and design is fully defined; traditional FAR part 36 and FAR part 15 is sufficient.

☐ Design-Build: Scope is defined close to 35%; traditional FAR part 36 and FAR part 15 is sufficient.

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a competitive

(10-15%), fixed-price solution, use of proprietary meetings to advance design solutions (highly collaborative).

☐ Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Scope is highly complex/undefined. Requires a single contract to collaboratively mature the design before locking in a GMP.

EIE484 -225-Bed Permanent Party Dormitory

☐ CM@Risk: Government needs to control the design but needs early builder collaboration.

☐ Design-Bid-Build (DBB): Scope and design is fully defined; traditional FAR part 36 and FAR part 15 is sufficient.

☐ Design-Build: Scope is defined close to 35%; traditional FAR part 36 and FAR part 15 is sufficient.

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a competitive

(10-15%), fixed-price solution, use of proprietary meetings to advance design solutions (highly collaborative).

☐ Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Scope is highly complex/undefined. Requires a single contract to collaboratively mature the design before locking in a GMP.

2. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

Please explain your selections above for each project. Additionally, please indicate if you recommend executing this via a standard FAR-based contract vs the provided OTA type options.

3. Evaluation Strategy

For each project, rank what evaluation criteria you believe the Government should weight most heavily to ensure the highest value project?

Evaluation Factors EIE483 Rank (1–4) EIE484 Rank (1–4)

Past Performance _______________ _______________

Technical Approach/Design _______________ _______________

Price/GMP _______________ _______________

Key Personnel & Team Integration _______________ _______________

Other [Insert Recommendations]

4. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, and/or commercial best practices the Government should consider.