Solicitation W912HN-26-Q-0001 - Bldg 212.pdf

SOLICITATION W912HN-26-Q-0001

BLDG 212 Repair by Replacement, Fort Stewart, Georgia

SOLICITATION OVERVIEW

Key Acquisition Parameters

Federal Agency Name: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Savannah District (SAS)

Project Title: PN 111716 BLDG 212 Repair by Replacement

Solicitation Number: W912HN-26-Q-0001

Project Location: Fort Stewart, Georgia

Authority for Award: Title 10 U.S.C. § 2808a

Type of Instrument: Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for Progressive Design-Build.

Delivery Model: Progressive Design-Build (PDB) Phase 1 will be for Design and Pre-Construction Services. Phase 2 may be added by modification for final design and construction upon successful negotiation of a Fixed-Price (FP)

NAICS Code: 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction)

PSC Code: Y1DB (Construction of Barracks/Dormitories)

Total Program Funding: Budget Ceiling Not-to-Exceed (NTE) $38,000,000.00

Total Agreement Duration: Not-to-Exceed 900 days

Solicitation POC: Jennifer L. Murphy, Agreements Officer (AO) (Jennifer.l.murphy@usace.army.mil)

ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE

Note: This schedule is subject to change at the Government's discretion.

Milestone Event Target Date Solicitation (RFWP) Issued July 28, 2026 Step 1 Submissions (White Papers) Due August 6, 2026 Evaluation of Step 1 Submissions August 7 – August 13, 2026 Notification of Step 1 Shortlist / Pitch Invitations August 14, 2026 Ft. Stewart Site Visit August 21, 2026 Step 2 Pitch Presentations August 27 – September 2, 2026 Selection of Design-Builder Partner September 9, 2026 mailto:Jennifer.l.murphy@usace.army.mil

Phase 1 Agreement & Terms Negotiations September 10 – September 22 2026 OT Agreement Award (Full NTE Obligation) September 30, 2026

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Overview & Scope

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Savannah District (SAS), is seeking qualified Design- Builders (DBs) to participate in a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) acquisition utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a for the demolition of the existing Building 212 at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the design and construction of a replacement 86-bed Permanent Party Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing (UEPH) Barracks.

The project includes demolition of the existing facility, design and construction of a new barracks facility, and procurement and installation of all required furniture, furnishings, and equipment (FF&E). The replacement facility will have an approximate gross area of 41,710 square feet and will comply with the 2025 Army Barracks Standard for Permanent Party Unaccompanied Housing, applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), and industry standard building codes.

This Request for Statement of Qualifications / White Paper constitutes Step 1 of a competitive two-step Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) process. Interested Design-Builders shall submit a qualifications-based White Paper demonstrating their capability, experience, and technical approach. Based on the comparative evaluation of White Paper submissions, the Government intends to shortlist up to three (3) of the most highly qualified Design-Builders to participate in Step 2, consisting of an Individual Pitch Meeting and Facility Tour.

This acquisition emphasizes:

• Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS): Design-Builders will be evaluated on demonstrated qualifications, experience, capability, and technical approach. Price is not an evaluation factor during Step 1.

• Collaborative Project Development: The selected Design-Builder will work collaboratively with USACE throughout Phase 1 to refine the design, validate costs, manage project risks, and develop the project for successful execution.

• Progressive Design-Build: This acquisition emphasizes early collaboration, open communication, innovation, and continuous cost validation throughout design development.

• Speed and Flexibility: This acquisition will be conducted using an Other Transaction (OT) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808a and is not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) source selection procedures

The Government reserves the right to modify the solicitation requirements and evaluation approach as necessary

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives

• Collaborative Project Development: Establish an integrated, non-adversarial environment where the Government and Design-Builder work collectively from Day 1 to co-develop the design, schedule, and cost.

• Innovation, Speed, and Flexibility: Leverage the OT framework outside traditional FAR constraints to emphasize speed, innovation (in materials, methods, and delivery), and optimal mission outcomes.

• Qualifications-Based Selection: Prioritize the selection of a Design-Build Partner based on proven past performance, team merit, and technical approach rather than detailed construction price proposals at this initial stage.

• Risk Management: Proactively identify, document, and manage technical, manufacturing, and installation risks using a joint "Living Risk Register" with dedicated mitigation strategies.

1.3 Funding

The total funding available for this project, including design, manufacturing, construction, and commissioning activities, may not exceed the $38,000,000.00 Not-to-Exceed (NTE) budget ceiling.

This affordability cap is a material requirement of the contract. White Papers, Pitch Presentations, and the selected DB’s post-selection Phase 1 Proposal must demonstrate a highly credible and realistic approach to delivering a complete and usable barracks within this ceiling.

1.4 Delivery Model (PDB) & Pilot Program Context

This project utilizes a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) delivery model under Other Transaction Authority (OTA). Unlike traditional design-build, PDB relies on a qualifications-based selection where the builder is selected early in the project. The team then collaboratively refines the design, validates scope, and performs open-book pricing during Phase 1 before finalizing the construction price for Phase

2. This evaluation is not conducted under FAR Part 15 procedures, and formal source selection processes do not apply.

Pilot Program Status: This project serves as the baseline pilot for a potential follow-on requirements of multiple barracks facilities across installations in Georgia. This agreement will preserve the Government's ability to issue a follow-on production OTA in the future, subject to the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

2.0 SOLICITATION PROCESS

2.1 Step 1: Request for Statement of Qualifications / White Paper Submission

The initial phase consists of a rapid, written qualifications evaluation. Interested Design Build teams must submit a White Paper (maximum of 15 pages) demonstrating their capabilities and relevant experience on projects of similar scale, and their preliminary technical and management approach.

The Government will shortlist and invite up to three (3) of the top ranked qualified Design Builders to proceed to Step 2.

2.1.1 Submissions Requirements

White Papers shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements contained in this solicitation.

Submissions that fail to comply with these instructions may be determined non-conforming and eliminated from further consideration.

White Papers shall meet the following minimum requirements:

Requirement Standard

Font Minimum 11-point Arial, Calibri, or Times New Roman

Margins Minimum 1 inch

Page Size 8.5 x 11 inches (11 x 17 permitted for graphics only)

Maximum Length 15 pages

File Format PDF

The page limitation applies to all narrative content. Cover pages, table of contents, divider pages, and resumes are not required and should not be included unless specifically requested.

2.1.2 Step 1 Evaluation Criteria White Paper Content

The White Paper shall address the following evaluation elements.

ELEMENT 1 – CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE

What to Submit

Provide information demonstrating the Design-Builder's relevant experience and capability to successfully execute this project.

Relevant Experience

Submit two (2), but no more than four (4), completed new construction projects that demonstrate experience with projects of similar magnitude of effort, scope, complexity, and delivery method that meet the following requirements:

• Projects should be a minimum of 30,000 square feet.

• Projects may be multi-unit housing, dormitories, barracks, administration, etc.

• New construction is defined as a new build; renovations will not be accepted.

• For each project provide:

• Project Name

• Project Location

• Client

• Final Construction Value

• Delivery Method

• Period of Performance

• Reference Information (Company, Point of Contact, Email, Telephone)

• Description of Relevance

• Project Outcomes (Cost, Schedule, Quality, Safety)

Innovation & Speed

• For each project provided in relevant experience, describe the specific delivery methods, construction techniques, technologies, or manufacturing processes used to improve schedule, cost, quality, safety, or project execution. The Government reserves the rights to contact references to verify any project information.

ELEMENT 2 – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

What to Submit

Describe your team's proposed approach for successfully executing this project.

At a minimum, address the following:

Understanding

• Demonstrate an understanding of the project objectives, schedule constraints, technical requirements, and the Government's affordability objective by identifying key project challenges and describing a realistic approach to maintaining the project within the $38M budget ceiling and the not-to-exceed (NTE) 900-day total agreement duration.

Design Management

• Describe an approach to managing the design process, ensuring compliance with the 2025 Army Barracks Standard, identified UFCs, and Industry Standard Building Codes.

Manufacturing Approach

• Describe the Design-Builder's manufacturing process, quality management procedures, production methodology, and experience producing comparable facilities. Explain how the proposed manufacturing approach supports successful execution of this project, including anticipated production sequencing, coordination with design activities, and integration with overall project delivery.

Collaborative DB Costing Philosophy

• Demonstrate a defined process for open-book cost management, identifying cost risks, evaluating alternatives, and collaboratively recommending scope, schedule, or design adjustments necessary to maintain the project within the established budget.

Risk Identification and Mitigation

• Demonstrate an understanding of the primary technical, schedule, cost, manufacturing, and coordination risks associated with the project. Describes a proactive approach for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks throughout design development and preconstruction to support successful project execution within the established budget and schedule.

Organizational Structure

• Provide the proposed Organizational Chart identifying key roles and reporting lines.

2.1.3 Step 1 Government Evaluation Approach

The Government will conduct a comparative evaluation of all conforming White Paper submissions.

No numerical scores, point values, or mathematical weighting will be assigned.

For Step 1, Element 2 (Technical and Management Approach) is more important than Element 1 (Capability and Experience).

Based on the comparative evaluation of White Papers, the Government intends to select up to three (3) of the top-ranked Design-Builders for advancement to Step 2.

2.2 Step 2: Invitation for Pitch Meeting & Facility Tour

(This is ONLY required for Design-Builders invited to proceed to Step 2.)

Step 2 provides the Government an opportunity to further evaluate the qualifications, collaborative capabilities, and technical approach of the shortlisted Design-Builders through interactive engagement.

Design-Builders selected to advance from Step 1 will be notified by email and invited to participate in the Step 2 Pitch Meeting phase. This step consists of a pitch meeting and a facility tour.

The Pitch Meeting is intended to facilitate interactive discussions between the Government and each shortlisted Design-Builder to clarify technical approaches, evaluate collaborative problem solving, and further assess the Design-Builder's proposed methodology.

The Design-Builders will be required to provide redlined revisions of the Draft Model OT Agreement (Attachment 1) the day after the pitch presentation. Only the selected Design-Builder will be required to submit Phase 1 Design and Pre-Construction proposed price.

2.2.1 Pitch Meeting Requirements

Each shortlisted Design-Builder shall participate in an interactive Pitch Meeting with the Government Evaluation Team.

The purpose of the Pitch Meeting is to evaluate the Design-Builder's collaborative approach, technical understanding, communication skills, and ability to work effectively with the Government during Progressive Design-Build project development.

The Government anticipates the Pitch Meeting will include:

• Opening introductions

• Design-Builder presentation

• Government questions

• Collaborative discussion

• Closing remarks

The Government will ask substantially similar core topics/questions of each Design-Builder to promote consistency throughout the evaluation process.

The Pitch Meeting is intended to be a collaborative discussion rather than a formal briefing. Design- Builders should be prepared to explain their thought processes, respond to scenario-based questions, discuss potential design and construction alternatives, and demonstrate how they would work collaboratively with the Government to develop the project. The Government is interested in evaluating the team's communication, problem-solving, and collaborative decision-making in addition to its technical expertise.

Price proposal shall not be included in the presentation materials.

The technical Evaluation Team will not review or evaluate price proposals.

As described in 2.5 Negotiations, the Agreements Officer will independently evaluate the proposed Phase 1 price to determine it is fair and reasonable prior to award.

2.2.1.1 Pitch Presentation Logistics

The Agreements Officer will provide each shortlisted Design-Builder with a written invitation identifying the date, time, location, and administrative instructions for the Facility Tour and Pitch Meeting.

Unless otherwise specified by the Agreements Officer, the following presentation format is anticipated:

Activity Approximate Duration

Introductions 10 Minutes

Design-Builder Presentation 60 Minutes

Government Questions and Collaborative Discussion 45 Minutes

Closing Remarks 10 Minutes

The Government reserves the right to adjust the agenda, durations, or sequence of activities as necessary to facilitate the evaluation process.

Each shortlisted Design-Builder will be afforded substantially equal time and opportunity to present its qualifications and respond to Government questions.

The Government may ask follow-up or clarifying questions throughout the presentation.

2.2.2 Step 2 Evaluation Criteria Factory Tour & Pitch Presentations ELEMENT 3 – COLLABORATIVE CAPABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT (Pitch Meeting)

The Evaluation Team will evaluate the Design-Builder's oral presentation and their real-time responses to Government questions (including follow-up questions) using a standardized interview ensure all Design- Builders are evaluated against the same core questions and behavioral indicators

Evaluation considerations include:

Collaborative Budget Validation

• Presentations must demonstrate the ability during the Pitch Meeting to identify cost and schedule impacts, discuss practical alternatives, and explain how design decisions will be managed to maintain project affordability. The presenter must show a proactive methodology for executing cost-risk trade-offs during design to prevent scope creep beyond the $38M overall ceiling and the not-to-exceed (NTE) 900-day total agreement duration.

Technical Execution

• Presentations must demonstrate a logical, technically sound approach for advancing design, resolving technical issues, coordinating disciplines, and maintaining schedule and budget objectives throughout the Progressive Design-Build process.

Risk Management

• Presentations must demonstrate a structured approach for identifying, documenting, prioritizing, and mitigating project risks, supported by relevant examples showing how identified risks were successfully managed on comparable projects.

Collaborative Engagement

• Presentations must demonstrate demonstrates effective communication, active listening, technical competence, and the ability to collaboratively evaluate alternatives, resolve differing viewpoints, and respond constructively to Government questions during the interactive Pitch Meeting.

ELEMENT 4 – MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY VALIDATION AND LOGISTICS (Facility Tour)

The facility tour is intended to validate the manufacturing approach presented during Step 1 and confirm that the proposed manufacturing capability is operationally feasible for successful execution of this project. Element 4 will be evaluated on a Viable/Non-Viable basis.

Evaluation considerations include:

Manufacturing Capability Validation & Logistics

• The Evaluation Team will conduct an assessment of the Design-Builder's manufacturing capability and logistics. This element will be evaluated strictly on a Viable/Non-Viable basis, focusing on the commercial viability and operational feasibility of the production facility.

2.2.3 Step 2 Government Evaluation Approach

The Government will conduct a comparative evaluation of the pitch presentations.

No numerical scores, point values, or mathematical weighting will be assigned.

2.3 Total Evaluation Hierarchy of Qualitative Elements

Following completion of the Pitch Meetings and Facility Tours and to ensure a comprehensive and qualitative selection process, the final ranking and selection of the most qualified Design-Builder will be determined by an integrated comparative assessment of all elements evaluated across both steps of the solicitation.

1. Comparative Evaluation Methodology: For all qualified and viable Design-Builders, the Evaluation Team will perform an integrated comparative assessment of the relative merits of each submission based on the documented strengths, weaknesses, risks, and overall merit of the Design-Builder's proposed approach to successfully execute the project. No numerical scores, point values, or mathematical weighting will be assigned.

The relative importance of the qualitative evaluation elements will guide the Evaluation Team's comparative judgment. Element 3 is more important than Element 2, and Element 2 is more important than Element 1 (Element 3 > Element 2 > Element 1). This hierarchy does not establish a mathematical formula for selection. Rather, it reflects the Government's determination that demonstrated collaborative capability and technical execution are of greater importance than corporate experience alone. The Evaluation Team will consider the overall comparative merits of each Design-Builder consistent with the established hierarchy of evaluation elements.

2. Element 4 Manufacturing Capability Validation & Logistics is evaluated on a Viable/Non-Viable basis. A Design-Builder must be rated Viable under Element 4 to be eligible for final selection.

2.4 Final Selection

Following completion of the evaluation, the Government intends to select the most qualified Design- Builder will be determined by an integrated comparative assessment of all elements evaluated across both steps of the solicitation.

Upon selection, the Government will enter into negotiations for Phase 1 Design and Pre-Construction Services under the Other Transaction agreement.

2.5 Phase 1 Design and Pre-Construction Negotiations

The selected Design-Builder will be required to provide red-lined revisions of the Draft Model OT Agreement (Attachment 1) the day after the pitch presentation.

The selected Design-builder will receive a request to submit their pricing for Phase 1 Design and Pre- Construction Services due no later than two (2) days after notification of selection.

The AO will negotiate the terms and conditions of the agreement, including negotiation of a fair and reasonable price for Phase 1 Design and Pre-Construction Services.

2.5.2 Award of OMA Funds

Upon successful negotiation, the AO will execute the single OT award. Because this project utilizes FY26 OMA funds, the entire $38,000,000.00 budget ceiling is fully obligated at the time of the initial agreement.

2.5.3 Phase 1 / Phase 2 Award Structure

2.5.3.1 Phase 1 Collaborative Design and Pre-Construction

Phase 1 performance begins with the design at approximately 0–15% completion. The DB will collaborate with the Savannah District Project Delivery Team (PDT) during over-the-shoulder "design touchpoints" (replacing adversarial traditional reviews):

• Touchpoint 1 (Schematic Design - ~35% complete): Initial BCOES review and budget verification with survey’s and geotechnical reports completed.

• Touchpoint 2 (Interim Development - ~65% complete): Detailed BCOES review, final subcontractor pricing, and base model for Phase 2 negotiations.

• Touchpoint 3 (Final Design – 100% complete): Detailed BCOES complete and all required permits.

2.5.3.2 Phase 2 Construction Price Negotiation & The T4C Gate

Once the design reaches completion, the DB will submit an FFP construction proposal for Phase 2, developed via the open-book cost model. If negotiations successfully establish a fair and reasonable construction price within the obligated budget ceiling, the Government will issue a formal modification and release the Construction NTP to execute Phase 2.

The T4C Gate (In Lieu of Off-Ramp): If open-book costing and pricing negotiations fail to reach an agreement within the $38M ceiling and the NTE 900-day total agreement duration, the Government cannot utilize a traditional discretionary off-ramp due to the single-obligation structure of expiring funds.

Instead, the AO will issue a Termination for Convenience (T4C). In this event, the Government will retain full Government Purpose Rights to the completed, unstamped design to pursue a subsequent construction procurement, preserving the public investment.

3.0 COMMUNICATIONS AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

All communications regarding this solicitation shall be directed exclusively to the Agreements Officer (AO). Jennifer Murphy, email Jennifer.l.Murphy@usace.army.mil

Design-Builders shall not contact other Government personnel concerning this acquisition unless specifically authorized by the AO.

3.1 ProjNet Inquiry System (All formal and technical questions regarding this Solicitation must be submitted through the ProjNet Suite Bidder Inquiry System:

• Website: www.projnet.org/projnet

• Solicitation Number: W912HN-26-Q-0001

• Bidder Inquiry Key: UTKUDU-RCT6X2

The ProjNet portal will close to new inquiries on 1 day prior to response date. Interested Design-Builders are encouraged to monitor the system regularly for published questions and official answers.

3.2 White Paper Submission via PIEE

Submissions must be uploaded electronically through the PIEE Solicitation Module. Late submissions may not be considered.

• Due Date: August 6, 2026, at 12:00 PM Eastern Time.

• Submission Channel: PIEE Solicitation Module (ONLY PIEE submissions will be accepted;

physical or email packages are non-conforming).

• File Formats Allowed: PDF is mandatory for the main package. Optional attachments may utilize .pptx, .docx, or .xlsx formats. Compilations ending in .zip or .exe are strictly prohibited.

• Warning: Submissions that are generic, boilerplate, or fail to demonstrate project-specific, localized understanding of Fort Stewart and Savannah District parameters will be evaluated with lower confidence.

In order to submit through the Solicitation Module in PIEE, you must have an active Proposal Manager role in PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil/.

• To upload the proposal in Solicitation module in PIEE:

• Ensure you have an active role as Proposal Manager in PIEE.

• Log into PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil/ to access the Solicitation Module.

• Select Solicitation icon.

• At the Home screen of the Solicitation Module, select the Search link to find the solicitation you intend to post an offer against.

• In the Solicitation Search Criteria filter by entering the complete solicitation number and for

Status, select Open, then click Search.

• When search results display, select the solicitation number link to open the solicitation.

• The solicitation displays, with information as view only.

• To post the offer, click the Offer tab.

o Click the Add button to add an offer to the solicitation.

http://www.projnet.org/projnet o Select the applicable CAGE Code for which you are submitting the offer. The list is pre-filtered based on the CAGEs in the Proposal Manager's profile.

o Click on the Choose Files link to upload attachments that comprise your offer.

o Enter Signature Date and click Signature button after entering all necessary information.

o Sign Document pop-up will be displayed requiring the user to enter a Digital Pin and

OTP. Click the Sign and Submit button to continue.

o After successfully adding the Offer a success message of the submission will be displayed providing confirmation of on-time/late proposal receipt.

• For addition information on PIEE Vendor Access Instructions or PIEE Solicitation Module

Frequently Asked Questions visit: https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/solicitation-module

• For additional instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf

• For additional instructions on the Solicitation module and Proposal Manager roles, please refer to the following link: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/solicitation/proposals.xht

4.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Bonding

If invited to step 2 shortlisted Design-Builders invited to Step 2 must provide a letter from a surety indicating their maximum bonding capability. This letter must be submitted along with the red-lined revisions of the Draft Model OT Agreement.

4.2 Open-Book Pricing, Cost Transparency, and Accountability

To ensure the integrity of the PDB process, the selected DB must maintain strict open-book cost accounting and scheduling throughout Phase 1.

• The DB must disclose all subcontractor bids, raw material costs, equipment charges, transport fees, and internal markup structures.

• No cost item may be charged or invoiced more than once. Costs included in the Phase 1 Design and Pre-Construction fee must be completely segregated and excluded from the Phase 2 construction pricing model. Total pricing for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not-to-exceed $38M.

• Not-to-exceed (NTE) 900-day total agreement duration

• The DB is responsible for providing auditable accounting trails to verify that the final FFP construction proposal is fair, reasonable, and non-duplicative.

4.3 Cybersecurity Requirements (CMMC Level 1 Equivalent)

To protect Federal Contract Information (FCI), the selected DB and its subcontractors must implement and maintain cybersecurity controls equivalent to CMMC Level 1 (as codified in 32 CFR Part 170).

• Security Controls: At a minimum, the DB must implement the 15 basic safeguarding controls focusing on access control, identification and authentication, physical protection, and system integrity.

• Prior to the execution of the OT agreement, the selected DB must conduct a self-assessment and submit a signed attestation affirming full compliance with CMMC Level 1 standards. This flow-down requirement applies to all subcontractors handling FCI.

4.4 Governing Documents and SAM Registration

This Solicitation, along with its reference attachments, constitutes the entire solicitation package. In the event of a conflict or discrepancy, this main announcement takes precedence.

• All participating Design-Build Teams must be actively registered in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov) and possess a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) to be eligible for award.

• The selected DB must maintain active, non-delinquent registration throughout the entire period of performance and final payment cycle of the OT agreement.

5.0 SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS

The following attachments are incorporated by reference into this solicitation and form the basis of the competitive evaluation, post-selection, and contractual award processes:

• Attachment 1 – Draft Model OT Agreement: The baseline Other Transaction Agreement contract articles establishing the legal and administrative framework for the partnership.

• Attachment 2: Technical RFP / Performance Specifications for PN 111716 BLDG 212 Repair by Replacement.

End of Solicitation http://www.sam.gov/

5.0 SOLICITATION ATTACHMENTS