Market Research Intelligence Questionnaire FTG251.pdf

Comprehensive 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)

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

Classification Unclassified / Pre-Solicitation

Market Intelligence Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. MDA ATFP Design ……………………………………..………………

2. Coordination & Site Handover …………………

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction .…………

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

5. Temporary Space Requirements

6. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness …

8. Unidentified Project Risks ………

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

2. Primary Cost Drivers

3. Long Lead/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 Project Name Location Site Characterization

(FTG251) Maintenance Support Facility Ft Greely, AK

Mission Statement Design and Construct a Maintenance Support Facility at Ft. Greely, AK.

Facility Type & Scale Maintenance Support Facility, approximately 56000 square feet.

Primary Functional Spaces Primary Facilities:

The Maintenance Support Facility consists of a heated and ventilated, multipurpose maintenance facility separated into a vehicle storage area and maintenance area. The vehicle storage area includes warm storage capability for mission vehicles and a vehicle washing station. The maintenance area includes receiving/loading docks; environmentally controlled storage areas for interceptor equipment, tools and maintenance equipment, spares, forklift/s and hazardous material spill response materials, arctic clothes and equipment, and maintaining Facility Systems Operation and Maintenance manuals, drawings and other documentation; offices, workstations, and conference space for related management and administrative personnel; lockers, latrines and shower facilities; and breakroom.

Construction includes a Fuel Station for organizational vehicle fueling. Cyber-security measures include Facility Related Control Systems for Electronic Security System, Building Automation System, Electric Power Management System, Lighting Control, and Fire Alarm / Mass Notification Systems. Construction to match nearby facilities on the Missile Defense Complex (MDC).

Supporting facilities include site development, utilities and connections, lighting, paving, parking, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, information systems, landscaping and signage.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $80.8M

Period of Performance FY28 – FY30

Critical Milestones Design Starts FY27, Construction Starts FY28, and Construction complete not later than FY30.

2. Industry Questionnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle (Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR-based) or Other Transactional Agreements (OTA)) for the above facilities. Please email your response to Michelle Nelsen Michelle.Nelsen@usace.army.mil and Brittney Morrison at Brittney.morrison@usace.army.mil by 10 September 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.

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)

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

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided mailto:Michelle.Nelsen@usace.army.mil

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

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. MDA ATFP Design The Maintenance Support Facility for MDA at Ft. Greely, AK shall provide interior framing with seismic support for installed equipment; lightning protection and equipment grounding/bonding systems; and foundation meeting site-specific ground motion, seismic requirements. Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP) features will be incorporated in accordance with applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Awarded offerors must coordinate with the USACE Missile Defense Mandatory Center of Expertise and Standardization in addition to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in Huntsville, AL, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) personnel onsite as well as their contractors, and USACE Alaska District project Stakeholders. What project delivery method, of those identified previously in this questionnaire, offers the most opportunity for engagement and coordination with project stakeholders without incurring risk of project cost increases or delays?

2. Coordination & Site Handover The Government intends to provide mainline utilities to the point of demarcation to the project site. Design and construction coordination with the Government representatives for the final utility installation will be a significant responsibility of an awarded offeror. Awarded offerors must coordinate with the MDA for utilities inside the Missile Defense Complex (MDC). How would you mitigate risks associated with this, and what specific validation criteria would you require upon site turnover?

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction Given the aggressive timeline required to complete the design and construction and the realities of the short Alaskan construction season, how would you mitigate weather delays? Please describe proposed strategies to maintain construction momentum, especially during the winter. Further, how could the Government best structure the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and still maintain the total project’s aggressive schedule?

4. Structuring the OTA for Success Describe which OTA 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 OTA to mitigate the risks of a delay or project cost increase?

5. Temporary Space Requirements For projects of these magnitudes, what is your estimated space requirement for temporary facilities such as staging, material laydown, offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporting infrastructure, such as access roads, to support construction logistics? Awarded offerors must coordinate with the Ft Greely Directorate of Public Works for laydown areas and temporary utilities outside of the Missile Defense Complex (MDC).

6. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism What do you believe is a realistic and reasonable timeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete each projects design and construction?

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness Assuming a contract award is made, for each separate project, 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?

8. Unidentified Project Risks Outside of the challenges already identified, what other significant risks do you foresee for a project of this scale at Ft. Greely, AK? What are factors that the Government should address to reduce costs or increase competition?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism Based on current market data, does the target budget appear realistic for the facility type, scope and magnitude?

2. Primary Cost Drivers What specific mission needs or functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

3. Long Lead/Supply Chain Risk What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead items, local labor, etc.)?

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 Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time Estimating _______________

Schedule Certainty & Phasing _______________

Constructability & Quality Control _______________

Innovation & Scope Betterments (Getting more for the money) _______________

Overall Risk Reduction / Site Mitigations _______________

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 In highly collaborative procurement methods (as planned for this project), offerors will incur design and proposal development costs. 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 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 project listed in Section 1 for Ft. Greely, AK with a combined estimated value of approximately $80.8M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor?

☐Yes ☐ No

b) If yes, does your firm have the necessary bonding capacity to cover the total estimated project 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)

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

☐ 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. Indicate if you recommend executing this via a standard FAR-based contract or an Other Transaction Authority (OTA):

3. Evaluation Strategy For these specific projects, what evaluation 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 Integration

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

4. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, or best commercial practices the Government should consider.