PPSV Slides FY18-20 BH AFH 2021.03.05.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

SOLICITATION #: W912GB21R0011

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING RIGHT SIZING AND

RENOVATIONS SMITH BARRACKS,

BAUMHOLDER, GERMANY

Presented by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District

9 March 2021

AGENDA

• Registration / Check-in (roughly 10:00-10:30)

• Pre-proposal Conference (roughly 10:30-11:30)

• Project Overview

• Project History

• New 35% Design Cost Risk Mitigation Measures

• Procurement Matters

• Procurement Timeline

• Systems, Registrations

• Proposal Format & Submission

• Evaluation Criteria

• Debriefings

• Resident Management System (RMS)

• Final Comments / Closing Remarks / Questions

• Walkthrough Buildings 8059, 8060 (roughly 11:30-13:00)

Information Provided for this Pre-Proposal Conference

Any content of this presentation, remarks or explanations provided are for general information and do not change the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

DISCLAIMER

SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW

• Design and construction services to renovate 13

1950s era, four-story stairwell apartment buildings on Smith Barracks in Baumholder, Germany.

• Reconfigure the existing facilities to combine and right-size 184 existing Army Family Housing (AFH) dwelling units (DU) and bring them in line with AFH standards for DU square footage.

• All major building systems and components have outlived their useful life and require modernization.

• The existing units do not meet current standards for quality of life, space, amenities or Antiterrorism / Force Protection (ATFP).

• Three separately funded military construction (MILCON) projects: PN 71425 (FY18), PN 74339 (FY19), and PN 90430 (FY20).

PROJECT HISTORY

• Three MILCON projects initially conceived as separate 100% Design-Bid-Build (DBB) projects

• Each was solicited independently in August 2020.

• Each RFP resulted in proposals significantly exceeding the budgets.

• New solicitation will address cost risks in several key ways:

• Consolidated contract for all three projects

• Design Build (DB) project delivery approach

• DB RFP (Phase 2) will include only the concept level (35%) design

• 35% design currently underway is considering various measures to mitigate cost risks.

PROJECT HISTORY

Cost Risk Concerns, Summary

• Significant cost factors identified from prior solicitation include:

• Structural demolition and new structural works

• New ATFP windows, sliding doors, and associated structural impacts

• New interior stairways

• New elevator shafts (within the existing building footprint)

• Loggia (recessed balconies)

35% DESIGN COST RISK MITIGATION MEASURES

Load Bearing Walls

• All load bearing walls, foundations and bracing systems are being retained to the greatest extent possible. Penetrations through structural walls are being presented to accommodate spatial relationships and shall be sized to a size based on an economy of scale.

• Existing windows openings are being retained to the greatest extent possible to reduce the replacement of window headers.

• The existing chimneys and utility shaft walls are being removed to accommodate the new apartment layouts and will require slab replacements to provide for the horizontal stiffening of the building adjacent to the existing stairwell cores but is a significant overall reduction from the previous design package.

ATFP Windows and Doors

• ATFP windows are being replaced/upgraded only where absolutely required to address interior spatial layouts. The existing windows will however receive a maintenance program to improve and correct any existing functional deficiencies.

• Any new ATFP Windows will be presented as contract options in the Phase Two RFP.

• Window and Glass Doors where designed are done so to optimize utilizing existing window rough openings and headers.

• Additionally, a new USACE Blast Load Study will clarify which buildings and locations will require additional structural sub-frames to carry design loads; thus, greatly reducing risk to the DB Contractor.

• The 35% Design Team has identified at least two certified manufactures of ATFP products, using the design loads from the USACE calculations and the adjusted Stand Off Distances.

Stairwells

• The new 35% design will retain the existing stairwells. Only repair work and handrail improvements are foreseen on these building elements. This is compliance with German and US building codes and remains a feasible design decision which is removing risk and significant costs.

Elevators

• The elevators are designed as structurally independent elements, located outside the existing building footprint, reducing significant costs and construction time, avoiding impacts to primary structural system and the basement building systems.

• The elevators will be contract options in the Phase Two RFP.

• This is compliance with German and US building codes. Elevators are not required by Building Code or UFC Requirements.

Balconies

• The new 35% Design will specify external, structurally independent “staked” balconies which reduce significant structural impacts and cost risks.

• The balconies will be contract options in the Phase Two RFP. Option 1 will be to enlarge door openings to and install “French Balconies”. Option 2 will be to construct staked balconies.

Dual Voltage

• The prior solicitations specified dual voltage systems throughout the entire buildings, via large centralized transformers in the basements.

• The new 35% Design will specify dual voltage systems in the kitchens only, via small decentralized transformers in each unit.

• The decentralized dual voltage system will be a contract option in the Phase Two RFP.

Floor Plan Layouts

• The new 35% design will permit any/all interior non-load bearing walls to be demolished and for the intent of the “Right Sizing” to be implemented, retaining only load bearing walls, with only openings for room connections.

• The DB contractor could increase the size of these openings if cost effective without significantly increasing the structural upgrades. The DB contractor should optimize the floor plans further, as long as all minimum spatial requirements are adhered to and the AFH Design Guide intent is followed.

Exterior Façade Renovations

• The new 35% design will retain all existing facades to the greatest extent possible, limiting to paint, patch and repair wherever possible or new infill only where windows must be adapted.

• The new 35% design will specify insulation upgrades in only two buildings 8057 and 8063, and those will be contract options in the Phase Two RFP.

Interior Heating

• The prior solicitations specified underfloor heating systems.

• The new 35% design will permit traditional wall mounted radiators. The new 35% design also includes new heating calculations that have resulted in a reduced overall primary heating requirement for the systems.

Kitchen Designs

• The new 35% design will ensure minimal adherence to the AFH Design Guide and emphasize that with exception to the kitchen hoods, nearly all other appliances will be purchased and installed by the Government (not the DB contractors).

Roller Shutters (Rolladen)

• The prior solicitations specified high quality roller shutters.

• The new 35% design will permit conventional exterior surface mounter roller-shutters and will ensure only minimal adherence to the AFH Design Guide.

Mass Notification System (MNS)

• The prior solicitations specified a Mass Notification System (MNS).

• The new 35% design will not specify a MNS.

Contract Base Bid Design and Construct Right Sizing Project

Contract Option A1 Balconies windows + Railing (Juliette balconies) Contract Option A2 Balconies windows + Staked balcony (including only costs >A1)

Contract Option B Exterior Elevators

Contract Option C 120V system (decentralized in kitchens only)

Contract Option D Covered Parking (carports)

Contract Option E Replace existing underground sewage

Contract Option F All new ATFP windows, (except balcony and elevator area)

Contract Option G New Exterior insulation (Buildings 8057 and 8063 only)

Phase Two RFP Contract Options, Summarized (TENTATIVE!)

PROCUREMENT TIMELINE

Phase I – Determines most highly qualified.

• RFP includes no technical details

• Requires a non-price proposal

• Requires no price proposal

Phase II – One single awardee selected amongst most highly qualified from Phase I.

• Selected Offerors will be notified.

• RFP will include the 35% design.

• Requires another non-price proposal

• Requires a price proposal

Date

19-Feb-2021

9-Mar-2021

15-Mar-2021

25-Mar-2021

7-May-2021

20-May-2021

26-May-2021

15-Jun-2021

25-Jun-2021

26-Jul-2021

2-Aug-2021

9-Sep-2021

Milestone

S ol ic ita tio n (P ha se

I) Phase I RFP

Phase I Pre-proposal Inquiries Due

Phase I Proposals Due

Phase I Pre-Proposal Conference

Phase II Revised Proposals Due (tentative)

Phase II Open Discussions (tentative, and only if necessary)

Phase II RFP DRAFT (tentative)

Phase II RFP FINAL (tentative)

So lic ita tio n (P ha se

II

Anticipated Award (tentative)

Phase II Proposals Due (tentative)

Phase II Site Visit (tentative)

Phase II Pre-proposal Inquiries Due (tentative)

Two Phase Design Build (DB) Selection Procedures

REGISTRATIONS & IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

System Description Website General Timeline

DUNS Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS):

Unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of your business https://fedgov.dnb.co m/webform/

7-10 business days

CAGE /

NCAGE

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code https://eportal.nspa.na to.int/AC135Public/Ca geTool/home https://eportal.nspa.na to.int/AC135Public/Do cs/US%20Instructions %20for%20NSPA%20 N

24-48 hours

SAM System for Award Management (SAM) is a registration database required for all US Federal Government Contracts https://www.sam.gov/ 2 weeks to go active

Beta.sam.gov Beta.sam.gov is a web-based portal which allows vendors to review U.S. Contract Opportunities https://beta.sam.gov/h elp/contract-opportunities

Immediate https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/ https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/CageTool/home https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/Docs/US%20Instructions%20for%20NSPA%20N https://www.sam.gov/ https://beta.sam.gov/help/contract-opportunities

• All contractors must register and maintain an active SAM entity registration in order to be eligible for contract awards, as required by the solicitations provision: FAR 52.204-7 SAM and contract clause FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance

• Contractors are required to update SAM registration ANNUALLY.

• In order to eligible for the contract award resulting from this solicitation, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office.

• How does your company register in SAM? Go to:

https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/loginFAQ.jsf

• For Help with SAM, Contact the Federal Service Desk: www.fsd.gov Live Chat or Web form or via Phone U.S. Calls: 866-606-8220 (toll free) International Calls: 334-206-7828 Hours of Operation: Monday - Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. US Eastern Time

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/loginFAQ.jsf http://www.fsd.gov/

• All Requests for Proposal (RFP) documents and amendments are posted at the beta.sam.gov website https://beta.sam.gov.

• Web URL is: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/31150ed3e5864aa9986820923c326632/view

• The solicitation Number is W912GB21R0011

• It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

• The beta.sam.gov has a “Contractor Resources” help section including a quick start guide and a tutorial video with instructions on how to utilize the site, accessible via the following web URL: https://beta.sam.gov/help/contract-opportunities

SOLICITATIONS & AMENDMENTS

https://beta.sam.gov/ https://beta.sam.gov/opp/31150ed3e5864aa9986820923c326632/view https://beta.sam.gov/help/contract-opportunities

Electronic Proposals.

All proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil and christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil.

As an alternative, Offerors with file size difficulties ( see next paragraph) may utilize the DoD

SAFE Site (https://safe.apps.mil).

File Size Limitations.

Offerors are advised not to exceed 10MB file size due to email server restrictions.

Break files down into smaller sections and deliver in separate emails if needed or utilize DoD

SAFE.

If utilizing the DoD SAFE site, Offerors shall request a DoD SAFE “dropoff” no less than one week before the proposal due date.

The DoD SAFE file size limitation is 8GB.

See RFP for further instructions.

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

mailto:phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil mailto:christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

File Names. Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “W912GB21R0011 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912GB21R0011 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W912GB21R0011 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 2.pdf”

File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions.

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled.

Proposals shall be in the English language.

Proposals shall be organized and titled so that the proposal follows the order and format of the evaluation factors.

Files shall be submitted in their native format, or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

Further detailed instructions in the RFP (font size, etc.)

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions

Upload Completion & Deadline Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document. (watch for amendments!)

The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded of email receipt on the Government’s server.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting.

Pay special attention to stated proposal deadlines. Late proposals in nearly all cases will not be considered.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Offerors shall submit inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. See the solicitation for ProjNet registration instructions.

Bidder Inquiry Key:

G8BQM2-CIE4UW

Bidder Inquiries will be closed to new inquiries TEN calendar days before the proposal due date in order to appropriately respond and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES VIA PROJNET

Select USACE

Enter Email http://www.projnet.org/projnet

Summary.

The Government Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Non-Price Factors.

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management Approach

PHASE ONE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Executive Summary. Cover letter and any joint venture agreements.

Factor 1, Past Performance.

Completed CPARS records and/or completed PPQs for projects completed by the Offeror

(or the Offeror’s key teaming partner or designer subcontractor) Up to five construction projects and five design projects each.

Factor 2, Management Approach.

An Organizational chart.

A narrative limited to 20 pages.

READ THE RFP INSTRUCTIONS VERY CAREFULLY!

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Cover Letter.

A cover letter including all of the exact information stated in the RFP.

Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments).

A completed SF 1442 and a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment.

SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications.

A completed clause FAR 52.204-8(d).

A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) A copy of their current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

General.

The SST will evaluate the non-price proposals in order to determine the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase ONE. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase ONE submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase ONE. However, the Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to shortlist for Phase TWO. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select the most highly qualified Offerors and request that only those Offerors submit phase TWO proposals.

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors.

Of the non-price factors (Factors 1-2), Factor 1 - Past Performance is more important than Factor 2 – Management approach.

PHASE ONE EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 1 Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance records on other recent and relevant contracts to assess what level of expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the effort required by this RFP.

Past Performance Relevancy.

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired by this RFP.

Performance Confidence Assessment.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed. The Government reserves the right to check any and all cited references to verify the supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction.

Factor 1 Past Performance.

Adjectival Ratings shown here. See

RFP for desired relevancy characteristics.

The Government will review ANY sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the Offeror.

The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

All projects submitted, construction and design, will go towards the overall Confidence rating for this factor.

Factor 2 Management Plan.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with this project and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements.

Evaluators will assign a combined technical risk rating according to the table shown here. See RFP for detailed evaluation criteria within this factor.

Summary.

The Government SST will evaluate proposals according to the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

Non-Price Factors. (PHASE TWO)

Factor 3: Technical Approach Factor 4: Price

PHASE TWO SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

PHASE TWO IS ONLY FOR THOSE FIRMS INVITED FROM PHASE ONE!

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Factor 3, Technical Approach.

A narrative limited to 20 pages.

A schedule prepared in Primavera P6 (submitted in native XER and PDF format).

VOLUME II, PRICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Cover Letter.

A cover letter including all of the exact information stated in the RFP.

Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments).

A completed SF 1442 and a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment.

VOLUME II, PRICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)

Completed Price Schedule (Evaluation Factor 4).

Including completion of all contract line items (CLINs).

An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal may be considered unacceptable.

Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) or Bid Bond equivalent to 25% of the proposed price.

The BLA must include all of the substantive portions of the sample provided in the RFP

Attachment.

SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications.

A completed clause FAR 52.204-8(d).

A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) A copy of their current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

http://www.sam.gov/

General. The SST will evaluate the each Phase TWO proposal utilizing the approach described exactly in the RFP. Phase ONE evaluation ratings will continue into Phase TWO. During Phase TWO evaluations, no revisions to Phase ONE proposals will be allowed, unless the Contracting Officer decides it is in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions.

Trade-off Process (FAR 15.101-1) Phase TWO evaluations will follow the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the single Offeror that is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received. It may be in the best interest of the Government to award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors. Of the non-price factors (Factors 1-3), Past Performance and Technical Approach are more important than Management Approach; and all non-price factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4).

PHASE TWO EVALUATION APPROACH

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance (PHASE ONE) Factor 2 – Management Approach (PHASE ONE) Factor 3 – Technical Approach (PHASE TWO)

Price Factor:

Factor 4 – Price – (PHASE TWO)

PHASE TWO EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 3 Technical Approach.

The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to the design and construction of the SOW included in this solicitation to assess the Offeror’s perceived ability to implement all requirements of the project contemplated by this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to assess the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the project scope and schedule restrictions.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s apparent understanding of the interrelated nature of activities in the proposed schedule, the Offeror's overall apparent capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the realism of the schedule.

Evaluators will assign a combined technical risk rating according to the table shown here. See RFP for detailed evaluation criteria within this factor.

Factor 4, Price.

The Government will evaluate Contract Line Items (CLIN) prices and total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Total price consists of the base bid items, and all option bid items (all CLINs total).

The Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation.

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

(c) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(d) Analysis for Unbalanced Pricing (see FAR 15.404-1(g)).

PHASE TWO EVALUATION APPROACH

What is a Debriefing?

A Debriefing under FAR Part 15 is an opportunity for an offeror to better understand the basis for an agency’s selection decision.

Debriefings give you a chance to hear from the agency regarding:

the evaluation process;

how your proposal was evaluated in relation to the evaluation criteria;

what was successful in your proposal;

what was lacking in need of improvement in your proposal; and reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether the source selection procedures were followed.

Offeror must submit a debriefing request to USACE within 3 calendar days after notification of exclusion from the competitive range or contract award.

DEBRIEFINGS

The Resident Management System (RMS 3.0) is a quality management and contract administration program designed by Resident Engineers. The system provides an efficient method to plan, schedule, and control all aspects of construction.

The Government Staff will use the Government Mode and the Contractor Staff will use the Contractor Mode.

RMS Support Center YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_ID-JmaZgePmlrb2zdUOqg

RMS 3 Contractor Mode User Manual:

https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMS3CM.pdf

Download RMS 3.0 Contractor Launcher:

https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMSLauncherSetupKtr25.exe

Installing RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/Installing%20RMS%203.pdf

RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RMS 3.0)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_ID-JmaZgePmlrb2zdUOqg https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMS3CM.pdf https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMSLauncherSetupKtr25.exe https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/Installing%20RMS%203.pdf

What is RMS 3.0:

RMS 3.0 is a user-friendly comprehensive system for the expedient and effective management of construction contracts through tracking and documentation of all facets of a contract being administered for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction field offices.

Purpose of RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode:

The RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode is the Contractor’s Quality Control module of the Government’s Resident Management System (RMS 3.0) and was developed to assist contractors in providing contract-required data to the Corps of Engineers. Furthermore, by taking advantage of the monitoring and reporting aspects of this program, the contractor can perform quality control activities more consistently and within the requirements specified by the Corps of Engineers.

RMS 3.0 CONTRACTOR MODE

FINAL COMMENTS / REMINDERS

• Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. Bidder Inquiry Key:

G8BQM2-CIE4UW

• You may be disqualified for submitting a proposal that does not meet all of the requirements.

• Proposals must be submitted electronically via email or via DoD SAFE to phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil and christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil.

http://www.projnet.org/projnet mailto:phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil mailto:christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil

Phillip Garrison Contract Specialist Phone: +49 611 9744 2982 Email: phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil

Christopher Brackett Contracting Officer Phone: +49 611 9744 2931 Email: christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil

POINTS OF CONTACT

mailto:phillip.garrison@usace.army.mil mailto:christopher.brackett@usace.army.mil