UEPH RLBs Industry Day_FINAL Slides.pdf

USACE NAB

12MAY2025

INDUSTRY DAY

UEPH BARRACKS

JOINT BASE MYER

– HENDERSON HALLDRAFT

12MAY2025

OPENING REMARKSDRAFT

Agenda

• Introductions & Disclaimer

• UEPH Barracks Project Overview

• Existing Conditions

• Site Discussion

• Problem Definition

• Courses of Action (COA)

• Discussion/Considerations

• Questions & Closing

0900 – Opening Remarks

0915 – Presentation

1030– One-on-One Team Coffee

1045 – One-on-One Meeting #1

1145 - One-on-One Meeting #2

1230 – 1315 – LUNCH BREAK

1330 - One-on-One Meeting #3

1430 - One-on-One Meeting #4

1530 - One-on-One Meeting #5

1630 - One-on-One Meeting #6

1730 – END OF ALL ONE-ON-ONES

DRAFT

Disclaimer

This Industry Day is not a Request for Proposal, Request for Quote, or Invitation for Bid.

There is no commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation, make awards, or pay for respondent's expenditures made in response to this notice. The purpose of this

Industry Day is to survey interest, discuss capabilities and incorporate innovation from industry.

All information shared in the course of this Industry Day shall be considered preliminary and tentative. The only definitive source of information regarding this potential effort is on https://sam.gov under Related Notice ID W912DR25R15SR.

Introductions USACE Team

Paul White, PE

Design Manager

Michael Miskimon, AIA

Design Manager

Laura Putnam, PMP

Project Manager, PPMD

Tamara Bonomolo

Contracting Officer

Amber Rose

Contract Specialist

SCOPE & LOCATIONDRAFT

PROJECT SCOPE, PROGRAM, AND GOALS

The UEPH Barracks Project will create two new barracks buildings to house 200- Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel (UPEH) on the Joint Base Meyer – Henderson Hall

(JBM-HH)

UEPH Building Program:

USACE to implement Design-Bid-Build Process with FY26 Construction Contract Award

• Approximate Square Footage: 167,712 square feet

• 200 beds

• Follow Army Center of Standardization Guidance for Barracks

PROJECT SCOPE, PROGRAM, AND GOALS

Project Goals:

Construct permanent party barracks facilities that will:

• Provide 200 new beds for soldiers on Joint Base Myer – Henderson Hall.

• Enhance, improve and replace deteriorate sub-standard barracks.

• Improve quality of life for The Old Guard and support their mission supporting ceremonial duties at Arlington National Cemetery.

• Decrease local traffic demands by providing on base housing for soldiers (live-work setting).

• Increase morale, mission and retention for The Old Guard of the U.S. Army.

12MAY2025

EXISTING

CONDITIONSDRAFT

Source: Fort Myer-Henderson Hall District Area Development Plan (2017)

Fort Myer –

Henderson Hall

Fort McNair

VICINITY MAP

PHOTO LEGEND

Existing Site Features

Existing structures TO BE REMOVED

PHOTO LEGENDDRAFT

SITE DISCUSSIONDRAFT

Site

• The site is approximately 8 acres, with previously developed areas.

• Seven two-story residences, access road, playground, two brick one-story garages, two one-story siding storage sheds, pool complex

• Greenspace is currently being used for the Bldg. 416

Renovation Swing Space project.

• Topography generally falls from northwest to southeast, with the high point being as shown. There is a 12-foot elevation drop to the site’s low point, on the south side.

• All utilities are available on site.

HIGH POINT

Final Site Solution

Summerall Field

Arlington Blvd

Sheridan Ave

McNair Rd

251250248

A&B

A&B

A&B

419 421

416A 416B

A&B

S c h o o lh o u s e R o a dDRAFT

UEPH Barracks at JBM-HH – Birds Eye – revised Submission

Site Overlay

Existing Site vs. Final condition

Proposed Plan

Current Existing Conditions

Problem Definition

Current Challenge: Occupied RLBs are present on new barracks site.

Need: RLBs need to be relocated.

Logistical Planning: Identifying COA that will minimizing disruption.

Impact Considerations: Ensuring continued accommodation and operational readiness for JBH-HH personnel.

Next Steps: Discuss alternate location, COAs and alternative, organizing relocation efforts, and coordinating a smooth transition.

Considerations

USACE

• One General Contractor to execute DBB and DB construction.

• 3 tasks – 1 project

• UEPH DBB MILCON

• Abatement and Demolition of existing Facilities.

• Relocatable Buildings - DB

• FY26 Construction Award

JBM-HH

• Limit displacement of existing personnel.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

• Solicitation to be Best Value Trade Off. Firm Fixed Price

• Design Build Component for RLBs

• UEPH Construction Documents, RLB Relocation DB RFP

• Government partnership for Site design of DB effort.

BID SCHEDULE

1. Base and Options to encompass all work associated with UEPH construction.

2. Design Build Option

• All work associated with relocation of RLBs to permit the construction of the UEPH Barracks.

COA Proposals

COA #1 – Provide four (4) RLBs at alternate site

COA #2 – Provide two (2) RLBs at alternate site

COA #3 – Provide three (3) RLBs at alternate siteDRAFT

Overall Site

Propose RLB Site

Propose Location for RLBs

COA #1

COA #1 – Provide four (4) RLBs at alternate site

1A – Install four (4) new RLBs at alternate site then remove existing four RLBs

1B – Phased approach

1B-a – Install two (2) new RLBs, relocate personnel, move two existing RLBs, remove remaining two existing RLBs

1B-b – Relocate four existing, phase two at a time, requires alternate housingDRAFT

COA #1A

1A – Install four (4) new RLBs at alternate site then remove existing four RLBs

COA #1A

1A – Install four (4) new RLBs at alternate site then remove existing four RLBs

COA #1Ba Install two (2) new RLBs, Relocated two existing RLBs

COA #1Ba Install two (2) new RLBs, Relocated two existing RLBs

COA #1Bb Relocated (4) existing RLBs

COA #2

COA #2 – Provide two (2)RLBs at alternate site.

2A – Install two (2) new RLBs at alternate site, relocate personnel, remove vacated existing RLBs, two (2) existing RLBs will remain on UEPH site.

2B – Relocate two (2) existing RLBs to the alternate site, two existing RLBs to remain, alternate housing is required.DRAFT

COA #2A

Install two (2) new RLBs at alternate site, two (2) existing RLBs will remain on UEPH site.

COA #2A

Install two (2) new RLBs at alternate site, two (2) existing RLBs will remain on UEPH site.

COA #2B

Relocate two (2) existing RLBs to the alternate site, two existing RLBs to remain.

COA #2B

Relocate two (2) existing RLBs to the alternate site, two existing RLBs to remain

COA #3

COA #3 – Provide three (3)RLBs at alternate site.

3A – Install three (3) new RLBs at alternate site, relocate personnel, remove three at existing UEPH site, one to remain at UEPH site. DRAFT

Relocate two (2) existing RLBs to the alternate site, two existing RLBs to remain.

Relocate two (2) existing RLBs to the alternate site, two existing RLBs to remain

Discussions

USACE Site Partnership

Cost Efficiencies

Schedule Constraints/Risks

New RLB Lead Time

Pros

Cons

Risk Mitigations

Personnel Coordination

Critical Path & Schedule

UEPH BARRACKS AT JBM-HH – VIEW FROM NORTH-WEST ALONG SHERIDAN AVENUE – REVISED SUBMISSION

QUESTIONS?

UEPH BARRACKS AT JBM-HH – VIEW FROM SOUTH-EAST – REVISED SUBMISSION

BACKUPDRAFT

Move RLBs to alternate location

• Marines vacate RLBs, leaseholder disassembles RLBs, transport to alternate location, reassemble RLBs, refurbish?, Marines reoccupy. Alternate location site work to be completed by MILCON contractor.

• PROS

Cost efficient

Can award UEPH on time

No lead time for fabricating new RLBs

• CONS

Schedule risk for impacting contractor(s)

Marines displaced in alternate housing while

• RLBs are moved.

• RISK MITIGIATION

• Government and contractors agree to meet milestone dates.

o RLB Move out date for Marines. Vacate by TBD o Site work completion date. TBD o New RLB BOD date TBD

Need to find out:

1. How long Demo abatement and demo will take?

2. What is the cost to move the RLBs?

3. How long will it take to move and reestablish

RLBs?

4. How long will RLB site work take?

5. What is the current condition of RLBs? Does

JBMHH want the RLBs to be refurbished?

NEW RLBs to alternate location (MILCON)

Revise the 95% design to include a Design Build element to provide new RLBs at the alternate site location and associated site work.

Extend the Current RLB contract past March 2026 until new RLBs are ready for BOD.

• PROS

Marines will not be displaced

• CONS

Schedule risk: due to additional design, there

• will be a delay to UEPH award date

Added cost ____ of new RLBs not included in

• DD1391/PA

Added lead time to fabricate RLBs

• RISK MITIGIATION

Need to find out:

1. How will RLBs remaining on site affect contractor site operations? If two RLBs remain on site how will that affect contactor operations?

2. How long will new RLB site work and installation take?

3. Is JBMHH open to providing additional contractor lay down area?

4. How to configure RLBs to best fit onsite?