Market Research Questionnaire EAR048 Draft 23OCT26.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 Overview & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Phasing/Turn Over/Commissioning Considerations

2. Remote Location and Environmental Risks…

3. Structuring the OTA for Success………...…………

4. Temporary Space Requirements

5. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

6. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness …

7. Unidentified Project Risks ………

8. Existing Design Incorporation………………………………………………………………………………….7

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

Project Name Location Site Characterization

(EAR048) Repair Fire Alarm System Eareckson Air Station Facilities

Project is located within the Shemya Island perimeter, on a previously developed site, and in Climate Zone 6A.

Mission Statement Design and implement a Wireless Fire Alarm System in Eareckson Air Station Alaska, adapted to Sub-Arctic Maritime Conditions, hurricane-force winds, high salt-spray corrosion, severe isolation and the Eareckson Air Station Design Standards.

Facility Type & Scale Repair/upgrade site fire alarm system with wireless Fire Alarm System, approximately 45 buildings.

Primary Functional Spaces Project includes identifying ruggedized wireless architectures that can withstand extreme Aleutian weather, operate without interfering with (or being disrupted by) high-power military radar/telemetric systems, and offer simplified maintenance routines that installation staff can execute without off-island technician dispatch. The design will need to upgrade 45 buildings across Eareckson Air Station.

Funding Type SRM

Target Budget (CCL) $27M – $33M

Period of Performance FY27 – 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 (FAR-based or OTA) for the above facilities. Please go to the following link to submit your responses https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/DgMYxp3wcZ or email your response to MAJ Quentin Sica at Quentin.Sica@usace.army.mil and Theresa Afrank at Theresa.m.afrank@usace.army.mil by 16 November 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 https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/DgMYxp3wcZ

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

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Phasing/Turn Over/ Commissioning Considerations The Government intends to supply mainline utilities up to the demarcation point for each project site. A key responsibility for the selected contractor will be to coordinate the design and construction with Government representatives to ensure the final utility installation is seamless.

To mitigate associated risks, it will be important to implement effective strategies and establish specific validation criteria during the site turnover process. Additionally, we need to consider the best approach to the commissioning process for the system—should it be performed on a per-building basis? Lastly, identifying the most effective methods to minimize gaps in fire alarm coverage will be crucial.

2. Remote Location and Environmental Risks Given the challenges of soil contamination from a wired connection between two D21s in a remote location with minimal logistical support, along with the cold, windy, and corrosive environment at Eareckson Air Station, it’s crucial to mitigate delays effectively. In what ways can the contractor prioritize reducing on-site delays caused by harsh weather? What risks do you anticipate associated with remote location, 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?

3. 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?

4. 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 or port facilities, to support construction logistics?

5. 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? The project will include working in secure and classified buildings. What is your plan to accommodate working these building and do you have any suggested methods to mitigate and reduce the site impacts?

6. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness Assuming a contract award is made, 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. Unidentified Project Risks Outside of the challenges already identified, what other significant risks do you foresee for a project of this scale at Eareckson Air Station? What are factors that the Government should address to reduce costs or increase competition?

8. Existing Design Incorporation The project has a 100% design for a wired alarm system. What cost, schedule, constructability, or risk do you anticipate associated with joining the project and pivoting the design from a wired to a wireless alarm system? What information would you require upon joining the project to perform your preconstruction services effectively?

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 mission 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 highly collaborative procurement methods (like DBtB), 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 Eareckson Air Station with a combined estimated value of approximately $33M:

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 Recommendat ons Here] ______________________________

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