Market Intelligence Questionnaire JBR041 and JBR044_RTA.pdf

Comprehensive Market Intelligence QuesƟonnaire Project Delivery & AcquisiƟon Strategy

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

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

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

ClassificaƟon Unclassified / Pre-SolicitaƟon

Market Intelligence QuesƟonnaire | Project Delivery & AcquisiƟon Strategy

Table of Contents

1. Project InformaƟon Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

2. Industry QuesƟonnaire

Part I: Company InformaƟon & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. ArcƟc AdaptaƟon of Army Standard Design ………………

2. Inter-Project CoordinaƟon & Site Handover

3. Schedule Risk & Winter ConstrucƟon .…………

4. Structuring the OTA for Success …………………

5. Temporary Space Requirements

6. ConstrucƟon DuraƟon & Schedule Realism

7. MobilizaƟon & Start-Work Readiness …

8. UnidenƟfied Project Risks ………

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

2. Primary Cost Drivers

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, CollaboraƟon & Financial Drivers

1. CollaboraƟon PrioriƟes

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary MeeƟngs

3. SƟpends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

4. Contract IncenƟves

5. Program Capability/Interest

Part V: Overall Delivery RecommendaƟon

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path

2. Basis of RecommendaƟon & ContracƟng Vehicle

3. EvaluaƟon Strategy

4. Commercial Best PracƟces & Concerns

1. Project InformaƟon Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints

JBR041 – Pallet Processing Facility

Project Name LocaƟon Site CharacterizaƟon

Pallet Processing Facility (JBR041) JBER-Richardson, Alaska Project is located within the secure facility perimeter, on both Greenfield and previously developed lands, and in Climate Zone 7.

Mission Statement This project is required to provide a fully enclosed, all-weather, 24-hour Pallet Processing Facility operaƟon that will serve as the only hazardous cargo processing point and consolidated alert final preparaƟon and holding area at JBER. The facility will play a criƟcal role in supporƟng the deployment of Airborne forces, as well as subsequent power projecƟon of follow-on forces and equipment.

Facility Type & Scale Pallet processing facility of approximately 52,000 Ō2

Primary FuncƟonal Spaces SpaƟal requirements: including administraƟve office space for 6 personnel: 1 supervisor (138 NSF office), and 5 administrators (96 NSF office each). Warehouse floor personnel would consist of a maximum of 30 military personnel. OperaƟons Control Center of approximately 2,500 square feet. Explosives stored in the facility would always be guarded and monitored by military staff. This operaƟonal procedure eliminates the need for an IDS plaƞorm.

AddiƟonal space requirements included 463L pallet storage racks, a carpentry shop equipped with heavy cuƫng tools (such as radial long saws and table saws), NIPR and SIPR connecƟvity, three 480V forkliŌs with chargers, and material storage and handling areas. The facility design would include one interior drive though lane for trucks and one lane with loading dock capabiliƟes featuring a rollerized scale for a three-pallet train. The central area of the facility would be used for material storage and handling, while the peripheral wall areas would be designated for pallet material storage.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $79.5M

Period of Performance FY29 – FY32

CriƟcal Milestones Design Start in FY29 Q1, ConstrucƟon start in FY30, 24 month construcƟon period

JBR044 – Rapid Deployment Facility

Project Name LocaƟon Site CharacterizaƟon

Rapid Deployment Facility (JBR044) JBER-Richardson, Alaska Project is located within the secure facility perimeter, on previously developed lands with known soil contaminaƟon, and in Climate Zone 7.

Mission Statement Design and Construct a Rapid Deployment Facility (RDF) complex to conduct pre-deployment/redeployment acƟviƟes in support of a Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) and follow-on forces. The RDF includes preparaƟon and staging areas for unit Soldiers and vehicles, comprised of an airfield side Passenger Shed and Joint InspecƟon facility.

Facility Type & Scale Rapid Deployment Facility of approximately

Primary FuncƟonal Spaces The RDF includes preparaƟon and staging areas for unit Soldiers and vehicles, comprised of an airfield side Passenger Shed and Joint InspecƟon facility. The passenger shed will include ammuniƟon, parachute and raƟon issue areas, latrines, departure airfield control officer (DACO) counter and ID check, chalk set benches, and organizaƟonal vehicle parking to support deployment acƟviƟes of Soldiers. Its siƟng requires relocaƟon of Pumphouse #3 Truck Fill Stand. The Joint InspecƟon Facility includes vehicle inspecƟon lanes, indoor wash rack with oil-water separator, storage for 463L pallets and Class IV dunnage, driver waiƟng area, covered defuel point, administraƟve space, and organizaƟonal vehicle parking.

Both faciliƟes also include cybersecurity of four plaƞorms, sustainability/energy measures, and building informaƟon systems.

SupporƟng faciliƟes include site improvements, uƟliƟes and connecƟons, exterior lighƟng, paving, storm drainage, informaƟon systems, landscaping, perimeter fencing, and signage. HeaƟng and air condiƟoning will be provided by self-contained systems.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $103M

Period of Performance FY29-FY32

CriƟcal Milestones Design Start in FY29 Q1, ConstrucƟon start in FY30, 24 month construcƟon period

2. Industry QuesƟonnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the opƟmal project delivery method and contracƟng vehicle(Federal AcquisiƟon RegulaƟons (FAR-based) or Other TransacƟonal (OT) Agreements for the above faciliƟes. Please email your response to Michelle Nelsen (Michelle.Nelsen@usace.army.mil) , BriƩney Morrison at (BriƩney.morrison@usace.army.mil), Katherine Green at (Katherine.green@usace.army.mil) and Theresa Afrank at (Theresa.m.afrank@usace.army.mil) by 21 October 2026 at 14:00 Alaska Time.

Accelerated Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) FAR-based delivery approach where the Government develops sufficient project definiƟon to compeƟƟvely establish a Firm-Fixed-Price before collaboraƟve design development.

ConstrucƟon Manager at Risk (CM At Risk) - OTA Project delivery method where a construcƟon manager acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and transiƟons to a general contractor role during construcƟon.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – OTA Single design-build agreement. Phase 1 collaboraƟvely matures the design and negoƟates a Guaranteed Maximum Price cost before the Government decides whether to proceed with construcƟon.

Part I: Company InformaƟon and 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)

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

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided

AnƟcipated Teaming ☐ Standalone Prime ☐ Joint Venture (JV) ☐ Mentor-Protégé ☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Cold Climate Design PracƟces Both the Pallet Processing Facility (JBR041) and Rapid Deployment Facility (JBR044) projects will require in-depth knowledge of cold climate design pracƟces and substanƟal early coordinaƟon efforts with project stakeholders to select the most appropriate cold climate design features.

What project delivery method, of those idenƟfied previously in this quesƟonnaire, offers the most opportunity for engagement and coordinaƟon with project stakeholders without incurring risk of project cost increases or delays?

2. Inter-Project CoordinaƟon and Site Handover The Government intends to provide mainline uƟliƟes to the point of demarcaƟon for each project site. Design and construcƟon coordinaƟon with the Government representaƟves for the final uƟlity installaƟon will be a significant responsibility of an awarded offeror. How would your company miƟgate risks associated with this, and what specific validaƟon criteria would you require upon site turnover?

3. Schedule Risk and Winter ConstrucƟon Given the aggressive Ɵmelines required to complete design in one year and the realiƟes of the short Alaskan construcƟon season, how would you miƟgate weather delays? Please describe off-site prefabricaƟon strategies, modular construcƟon, winter-enclosure techniques, and/or other strategies that you would propose to maintain construcƟon momentum year-round. How could the Government best structure collaboraƟve design efforts to evaluate the cost-versus-Ɵme tradeoffs of these methods before finalizing a Guaranteed Maximum Price?

4. Structuring the OT Agreement for Success Describe which OT Agreement vehicle your firm feels will yield the highest probability of a completed facility at or below the budget target without compromise to project quality. What performance metrics or strategies do you recommend the Government build into an OT Agreement to miƟgate the risks of a delay or project cost increase?

5. Temporary Space Requirements For each of these projects, what is your esƟmated space requirement for temporary faciliƟes such as staging, material laydown, offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporƟng infrastructure, such as access roads or port faciliƟes, to support construcƟon logisƟcs?

6. ConstrucƟon DuraƟon and Schedule Realism What do you believe is a realisƟc and reasonable Ɵmeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete each project’s design and construcƟon?

7. MobilizaƟon and Start-Work Readiness Assuming a contract award is made, for each separate project, what is your firm's esƟmated lead Ɵme to mobilize for Design and PreconstrucƟon Services and follow-up Final Design & ConstrucƟon Services? What is the opƟmal Ɵme of year for a contract award to align with your mobilizaƟon and maximize the acƟve construcƟon season?

8. UnidenƟfied Project Risks Outside of the challenges already idenƟfied, what other significant risks do you foresee for each project of this scale at JBER-Richardson? What are factors that the Government should address to reduce costs or increase compeƟƟon?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers and Schedule

1. Budget Realism Based on current market data, do the target budgets appear realisƟc for these facility types and scale?

2. Primary Cost Drivers What specific mission needs or funcƟonal requirements do you anƟcipate 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, CollaboraƟon and Financial Drivers

1. CollaboraƟon PrioriƟes 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 CollaboraƟon Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time EsƟmaƟng _______________

Schedule Certainty & Phasing _______________

Constructability & Quality Control _______________

InnovaƟon & Scope BeƩerments (Geƫng more for the money) _______________

Overall Risk ReducƟon / Site MiƟgaƟons _______________

2. Industry Engagement and Proprietary MeeƟngs If the Government uƟlizes a delivery method that allows for confidenƟal, one-on-one proprietary meeƟngs during the solicitaƟon phase to collaboraƟvely discuss innovaƟve soluƟons, would your firm parƟcipate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

3. SƟpends (Honorariums) and Proposal Costs In highly collaboraƟve procurement methods, offerors will incur design and proposal development costs. Would the Government's offer of a sƟpend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable sƟpend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert Amount/Percentage Here] ______________________________

4. Contract IncenƟves What specific contract incenƟves would best drive innovaƟon and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

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

☐ Award Fee for Quality / InnovaƟon

☐ Other [Insert RecommendaƟons Here] ______________________________

5. Program Capability/Interest Considering the projects listed in SecƟon 1 for Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson with a combined esƟmated value of approximately $182.5M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor for JBR041, PPF?

☐Yes ☐ No

b) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor for JBR044, RDF?

☐Yes ☐ No

c) If yes for one or both of these projects, does your firm have the necessary bonding capacity to cover the total esƟmated project value?

☐Yes ☐ No

d) If yes, please state your firm’s current aggregate bonding capacity.

$ [Insert Amount Here]____________

Part V: Overall Delivery RecommendaƟon

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path:

JBR041 PPF

Considering all factors, which project delivery path is opƟmal for JBR041 PPF?

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

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

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a compeƟƟve (10-15%), fixed-price soluƟon, use of proprietary meeƟngs to advance design soluƟons (highly collaboraƟve).

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

JBR044 RDF

Considering all factors, which project delivery path is opƟmal for JBR044 RDF?

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

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

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a compeƟƟve (10-15%), fixed-price soluƟon, use of proprietary meeƟngs to advance design soluƟons (highly collaboraƟve).

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

2. Basis of RecommendaƟon & ContracƟng Vehicle Please explain the primary basis of your recommended delivery path(s) in the selecƟons above:

3. EvaluaƟon Strategy For these specific projects, what evaluaƟon criteria do you believe the Government should weigh most heavily to ensure success? (Rank top 3: 1 being most important)

______Past Performance

______Technical Approach/Design

______Price/GMP

______Key Personnel & Team IntegraƟon

______Other [Insert RecommendaƟons Here] ______________________________

4. Commercial Best PracƟces and Concerns Please provide any addiƟonal comments, overly prescripƟve constraints to avoid, or commercial best pracƟces the Government should consider.