Project Information Packet -Dyess Flight Simulator Facility.docx

Project Information Packet (PIP)

1. Project Overview & Mission Goal

· Project Name/Number: B21 Flight Simulator Facility, FNWZ213009

· Location: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

· Fiscal Year: FY 2027 MILCON

· Mission Statement: This project constructs a single-story, Flight Simulator facility with three high bay sections housing three simulator training devices and other training-related activities. The facility houses new mission B-21 simulators, training spaces, and technical functions integral to providing mission-ready pilots, which is required for initial operational capability of the B-21 weapons system.

· Potential Shift to OTs: To accelerate infrastructure delivery, manage complex technology interfaces, and increase flexibility, the Air Force is transitioning this projected from a traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Design-Bid-Build track to an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

This project is currently a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) requirement that is 100% designed, with the Ready to Advertise (RTA) packaged due from the A-E in October 2026. The Government would like to keep the existing Designer of Record if at all possible. This includes reverting the design back to 35% to allow for the award of an OT agreement. This would allow the Government to award a Progressive Design Build or other OTA without completely abandoning the current design work. Contractors are encouraged to explore this avenue along with not using the current Designer of Record.

A Contractor will need to demonstrate how shelving the existing 100% design and starting fresh will deliver the facility faster, at a lower cost, or with higher performance. The preference is to maintain the current DOR.

· Why See Alternate Delivery? The Government is seeking industry feedback across three non-FAR procurement methodologies, Progressive Design-Build (PDB), Construction Management at Risk (CMAR), and Design-Build to Budget (DBtB), as well as the traditional DBB baseline to determine the best path forward to execute this requirement.

2. Functional Requirements (The "What")

· Facility Type: Training Facility (Category Code 171-212)

· Estimated Scale: Approximately 33,436 SF of permanent single-story construction.

· Primary Functional Spaces (per DD 1391):

· Three High-Bay Simulators: Flight Simulator Facility built to house three simulator training devices and other training-related activities.

· Secure Space (ICD 705 compliant): Large portions of space meeting Intelligence Community Directive 705 standards, including secure space and access control.

· Support & Training Rooms: Server rooms, parts storage and repair space, open and closed office space, training rooms, debriefing rooms, security rooms, and building support spaces.

· Key Performance Targets:

· Air Conditioning: 344 Tons of cooling capacity

· Structural Parameters: Steel frame structure, metal roof, brick veneer, and insulated metal panel exterior walls.

· Standards: Designed as permanent construction in accordance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01 and DoD Minimum Anti-terrorism Standards for Buildings (UFC 4-010-01).

3. Known Project Constraints

· Geotechnical & Soil Conditions (Special Foundation): Geotechnical conditions require a special foundation consisting of a drilled pier concrete foundation to mitigate local soil issues.

· Construction Security Surveillance: Construction requires specialized security controls, including security personnel, a temporary guard shack, and strict United States citizenship requirements.

· Active Operations Coordination: Dyess AFB operates both B-1B and C-130J aircraft in over 9,000 annual sorties. The B-1B program must be supported until fully divested, and the C-130J program must be supported indefinitely. Construction logistics must not impact these active mission capabilities.

· Utilities & Infrastructure: Utilities include domestic and fire water, electrical, sanitary sewer, and storm water. Communications include ducted connections from the building to the main base distribution infrastructure. Roadways, sidewalks, and parking include asphalt and concrete paving, a parking lot, and an access drive.

4. The Construction Cost Limitation (CCL)

· The Target Fixed Budget (CCL): $57,268,000 (Total Contract Cost, which includes construction and 5% contingency).

· Total Programmed Amount: $62,000,000

· What it Includes: Covers all primary facilities (Flight Simulator Training, Special Foundation, ICD 705 Premium, Cybersecurity of Facility-Related Control Systems) and supporting facilities (Site Preparation, Site Improvements, Roadways, Sidewalks and Parking, Utilities, Communications, and Construction Security Surveillance).

· What is Excluded (Equipment from Other Appropriations): The following are separately funded and excluded from this construction contract: Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment, Communication Equipment, Other Equipment.

· The DBtB 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.

5. Proposed Project Schedule

· Solicitation Release: November 27, 2026 (Current DBB Schedule)

· Contract Award: June 8, 2027 (Current DBB Schedule

· Period of Performance: 900 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed (NTP).

· Critical Milestones: Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) required by March 8, 2030 to support critical combat capability.

6. The Procurement Process (The "Collaborative Path")

If the Government determines that an alternative delivery strategy is more advantageous than a traditional Design-Bid-Build path, a collaborative procurement framework may be structured as follows:

· 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.

· Two-Phase Selection: Under an OT or qualifications-based collaborative model, a two-phase selection process will be utilized. Phase 1 will evaluate and select the most qualified teams based on various factors such as technical capability, past performance, and collaborative execution history. Phase 2 will evaluate final technical and price proposals.

· Interactive Discussions: The Government intends to hold 2 to 3 confidential, proprietary meetings with Phase 2 offerors to review concept development and provide real-time feedback prior to final proposal submission.

· Stipends: To offset the technical and pre-construction design modeling costs associated with Phase 2 conceptual proposals, USACE is evaluating the feasibility and necessity of offering competitive proposal stipends.

· Incentives: The Government is exploring performance and schedule incentives. No structures have been finalized, and we welcome industry feedback in Appendix C on models that have proven effective on similar projects.

Progressive Design-Build – Progressive Design-Build is a collaborative project delivery method where the owner selects a design-builder based on their qualifications and experience, rather than on a detailed bid. Success hinges on proactive, early integration of construction expertise, a commitment to transparent "open-book" estimating, and a culture of collaborative decision-making.

The defining characteristics of PDB:

· One integrated team: The Government selects a design-builder—designer and constructor working as one team—at the beginning of project development, before a meaningful amount of design is complete.

· Qualifications led selection: Selection focuses heavily, and often exclusively in the initial stage, on relevant experience, past performance, technical capability, proposed personnel, and ability to collaborate—not a low construction bid.

· Construction not priced at award: The initial agreement award Phase 1 services. A price for construction, such as a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is set only once the design, scope, schedule, and risks have been sufficiently developed.

Design-Build to Budget – Design-Build to Budget is a project delivery method where the project's budget is established as a firm, fixed design constraint from the beginning. Its ultimate outcome is a fixed-price contract with a single, integrated design-build team.

The defining characteristics of DBtB are:

· Budget as a Primary Driver: Unlike other methods where the design determines the final cost, DBtB challenges the industry to innovate and provide the best possible technical solution within a pre-established, maximum budget.

· Performance-Based Requirements: The owner defines what the facility must achieve (performance, operational needs, quality) but does not provide a prescriptive design. This leaves the how entirely up to the competing design-build teams.

· Collaborative Refinement: The procurement process involves confidential, proprietary meetings with shortlisted teams. In these meetings, the owner provides feedback on preliminary concepts, allowing teams to refine their solutions to best align with the project's goals before submitting a final proposal.

Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) – Construction Management at Risk is a delivery method in which the owner hires a construction manager during design to provide preconstruction support and later serve as the general contractor. The CMAR firm commonly delivers the project under a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

The defining characteristics of CMAR are:

• Early Involvement: The CMAR provides cost estimating, scheduling, constructability reviews, and procurement advice during design.

• Separate Contracts: The owner contracts separately with the architect/engineer and the CMAR firm, which typically manages the trade subcontractors.

• Guaranteed Maximum Price: The CMAR develops a GMP and accepts defined cost and construction-performance risk within that agreement.

• Collaborative Delivery: The owner, designer, and CMAR coordinate throughout the project; phased construction may begin before design is fully complete.

Market Intelligence Report: Industry Day/First Look Questionnaire

Note: The questions below reflect the online form and are provided as a working reference for your team's internal coordination prior to online submission.

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

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 vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract? Please explain your reasoning in detail.

1. 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? If yes, please explain.

1. Model Viability: Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet (Appendix B), does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price (including incentives) 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/uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

1. Risk Justification: Please explain your reasoning for the answer above. What are the top 1-3 factors (e.g., project complexity, site conditions, clarity of functional requirements) that influenced your choice?

1. PDB, DBtB, CMAR Threshold: If you answered that an OT agreement would be appropriate to Question 1, at what level of design maturity (e.g., 35%, 60%, 90%) would your firm feel confident in providing a reliable, fixed price or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) through a Progressive Design-Build, Design Build to Budget, or Construction Management at Risk process?

I. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment: Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $57,268,000 for approximately 33,436 square feet appear realistic in the current local market?

1. Major Cost Drivers: From a high-level view of our functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs (e.g., specialized security, unique structural loads) that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

1. Market Precedents: Are there specific benchmarks or recent industry projects we should look at to ensure our expectations for quality and performance align with this budget?

II. Flexibility & Innovation (The "How")

1. Prescriptive "Showstoppers": Are there any requirements in our functional description that appear overly prescriptive or "locked-in" that might prevent you from offering a more innovative or cost-effective solution to meet the mission?

1. Innovation Opportunities: In this building type, where do you typically see the most opportunity for an integrated design-build team to provide "more for the money" (e.g., modular systems, envelope efficiency, MEP coordination)?

III. Market & Supply Chain (External Risks)

1. Long-Lead Warning: Even without a full design, are there specific systems common to this facility type (e.g., generators, custom AHUs, specialized lab equipment) that are currently experiencing lead times that would threaten the proposed project schedule?

1. Local Labor Constraints: Are there specific trades in the project area that are currently over-extended or in short supply that could impact the project's risk profile?

IV. Defining Value (The Betterment Search)

1. The Value Gap: If your team discovers $[Amount] in design efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which "betterments/enhancements" (e.g., enhanced durability, lower life-cycle costs, better technology) should we prioritize in our evaluation criteria as the most valuable for this facility type?

1. Sustainability Targets: Is the proposed level of sustainability (e.g., Specific energy goals, etc.) a standard "reach" for industry, or will it require significant premium pricing in this market?

V. Proposal Effort & Contract Incentives

Stipend Necessity: Given the requirement to participate in proprietary meetings and develop a conceptual design for Phase 2 evaluation, is a stipend necessary for your firm to justify the pursuit costs of this procurement? Yes or no, and why?

1. Stipend Alignment: If a stipend is offered, what amount (or percentage of the CCL) does the market currently consider sufficient to offset the level of effort required for a Phase 2 proposal of this complexity?

1. Effective Incentives: In a fixed-budget environment, what types of post-award contract incentives (e.g., award fee for exceptional quality, schedule acceleration, shared savings) are most effective at motivating your team to exceed minimum performance requirements?

VI. Additional Inquiries or Comments

We have established a ProjNet, http://www.projnet.org/projnet, for additional inquiries and questions. To self-register, go to the web page, click “Quick Add” link, select agency “USACE”, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, then click Continue. Fill in all required information and click Add User. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Solicitation Number: W9126G27R1CK3 Key Number: D4DP4Q-V9EG7N