UH and Swing Space RFI Q and A 1 July 31 2026.docx

RFI: Temporary Unaccompanied Housing (UH)/Swing Space Solutions for Navy Installations Response to RFI Questions Round 1, July 31, 2026

1. Land ownership preference: Does the Navy have a preference for respondents to own or control privately held land for modular, prefabricated, or newly developed housing solutions?

No Preference. The Navy is open to all feasible delivery models, including leased commercial properties, modular systems on Navy-provided land, or developer-controlled private sites, provided they meet commute and safety standards.

2. Government-owned sites: Is the Navy considering allowing contractors to develop and operate temporary housing on Navy-owned land? If so, will potential sites, utility capacities, environmental conditions, and access restrictions be identified in a future solicitation?

Yes. The RFI actively invites proposals for on-installation modular, prefabricated, or containerized housing. While specific Government-furnished sites, utilities, and environmental data are not provided in this planning phase, this market research will directly shape future acquisition strategies and solicitations, where such technical site parameters would be defined.

3. Ground-lease opportunities: Would the Navy consider a ground lease, enhanced-use lease, license, concession agreement, or similar structure under which a private party finances, develops, and operates housing on government-controlled property?

Yes, the Navy is open to these structures. The RFI is intentionally solution-agnostic and seeks "innovative delivery models" and "commercialization housing initiatives." The exact real estate vehicle would be finalized during future acquisition planning informed by these RFI responses.

4. Off-installation land leases: Would a long-term lease of privately owned land be considered sufficient site control, or would ownership be preferred for conceptual or not-yet-constructed solutions?

Based on the RFI guidelines, the USN does not require or prefer property ownership for off-installation solutions. Section 3.8 and Section 3.7 emphasize credibility, feasibility, and schedule realism rather than deeded ownership

5. Contract and occupancy term: What initial contract term, renewal options, or minimum occupancy commitment might the Navy consider? The anticipated term will materially affect financing, development costs, and the feasibility of temporary versus permanent improvements.

The definitive requirements and contract structures are not finalized at this time. This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for market research and planning purposes to help the Navy define its future acquisition strategy. Respondents are requested to submit their proposals as outlined in the RFI.

6. Capital investment and residual use: For privately financed improvements, would the contractor retain ownership of the housing units and infrastructure after the Navy’s requirement ends? Would continued private-sector use, relocation, or sale of the units be acceptable?

The contractor could retains full ownership of privately financed housing units and infrastructure. Under RFI Section 3.4, the Navy confirms that for off-installation solutions, removal is not required if the respondent demonstrates a feasible, continuing private-sector use (such as commercial apartments or student housing). For on-installation solutions, the contractor is expected to demobilize and restore the land.

7. Site preparation and utilities: How does the Navy anticipate allocating responsibility and cost for grading, utility extensions, road access, drainage, communications infrastructure, environmental remediation, and restoration of government property?

As this is an RFI for planning purposes, the Navy has not established a set cost-allocation model for site preparation, grading, and utilities.

8. Permitting and approvals: For on-installation projects, would the Navy serve as the authority having jurisdiction, or would state and local building, zoning, fire, and occupancy approvals also apply? What review timeline should respondents assume for antiterrorism, force-protection, environmental, security, and installation-access approvals?

Please be advised that because this is strictly a Request for Information (RFI), these specific programmatic items are not known or finalized at this time. The Navy is utilizing this RFI to gather industry capabilities to shape potential Courses of Action (COAs).

9. Financing considerations: Would the Navy consider providing letters of intent, minimum bed commitments, phased notices to proceed, termination protections, or other contractual assurances that could support third-party project financing?

As a reminder, this is currently an RFI only and does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP) or commit the Government to any contract or acquisition strategy. Consequently, specific contractual assurances—such as letters of intent, minimum bed commitments, phased notices to proceed, or termination protections—are not known or authorized at this time.

10. Payment structure: Is the Navy evaluating payment on a per-bed, per-occupied-bed, per-unit, fixed monthly availability, or facility-lease basis? Would mobilization, site preparation, furniture, utilities, operations, and demobilization be separately priced?

Please be advised that this is strictly an RFI for planning purposes, and the official payment basis has not been finalized. Please outline your solutions with the estimated costs as requested in the RFI.

11. Transportation: For off-installation solutions within the preferred commuting area, should respondents include shuttle transportation, or is transportation expected to remain the responsibility of individual Sailors?

Please propose all feasible options to assist the Navy in its analysis.

12. Partial solutions and teaming: Will the Navy consider multiple awards at a single installation, including separate awards for land development, modular housing, hotel inventory, apartment leasing, transportation, and property operations?

As this is currently an RFI for planning and market research, a definitive award strategy has not been finalized.

13. Future acquisition strategy: Is the Navy currently leaning toward a service contract, lease, design-build-operate arrangement, privatized housing structure, or another delivery model?

Please be advised that because this is an RFI only, the USN has not finalized or expressed a preference for any specific contractual delivery model. Section 3 of the RFI explicitly states that the Scope of Work is 'intentionally solution-agnostic,' reflecting the Navy's desire to let industry expertise guide the acquisition strategy. Respondents are encouraged to propose and justify their preferred delivery model in their 5-page Capability Statement, as these insights will directly shape potential future Courses of Action (COAs).

14. Site visits and industry engagement: Does the Navy anticipate conducting an industry day, one-on-one meetings, site tours, or releasing additional installation-specific information before establishing a future acquisition strategy?

None scheduled/planned. Subsequent site tours or one-on-one meetings will be determined following the evaluation of RFI responses