Market Intelligence - Research - JBSA - Akeroyd Blood Donor Center.pdf

Project Information Packet (PIP)

1. Project Overview & Mission Goal

• Project Name/Number: Akeroyd Blood Donor Center Addition/Alteration (PN # 577377)

• Location: Joint Base San Antonio Fort Sam Houston, Texas

• Mission Statement: The facility is required to support the collection, processing and storage of blood products including packed red blood cells (RBCs), whole blood, frozen plasma, liquid plasma, etc. for the BrookeArmy Medical Center (BAMC) Level 1 Trauma Center and the Armed Services Blood Program (ASBP).

• Why Progressive Design Build? USACE is seeking industry innovation to maximize facility quality, durability, and performance within a fixed, non-negotiable budget.

2. Functional Requirements (The "What")

• Facility Type: Blood Donor Center o Supporting facilities include utilities, site improvements, parking, signage, antiterrorism/force protection measures, and environmental protection measures.

• Estimated Scale: 15,750 square feet

• Primary Functional Spaces:

• Blood Donor Center: 15,750 square foot, two-story building to support 60-80 daily blood donations, processing, and shipment. Facility to include a reception and waiting area, screening, donating, and recovery area, processing and testing area, shipping and distribution area, support areas, staff and administration areas, and mechanical infrastructure areas.

• Emergency Power: Provide a 750-kW generator to support critical building systems and blood storage functions during loss of normal power.

• Project Complexity: Although the facility is modest in size, the Government recognizes that the project may present complexity beyond that of a typical building of similar square footage due to its specialized blood collection, processing, testing, storage, and distribution functions; emergency power requirements; utility coordination; and any required integration with existing infrastructure. Industry feedback is requested regarding how these factors may affect design development, constructability, commissioning, schedule, and pricing

• Key Performance Targets: Facility shall support safe, reliable, and efficient blood donor collection, processing, testing, storage, and shipment functions. Facility layout and systems shall support approximately 60-80 daily blood donations and associated staff/support operations. Critical blood storage and other identified mission-essential systems shall be supported by emergency power during loss of normal utility service. Building systems shall support the environmental conditions required for blood processing, testing, and storage functions. Facility design shall emphasize durability, maintainability, and long-term life-cycle performance. Design shall support efficient workflow for donors, staff, materials, and shipment/distribution functions. Facility systems and infrastructure shall accommodate required utility connections, commissioning, and operational turnover. Design and construction approach should maximize mission capability and technical quality within the stated Construction Cost Limitation (CCL).

3. Known Project Constraints

• Site Conditions: Project site requires minor remediation; site for construction is in current facility’s parking lot. Industry feedback is requested regarding impacts to site logistics, laydown, parking displacement, utility conflicts, and construction phasing.

• Security/Access: Project is located inside the cantonment area of Fort Sam Houston, TX; all personnel must undergo NCIC checks and comply with all required Installation access policies and requirements.

• Utilities: Coordination will be required with Privatized Utility Providers; contractor is responsible for utilities within facility to service providers point of demarcation.

• Adjacent operations may remain occupied and operational during construction.

4. The Construction Cost Limitation (CCL)

• The Fixed Budget: $33,970,000

• What it Includes: This amount covers all design services and construction.

• The Progressive Design Build Challenge: USACE is seeking the design-build team that can provide the highest level of technical merit, quality, and mission-capability for this fixed amount.

• Based on the described scope and constraints, is the project achievable within the stated CCL? If not, what are the primary cost drivers or scope uncertainties?

5. Proposed Project Schedule

• Solicitation Release: December 2026

• Contract Award: June 2027

• Period of Performance: 730 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed (NTP).

• Critical Milestones:

o The primary critical milestone is achieving Agreement for Phase I within FY27.

o A specific Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) has not yet been established and may be a key component of the acquisition schedule.

• The Government requests industry feedback on the feasibility of the proposed schedule, including key design, procurement, utility coordination, commissioning, and turnover risks.

6. The Procurement Process (The "Collaborative Path") (NOTE: Change this based on what your procurement type is)

• Potential Agreement Type: The Government is considering executing this project using an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement in lieu of a traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract. We are actively seeking industry feedback to determine if an OT or a FAR-based approach is most appropriate for this specific project.

• Pre-Agreement to include Request for Qualifications, White Paper, Down Select, Pitch Presentations, Negotiations, and Award.

• Two-Phase Selection: Phase 1 would involve selection of the most qualified team and collaborative design development to validate scope, cost, and constructability. Phase 2 would include completion of final design and construction, subject to successful phase completion and applicable approvals.

• Stipends: Project not issuing stipends.

• Incentives: Project not utilizing incentives.

Market Intelligence: First Look Questionnaire

Project Name: Akeroyd Blood Donor Center Addition/Alteration Project Number: 577377 Date: 3 September 2026

Purpose: The answers to this section are critical. They will guide the PDT in determining whether Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) is viable, or whether the project’s complexity and risk profile require a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) approach.

Respondent Information

Firm Name: _______________________________________________

Primary Point of Contact: __________________________________

Title: ____________________________________________________

Email: ___________________________________________________

Phone: ___________________________________________________

I. General Feasibility & Model Selection (DBtB vs. PDB)

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 contractual vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract?

Please explain your reasoning in detail, including any considerations related to risk allocation, flexibility, procurement efficiency, commercial terms, and project execution.

Response:

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?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, please identify and explain the barriers, risks, or concerns, including any potential mitigation strategies.

03. Model Viability

Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet, does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price 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 or uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

Additional Comments:

4. Risk Justification

Please explain your reasoning for the answer provided below.

What are the top 1–3 factors that influenced your assessment? Examples may include:

• Project complexity

• Site conditions

• Clarity of functional requirements

• Design maturity

• Unknown existing conditions

• Specialty systems or equipment

• Schedule constraints

• Market volatility

• Supply-chain risks

• Regulatory or permitting requirements

• Other factors

Response:

Factor 1: ________________________________________________________________

2: ________________________________________________________________

3: ________________________________________________________________

Reasoning

5. PDB Threshold

If you answered “No” to Question 3, at what level of design maturity would your firm feel confident in providing a reliable, fixed price or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) through a Progressive Design-Build process?

☐ 15% Design

☐ 35% Design

☐ 60% Design

☐ 90% Design

☐ Other: ______________________________

Please explain the rationale for your selection.

II. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment

Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $33,970,000.00 for approximately 15,750 square feet appear realistic in the current local market?

☐ Yes – The CCL appears realistic.

☐ Generally – The CCL is achievable with certain qualifications or adjustments.

☐ No – The CCL appears insufficient for the stated requirements.

Please explain.

2. Major Cost Drivers

From a high-level review of the functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

Examples may include:

• Specialized security requirements

• Unique structural loads

• Specialized MEP systems

• High-performance building envelope

• Mission-specific technology

• Specialty equipment

• Resiliency requirements

• Site or utility requirements

• Other project-specific requirements

3. Market Precedents

Are there specific benchmarks, comparable projects, or recent industry projects the Government should consider ensuring expectations for quality, performance, functionality, and cost are aligned with the proposed budget?

Relevant Project/Benchmark (if applicable):

Project Name:

Location:

Approximate Size:

Approximate Cost:

Completion Year:

III. Flexibility & Innovation (The "How")

1. Prescriptive “Showstoppers”

Are there any requirements in the functional description that appear overly prescriptive or “locked-in” and might prevent your firm from offering a more innovative or cost-effective solution that meets the mission requirements?

☐ Yes

☐ No

If yes, please identify the requirements and explain how they could be modified to enable greater innovation or value.

2. Innovation Opportunities

For this building type, where do you typically see the greatest opportunities for an integrated design-build team to provide “more for the money”?

Examples may include:

• Modular systems

• Standardization

• Envelope efficiency

• MEP coordination

• Structural optimization

• Prefabrication

• Building systems integration

• Space planning

• Construction sequencing

• Energy efficiency

• Materials selection

• Technology integration

• Other opportunities

Top Innovation Opportunity: ______________________________________________

Potential Benefit: ______________________________________________________

IV. Market & Supply Chain – External Risks

1. Long-Lead Warning

Even without a full design, are there specific systems, equipment, or materials common to this facility type that are currently experiencing extended lead times that could threaten the proposed project schedule?

Examples may include:

• Generators

• Custom AHUs

• Electrical switchgear

• Transformers

• Specialty laboratory equipment

• Security systems

• Specialty glazing

• Controls systems

• Other mission-critical equipment

Recommended Mitigation Strategies:

2. Local Labor Constraints

Are there specific trades in the project area that are currently over-extended or in short supply and could impact the project's risk profile, cost, or schedule?

☐ Yes

☐ No

If yes, please identify the affected trades and describe the anticipated impact.

Potential Mitigation:

V. Defining Value – The “Betterment” Search

1. The Value Gap

If your team discovers design efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which betterments or enhancements should the Government prioritize as most valuable for this facility type?

Please rank the following from 1–5, with 1 being the highest priority.

Betterment / Enhancement Rank

Enhanced durability / maintainability _____

Lower life-cycle costs _____

Improved energy efficiency _____

Improved technology / systems capability _____

Improved mission functionality / flexibility _____

Schedule acceleration _____

Improved resiliency / redundancy _____

Other:

Please explain your ranking:

2. Sustainability Targets

Is the proposed level of sustainability (e.g., specific energy goals, energy-use intensity targets, certifications, carbon-reduction goals, etc.) a standard “reach” for industry, or will achieving the target require significant premium pricing in this market?

☐ Standard / Routinely Achievable

☐ Achievable with Moderate Additional Cost

☐ Significant Premium Pricing Likely

☐ Target Requires Further Definition

Comments:

Recommended Sustainability Target(s), if applicable:

Project Information Packet (PIP)