Market Research Intelligence Questionnaire FTW511 FTW515.pdf

Comprehensive Market Research 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

Market Research Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

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. Arctic Adaptation of Army Standard Design ………………

2. Inter-Project 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. 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

FTW511

Project Name & Location Soldier Performance Readiness Center (SPRC), Ft Wainright, AK

Mission Statement Design and Construct a Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) facility building at Fort Wainwright Alaska, adapted to Arctic Conditions and the Ft Wainwright Installation Design Standards.

Facility Type & Scale Training Facility with administrative space

Primary Functional Spaces Project includes all administrative/office areas, all fitness modules (enclosed Warm up (Zone 0), Resistance (Zone 1), Accessory (Zone 2), and Work Capacity/Agility (Zone 3)), Re-conditioning and cognitive area, 2ea classrooms, Break/Team room, restrooms and storage, special foundations, fire protection and alarm with sprinklers systems, carbon monoxide detection and alarm systems, Building Information Systems. Energy Monitoring and Control System (EMCS), security and CCTV systems, and mass notification systems are included. Adjusted Gross building area not to exceed 48,633 square feet.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $76M

Period of Performance FY27-FY30

Critical Milestones Design start FY27, Construction starts not earlier than FY28.

FTW515

Project Name & Location Unaccompanied Enlisted Housing Barracks, Ft Wainwright Alaska

Mission Statement Design and Construct a multi-story Barracks building at Fort Wainwright Alaska, adapted to Arctic Conditions and the Ft Wainwright Installation Design Standards. Project shall utilize some form of Volumetric Modular Construction, Kit of Parts, or 3D Printed Structures. These methods offer higher off-site quality control, improve thermal performance, and drastically reduce the time Soldiers wait for new facilities.

Facility Type & Scale Soldier Housing

Primary Functional Spaces Construct a standard design Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing Facility to accommodate 256 soldiers. Primary facilities include living and sleeping quarters, bathroom, storage, laundry rooms, service areas, a day room on each floor, two elevators, building information systems, fire protection and alarm systems, Mass Notification Systems, Intrusion Detection System, and Energy Monitoring Control Systems connection. Sustainability and energy measures are included. Deep excavation and special foundations will be required to mitigate damage from frozen soils and to mitigate potential seismic effects. Adjusted Gross Area of 133,506 square feet.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $201M

Period of Performance FY27 – FY30

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), Katherine Green ( Katherine.Green@usace.army.mil), and Theresa Afrank (Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil) by 07 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.

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:Mark.R.Corn@usace.army.mil mailto:Kimberly.D.Tripp@usace.army.mil mailto:Katherine.Green@usace.army.mil mailto:Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil

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

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Arctic Adaptation of Army Standard Design The Barracks and SPRC are based upon Army Standard Designs. The Standard designs have required program areas and adjacencies to be incorporated into the final design. Both standard designs have area waivers which allow them to exceed the baseline standards to the area currently programmed. Approval of the Final designs will require further review and concurrence with the respective Army Centers of Standardization. Therefore, awarded offerors must coordinate extensively with the Centers of Standardization in addition to local Ft Wainwright Directorate of Public Works, End User Groups, and USACE Alaska District project Stakeholders. Which of the project delivery methods, 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. Inter-Project Coordination & Site Handover The Government intends to provide mainline utilities to the point of demarcation for each project site. Design and construction coordination with the Government representatives for the final utility installation will be a significant responsibility of an awarded offeror. 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 timelines required to complete design in one year and the realities of the short Alaskan construction season, 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 momentum year-round. 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?

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 each project identified, 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?

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

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness Assuming an 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 projects of this scale, type and complexity at Ft Wainwright? 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 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 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 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 in Section 1 for Ft Wainwright with a combined estimated value of approximately $277M:

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)

FTW511 - SPRC

☐ 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.

FTW515 - Barracks

☐ 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. 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 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.