SWD Design-Build Done Right Training JA_final.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FED ONLY

Control Number: SWT-26-0005

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR Part 6 Class Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other than Full and Open Competition

PROGRAM/EQUIPMENT: To obtain Design-Build Done Right® for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

AUTHORITY: Title 10 USC §3204(a)(1) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302- 1(a)(2), Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements

AMOUNT: $25M

PREPARED BY Erica Taylor Erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil

CONTRACTING OFFICER Brian Hutchison Brian.c.hutchison@usace.army.mil

TECHNICAL Jay Surman Jay.v.surman@usace.army.mil

REQUIREMENTS Michell Lay Michelle.r.lay@usace.army.mil

SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED BELOW

I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support Other Than Full and Open

Competition.

PROGRAM MANAGER

SMALL BUSINESS

Wayne.f.hiatt@usace.army.mil Wayne Hiatt

SENIOR CONTRACTING OFFICIAL,

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

Rachael.raposa2@usace.army.mil

Rachael Raposa

HQ OFFICE OF COUNSEL

Deena.g.braunstein@usace.army.mil Deena G. Braunstein

COMMAND ADVOCATE FOR

COMPETITION

Laura.j.eichhorn@usace.army.mil

Laura J. Eichhorn

CONTROLLED BY: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

CONTROLLED BY: USACE Southwestern Division CUI CATEGORY: General Procurement and Acquisition

DISTRIBUTION/DISSEMINATION CONTROL: FED ONLY

POC: Erica Taylor, Erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil mailto:Erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil mailto:Brian.c.hutchison@usace.army.mil mailto:Jay.v.surman@usace.army.mil mailto:Michelle.r.lay@usace.army.mil mailto:Wayne.f.hiatt@usace.army.mil mailto:Rachael.raposa2@usace.army.mil mailto:Deena.g.braunstein@usace.army.mil mailto:Laura.j.eichhorn@usace.army.mil mailto:Erica.j.taylor@usace.army.mil

S0CT9LJE

Typewritten Text See Requirements Signature

FAR Part 6 Class Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other than Full and Open Competition

1. Requiring Activity: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

2. Contracting Activity: USACE Directorate of Contracting (DoC), Tulsa District, 2488 E 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137-4290

3. Description of Action: This Class Justification and Approval (J&A) authorizes the award of multiple new contracts, calls, or orders on another than full and open competition basis to the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) (CAGE: 3GE14, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 410, Washington DC 20004) for the Design-Build Done Right® training program. This J&A authorizes USACE contracting officers to issue non-competitive awards to DBIA using various acquisition methods, including Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 8.4 or open-market commercial procedures under FAR Part 12. All awards will be Firm-Fixed-Price. Contract actions will primarily be funded with Operation and Maintenance, Army funds, though other appropriate fund types may be used. The contracting officer must ensure that each action taken pursuant to the authority of the Class J&A is within the scope of the J&A and this J&A shall be included in the contract file accordingly. The total estimated value for all actions, orders, or calls placed under the authority of this Class J&A shall not exceed $25,000,000. The Class J&A is valid for five (5) years from the date of the final signature.

4. Description of Supplies/Services: USACE has a continuing need to procure professional, instructor-led training services focused on the principles of collaborative design-build project delivery. The overarching objective is to institutionalize industry best practices across USACE's multi-disciplinary project delivery teams (including contracting, engineering, construction, project management, and legal personnel). This training is essential for enhancing the effectiveness of Government programs and positioning USACE as a competitive "Owner of Choice" capable of attracting premier design-build industry partners.

The overarching objective of this training is to ensure USACE personnel gain insight into current industry design-build best practices to enhance the effectiveness of Government programs. To meet this objective, USACE has a continuing need to procure instructor-led training. Instruction may be conducted in-person at Government facilities worldwide (CONUS and OCONUS), or virtually through authorized distance-learning methods. The scope of services required includes providing all necessary resources to facilitate a comprehensive training program, including:

I. A proven, standardized curriculum focused on collaborative design-build techniques, from pre-award strategy through project execution.

II. Expert instructors with verifiable credentials and experience in teaching advanced design-build concepts to a government/owner audience.

III. All associated course materials necessary for the training.

IV. The ability to deliver training worldwide (CONUS and OCONUS), primarily through in-person or virtual, instructor-led sessions that are delivered in real-time and are not pre-recorded.

All training delivery platforms must be compatible with standard Government IT environments.

Training Type Target Audience / Location

Calculation Breakdown (Per Year)

Estimated Cost

Project Delivery Team (PDT) Training 40 USACE Districts

40 Districts × 2 Sessions/District × 30 People/Session × $1,725/Person $4,140,000

District/Division Executive Sessions

USACE District Leadership

40 Districts × 2 Sessions/District × 15 People/Session × $275/Person $330,000

Headquarters (HQ) Executive Training HQ Senior Leadership

4 Sessions/Year × 35 People/Session × $275/Person $38,500

Total Estimated Annual Cost: $4,508,500

Total Estimated 5-Year Cost: ($4,508,500 × 5 Years) $22,542,500

The approved ceiling of $25,000,000 includes the total estimated cost of

$22,542,500 and provides an additional buffer for potential price variations, additional sessions, or other unforeseen requirements during the five-year period.

A five-year period is required to provide the necessary flexibility to systematically schedule, fund, and deliver this training across a large and geographically dispersed enterprise, especially given operational constraints that limit training during the fourth quarter of each fiscal year.

5. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2), Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements

6. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. Background: USACE has historically used two project delivery methods to execute its extensive construction mission: traditional Design-Bid-Build and Design- Build. While both have a place within the USACE portfolio, a review of their application reveals inherent limitations that prevent USACE from consistently achieving optimal project outcomes in an evolving construction industry.

i. Limitations of Traditional Design-Bid-Build: By its very structure, the DBB process separates design from construction, creating silos that prevent the construction contractor from providing valuable input on constructability, cost, and schedule during the design phase. This lack of early collaboration often results in designs that are more costly to build and can lead to an increased number of change orders and disputes after award.

ii. Design-Build: While the Design-Build method consolidates the designer and builder on a single team after contract award, the process leading up to the award often fails to leverage the full potential of industry collaboration. The Government's pre-award and source selection activities are frequently conducted in a traditional, transactional manner that may not effectively evaluate or foster the collaborative potential of the competing design-build teams.

This pre-award "collaboration gap" is a significant missed opportunity. It prevents the

Government from fully engaging with industry to refine requirements, understand project risks, and select a partner based on their demonstrated ability to work as an integrated team. Without a structured methodology for this early engagement, the Government risks selecting a team that may not result in the most effective partnership post-award.

To close this gap and evolve with industry, USACE has identified a critical need to train its acquisition workforce in a structured, collaborative design-build methodology. The primary goal is to equip our multi-disciplinary teams with the skills to engage industry effectively before award, enabling them to better define requirements, assess risk, and select high-performing, truly integrated teams, thereby ensuring the success of the project from its inception.

b. Justification: The Government's requirement is to institutionalize industry's collaborative pre-award and procurement best practices across the USACE enterprise.

To meet this need, a training program must be specifically designed to teach a multi-disciplinary Government audience how to develop and execute acquisition strategies that prioritize team integration and best-value outcomes from the very beginning of the project lifecycle. As the designated construction agent for much of the Federal Government, USACE cannot remain static; it must adapt its project delivery methods to this new reality to maintain its position as the premier engineering and construction organization.

The Government conducted extensive market research, which is detailed in Section 9 of this document, to determine if there were training programs available that would meet our objectives. Market research confirmed:

I. Commercial off-the-shelf training from universities and vendors other than DBIA consists of general, academic, or introductory-level content that does not address the specific pre-award owner's role in fostering collaboration.

II. As further detailed in paragraph 7, a Sources Sought notice was published on SAM.gov which explicitly invited industry to propose training programs to educate staff on the collaborative methodology USACE requires. Only DBIA responded.

The result of market research is that only one program, the "Design-Build Done

Right" curriculum developed by DBIA, was found to possess the specific content required to meet the Government's need. It is the only known program that focuses explicitly on this pre-award integration. It is uniquely structured to provide contracting officers, office of counsel, construction personnel, engineers, and project managers with a shared vocabulary and a unified methodology for conducting source selections that evaluate and reward the collaborative potential of offerors. While other courses reviewed in the market research teach the mechanics of the standard design-build source selection process and post-award project execution —a methodology USACE already uses—the DBIA program is the only one found that is dedicated to reforming the crucial pre-award mindset and skillset of the owner's team to foster a more integrated and collaborative partnership.

Further, no other source can provide the DBIA “Design-Build Done Right®” curriculum besides DBIA itself, as DBIA has exclusive intellectual property rights, including:

I. Proprietary Data and Copyright: The "Design-Build Done Right®" training program, including its curriculum, all course manuals, case studies, and associated materials, constitutes copyrighted intellectual property owned exclusively by DBIA. No other entity has the legal right to use or reproduce these materials.

II. Exclusive Instructor Certification: DBIA is the sole entity with the authority to certify instructors as qualified to teach its proprietary curriculum. This exclusive control over instructor credentials is a critical component of quality assurance that cannot be replicated.

III. Trademarked Brand Name: The "Design-Build Done Right®" name is a registered trademark of DBIA.

These proprietary controls make it impossible for any other source to deliver the same service. Awarding to another vendor would result in a different, non-standardized course, which would fail to meet the Government's essential requirement for a uniform training program on collaborative design-build project delivery across the enterprise.

By achieving enterprise-wide proficiency in the "Design-Build Done Right®" methodology, USACE can synthesize this industry-leading framework with its own unparalleled institutional knowledge of Federal contracting and complex construction regulations. This unique combination is what solidifies USACE's position as the Federal Government's premier agency for delivering critical infrastructure. It provides the tools to consistently deliver facilities on time and within budget, thereby maximizing USACE's ability to meet its diverse and urgent mission requirements across Civil Works, Military Programs, and Interagency and International Support, including emergency response. It is this unique and specific focus on emulating industry's collaborative design-build project delivery and pre-award best practices that makes this training essential and unavailable from any other source.

c. Alternatives: Several alternatives to the proposed sole-source action were considered, but determined to not meet the Government's requirements for the following reasons:

i. Conduct a Full and Open Competition. This alternative was determined to be unviable. Award to Multiple Vendors. The most probable outcome of a broad competition would be multiple awards to different vendors across various USACE districts. This outcome is unacceptable because it would introduce different, and potentially conflicting, training programs into the enterprise, each based on a particular vendor's interpretation of best practices. Instead of creating a common framework and shared vocabulary, it would foster inconsistency and fragmentation, directly opposing the Government's core requirement for a single, standardized program. Further, no source but DBIA offers training on collaborative design-build project delivery, as discussed above.

ii. Develop and Deliver the Training Using In-House USACE Resources. While

USACE possesses extensive internal expertise in executing design-build projects, it does not have the resources or the charter to develop, certify, and maintain a national-level, industry-recognized training program. Developing a program of comparable quality from scratch would require substantial duplication of cost and effort, take years to complete, and would ultimately result in a USACE-specific curriculum that lacks the best practices of industry.

This would fail to meet the objective of aligning USACE with current industry standards.

iii. Take No Action (Forgo Standardized Training). This is not a viable alternative.

Failing to provide a standardized, best-practice training program would perpetuate the current risk of inconsistent design-build application across the enterprise. It would hinder USACE's strategic goal of becoming an "Owner of Choice," potentially leading to less effective procurement outcomes, increased project disputes, and a failure to attract the most qualified design-build contractor teams. The risk to mission and project delivery makes this alternative unacceptable.

d. Impact if not approved:

If this Class Justification and Approval is disapproved, USACE will be forced to continue with its current "business as usual" approach to design-build execution. While individual projects can succeed, the data shows that, at an enterprise level, our current transactional methods are consistently failing to meet established budget and schedule constraints. This underperformance is no longer acceptable in the current Federal environment.

Disapproval would have the following specific, detrimental effects:

i. Continued Failure to Meet Cost and Schedule Targets: Disapproval of this J&A would mean continuing with current design-build practices that are often inefficient at an enterprise scale. A primary example is USACE's standard approach of issuing solicitations with a design that is already advanced to a 35% or greater level of completion. This practice has several negative consequences that would persist if this training is not implemented:

• Limits Innovation: By prescribing the design to such a degree—often including foundational and structural decisions—the Government preemptively eliminates the opportunity for industry partners to propose more innovative, cost-effective, or efficient technical solutions. We are paying for a design-build team but contractually preventing them from doing their best work.

• Delays Critical Budget Discussions: A significant benefit of early collaboration is the ability to get realistic cost feedback from builders during the design process. Under our current model, this feedback often doesn't occur until after a design is largely set, leading to situations where the Government only discovers a project is at risk of "busting the budget" much later in the process. This training teaches the collaborative techniques needed to bring industry in earlier, allowing for more accurate and timely budget validation.

• Increased Risk of Post-Award Delays: By not collaborating with the construction experts earlier, the risk of design errors, constructability issues, and integration problems increases. These issues inevitably surface after award as change orders and RFIs, which are primary drivers of schedule delays and cost growth.

Without the collaborative, pre-award framework this training provides, USACE will continue to rely solely on our conventional processes, directly hindering our ability to deliver projects on time and on budget.

ii. Non-Compliance with Executive and DoD Directives: The current Presidential administration and DoD leadership have issued clear directives to Federal agencies to streamline acquisition processes, reduce administrative burdens, and better collaborate with industry. Continuing with a fragmented, inefficient, and inconsistent approach to design-build training and execution runs directly counter to these mandates. This J&A is a proactive and necessary step to align USACE business practices with these high-level priorities. Failure to approve it would represent a missed opportunity to modernize and would leave USACE lagging behind established acquisition reform goals.

iii. Inability to Fully Leverage Commercial Best Practices: The Federal Government encourages the use of commercial services and industry standards where appropriate. Market research has shown that the training provided by DBIA represents an industry best practice for collaborative design-build. Disapproval of this Class J&A would effectively prevent USACE from efficiently accessing and institutionalizing this commercial standard.

7. Efforts to Obtain Competition: In accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 206.302-1(d), and to solicit offers from as many potential sources as practicable, the Government posted a Sources Sought notice to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

The notice (Notice ID: FY26USACE) was published on 15 December 2025. In accordance with FAR 5.207(c)(16)(ii), the notice invited all responsible sources to submit a capability statement for consideration by the agency. There was one response received from DBIA.

a. Effective Competition: No effective competition is anticipated for this action. As established in this justification, the required services are specialized that an alternative source was not identified. Therefore, it is expected that only the intended source, DBIA, will be able to fully meet the Government's requirements.

b. Subcontracting Competition: No significant opportunities for subcontracting competition are anticipated under this action. The core requirement is the direct delivery of training on collaborative design-build project delivery and pre-award best practices, as discussed above. As such, the primary service being procured cannot be subcontracted. DBIA will be encouraged to compete any ancillary requirements (such as travel arrangements) to the maximum extent practicable.

8. Actions to Increase Competition: The primary barrier to competition is the highly specialized and unique nature of the training service itself. As established in the justification, the Government requires a single, standardized, and proven curriculum that specifically teaches the owner's team how to manage the pre-award phase of a collaborative design-build project. The market research detailed in Section 9 confirmed that this is not a generic service and that only one known program, DBIA’s Design-Build Done Right®, is focused on this specific capability. Further, as discussed above, no one but DBIA can provide this training because of DBIA’s proprietary rights. Therefore, as long as the Government's requirement is for this specific, highly specialized training, opportunities for full and open competition are not anticipated. However, to ensure due diligence in monitoring the market, USACE commits to the following actions:

• Periodic Market Surveillance: Prior to the expiration of this five-year Class Justification and Approval, the requiring activity will conduct market research to assess the state of the industry. This research will determine if any significant changes have occurred that would enable future competition.

• Specific Triggers for Re-evaluation: This market surveillance will specifically look for the emergence of a new, competing collaborative design-build methodology from a different organization that has achieved a comparable level of widespread industry adoption and recognition as a "best practice."

If market surveillance indicates that a viable competitive environment has emerged, USACE will pursue full and open competition for any subsequent requirement.

This is a new Class Justification and Approval and is not a follow-on action to a previous non-competitive award for the same service. Therefore, there are no previously planned actions to report.

9. Market Research: Market research was conducted to determine if any sources other than the DBIA are capable of providing the required proprietary training. The following methods were used:

a. Historical Contract Review:

An analysis of historical Federal procurement data was conducted using the USASpending.gov database to understand the market for general design-build training services across the U.S. Government. The data set reviewed included 23 contract actions from 2008 to the present. The purpose of this review was to identify the vendors providing these services, the customer base, and the nature of the procurements. The following table summarizes the specific contract actions that were analyzed as part of this review.

Awarding Agency Recipient Total Value Type Competition Description

Department of Agriculture Business Management Research Associates, Inc.

$124,609.46 FFP Competed Under SAP DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING IN

SUPPORT OF GAOA

EXECUTION

Department of the Interior Design-Build Institute of America

$42,500.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING BLM OREGON

STATE OFFICE

Department of Justice Design-Build Institute of America

$88,000.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING SUPPORT

General Services Administration

Design-Build Institute of America

$27,808.61 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING WITH

CERTIFICATION (3-

DAY...

General Services Administration

Design-Build Institute of America

$43,170.72 FFP Full and Open Competition

SERVICE TO PROVIDE

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING.

Department of Homeland Security

Design-Build Institute of America

$36,524.05 FFP Not Competed DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Homeland Security

Design-Build Institute of America

$32,125.00 FFP Not Competed DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Design-Build Institute of America

$28,750.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Agriculture Design-Build Institute of America

$13,000.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

IN-HOUSE DESIGN-

BUILD TRAINING FOR 13

EMPLOYEES

Department of Justice Design-Build Institute of America

$44,400.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

151003 - DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Commerce Whitlock, Daniel A $500.00 FFP Not Competed Under

SAP

SEATTLE DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Commerce Design-Build Institute of America

$11,335.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

THREE DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Transportation American Society of Civil Engineers

$13,875.00 FFP Competed Under SAP DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING

Department of Defense Defense Acquisition University

$2,500.00 FFP Competed Under SAP 3-DAY DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING COURSE

General Services Administration

Design-Build Institute of America

$20,250.00 FFP Not Competed Under

SAP

PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING CLASS AT

THE...

General Services Administration

Design-Build Institute of America

$45,000.00 FFP Not Competed Under

SAP

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING FOR GSA

NATIONAL

General Services Administration

Twentyeighty Strategy Execution, Inc.

$13,400.00 FFP Not Available For Competition

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

General Services Administration

Twentyeighty Strategy Execution, Inc.

$10,950.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

General Services Administration

Twentyeighty Strategy Execution, Inc.

$7,500.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING

General Services Administration

Capitol Creag, LLC $70,000.00 FFP Not Available For Competition

DESIGN/BUILD

TRAINING CLASS.

Department of Homeland Security

Twentyeighty Strategy Execution, Inc.

$15,000.00 FP Competed Under SAP DEC 2-3, 2008: DESIGN-

BUILD TRAINING FOR 30

Department of Defense Whc Consulting, LLC $12,679.00 FFP Not Competed DESIGN BUILD

TRAINING CLASS

Department of Justice Design-Build Institute of America

$0.00 FFP Full and Open Competition

DESIGN-BUILD

TRAINING SUPPORT

I. Vendor Landscape: The data reveals a market with a limited number of vendors providing this type of training to the Federal Government. Of the 23 contract actions reviewed, the awards were distributed among nine different contractors.

The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) was the most frequent awardee, receiving 13 of the 23 contract actions. Other vendors included Business Management Research Associates, Inc., TwentyEighty Strategy Execution, Inc., American Society of Civil Engineers, and Trauner Consulting Services, Inc., each receiving a small number of awards. This pattern indicates that while a few other sources exist for general training, DBIA is the dominant and most consistently used provider in the Federal marketplace.

II. Government Customer Base: A wide and diverse range of Federal agencies have procured design-build training, demonstrating a government-wide need for these skills. Customers identified in the data include:

• Department of Defense (including the Department of the Air Force and Army)

• General Services Administration (GSA)

• Department of Homeland Security (including the U.S. Coast Guard)

• Department of Justice (including the FBI)

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

• Department of the Interior

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of Transportation

• Department of Commerce

III. Scope of Services: The transaction descriptions confirm that the services procured were for general design-build training. Examples include

"DESIGN-BUILD TRAINING," "DESIGN BUILD TRAINING WITH

CERTIFICATION (3-DAY COURSE)," and "IN-HOUSE DESIGN-BUILD TRAINING." Critically, it appears that all of the reviewed descriptions or contract award documents were to provide the standard design-build training which does not focus on collaboration throughout the acquisition lifecycle.

The historical data confirms two key facts: (1) there is a broad, recurring need for design-build training across the Federal Government; and (2) the market for these general training services consists of a small number of providers, with DBIA being the most prominent.

b. GSA Schedules Review: Market research was conducted using the General

Services Administration (GSA) Advantage!® and GSA eLibrary portals to identify contractors offering comparable advanced design-build training. While numerous vendors offer introductory project management or general construction management courses, no vendors were identified that offered a comprehensive, advanced design-build training program equivalent to the proprietary "Design-Build Done Right®" curriculum. This search confirmed that an equivalent service is not readily available through the GSA Schedules program.

c. Commercial Web Search for Off-the-Shelf Training: A broad web search was conducted for commercially available, off-the-shelf "design-build training" from other providers, such as universities or professional training companies. This search identified various entities offering general courses on design-build concepts. The search also identified other commercial training companies (similar to Lorman or ASCE, but not on a GSA schedule) that market their own branded design-build training courses. These offerings also do not meet the Government's minimum requirements because:

• The products they offer are not equivalent to DBIA’s "Design-Build Done

Right®" program, which solely offers the collaborative design-build project delivery training that is required.

• As discussed above, these companies do not have the legal rights to use the DBIA’s proprietary "Design-Build Done Right®" course materials.

• They cannot provide certified instructors. Their instructors are certified under their own internal programs, not by DBIA for its proprietary course.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): The ASCE's Design-Build Contracting (DBC11) course, priced at $649.00 for 10 hours of self-paced learning, provides a convenient option for quick refresher training. The class size is capped at 22 participants, which is significantly smaller than other offerings.

However, this course is not an equivalent alternative to the “Design-Build Done Right®” program. Instead, it is a generic overview of design-build contracting and does not provide the collaborative pre-award cradle to grave training that only

DBIA provides. Furthermore, the course is self-paced and does not include live instruction from an instructor.

Lorman Education Services: Lorman offers another self-paced Design-Build training at a slightly lower price point of $559.10 per person. While this is more affordable than ASCE’s course, it comes with its own limitations. The Lorman course provides a standardized, budget-oriented approach rather than a tailored curriculum for specific organizations like USACE. As a result, the lack of customization means it may not fully address the nuanced needs of USACE personnel or the critical collaborative component. Additionally, like the ASCE course, it lacks the real-time support and interactivity that DBIA provides and that some organizations may require for maximum value.

d. Sources Sought Notice: A Sources Sought notice was published on

SAM.gov on 15 December 2025, with a closing date of 23 December 2025 in accordance with DFARS PGI 206.302-1(d). The notice was structured to maximize potential industry response and did not restrict responses to a single brand. It explicitly invited capability statements from all responsible sources and provided two clear paths for response:

i. The first path provided method for any firm that was an authorized provider of the "Design-Build Done Right®" program, asking them to submit proof of that authorization. This was an administrative step to quickly identify authorized resellers.

ii. The second, more comprehensive path invited any and all other vendors to submit a capability statement for what they considered an equivalent course. Respondents were asked to provide a course description, evidence of industry acceptance, instructor qualifications, and past performance to allow for a direct technical comparison against the Government's requirement for a collaborative, pre-award focused methodology.

This two-path structure ensured that the notice was not restricted to a single brand and provided a clear and open opportunity for any firm to demonstrate its capability to meet the Government's needs. Only DBIA responded to the source sought.

10. Interested Sources: To date, only DBIA has written to express an interest.

11. Other Facts:

a. Procurement history. None.

b. Other Facts. None.

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FED ONLY

12. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Jay Surman Acquisition Program Manager, Engineering Branch Tulsa District

13. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Michelle Lay Deputy Chief, Programs and Project Management Division Tulsa District

SURMAN.JAY.

V.1116547402

Digitally signed by

SURMAN.JAY.V.1116547402

Date: 2026.01.30 11:06:25 -06'00'

LAY.MICHELLE.R.12651

26037

Digitally signed by

LAY.MICHELLE.R.1265126037

Date: 2026.01.30 11:33:37 -06'00'

14. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: The undersigned Contracting Officer's signature on this Class J&A does not constitute a final determination of price reasonableness. For each contract or order placed under the authority of this Class J&A, the responsible Contracting Officer will make a separate, documented determination that the price is fair and reasonable prior to award, using the specific procedures appropriate for the chosen acquisition method.

• For Orders/Calls Placed Against a GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS): In accordance with DoD Class Deviation 2014-O0011, "Determination of Fair and Reasonable Prices When Using Federal Supply Schedule Contracts," ordering Contracting Officers will not rely solely on the GSA-approved pricing.

Instead, they will perform a price analysis and determine that the final price is fair and reasonable, using one or more of the techniques prescribed in FAR 15.404-1. This analysis will be documented in the contract file.

• For Open-Market Actions Placed Using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (FAR Part 13): When placing a standalone purchase order, the Contracting Officer will determine the price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3, "Award and documentation." Since this J&A authorizes a sole-source action, there will be only one response. Therefore, the Contracting Officer will include a statement of price reasonableness in the contract file in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a)(2) or Revolutionary FAR Overhaul 12.204.

By adhering to the specific procedures for the chosen acquisition path, the Government will ensure that all prices paid for services acquired under this Class J&A are determined fair and reasonable in full compliance with regulation.

Brian Hutchison Contracting Officer

15. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Brian Hutchison Contracting Officer

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve this Class Justification and Approval (J&A) for the procurement of proprietary "Design-Build Done Right®" training services on an other than full and open competition basis, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements. This approval authorizes multiple contract actions (including, but not limited to, purchase orders, calls, and delivery orders) with a total cumulative value not to exceed $25,000,000 over a period of five (5) years from the date of approval. The approval is subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Denver S. Heath, SES USACE, Head of the Contracting Activity