USSF_IDM_RFI_vF.pdf

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE | Infrastructure Delivery Modernization RFI — April 2026

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 1

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY MODERNIZATION

IDA-DP Framework & Accelerated Construction Delivery

Headquarters United States Space Force Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia

April 2026

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued for planning and market research purposes only. This RFI does not constitute a solicitation, Request for Proposal (RFP), or a commitment to award a contract. The Government will not pay for information provided in response to this RFI. Responses will not be returned. No proprietary, classified, or sensitive information should be included in responses.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 2

SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Purpose

The United States Space Force (USSF) is seeking information, insights, and recommendations from industry to inform the design and execution of a modernized Infrastructure Delivery Authority and Delivery Partner (IDA-DP) framework. This RFI solicits candid industry input on the executability of the proposed IDA-DP concept, practical recommendations for maximizing its effectiveness and identification of market conditions, risks, and opportunities that should inform its design.

1.2 Background: The Problem

The USSF cannot fulfill its mandate of Speed to Mission while relying on traditional, sequential procurement frameworks. The core gaps driving this initiative are as follows:

Current State Proposed Solution

5–7 year MILCON lifecycle Streamlined IDA-DP delivery model 12–24 month supply chain lead times Early procurement contracts before design completion Cleared labor shortages & badging delays Construction enclaves separating secure/non-secure work Excessive layered oversight Exception-based, data-driven performance monitoring

1.3 Proposed Solution: The IDA-DP Model

The USSF proposes establishing an Infrastructure Delivery Authority (IDA), a single-purpose organization led by the government with full visibility into performance, access to data and decision-rights. The IDA would engage a world-class private-sector Delivery Partner (DP) consortium to manage the program on behalf of the Government, sharing in risk and reward. The core philosophy is: centralized visibility, decentralized execution.

Delivery methods under consideration include Performance-Based Design-Build (DB), Construction Management at-Risk (CMAR), and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) / Progressive Design-Build (PDB). Oversight transitions from manual compliance enforcement to exception-based, data-driven performance monitoring via digital twins and commercial construction management platforms.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 3

SECTION 2: RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who Should Respond

The USSF welcomes responses from entities with relevant experience in one or more of the following areas:

• Large-scale commercial or federal construction program delivery (mega-projects, data centers, industrial facilities, or mission-critical infrastructure)

• Program Management Office (PMO) or Delivery Partner roles on multi-site, multi-year capital construction programs

• Collaborative delivery models including Design-Build, CMAR, Progressive Design-Build, or Integrated Project Delivery

• Construction technology, BIM/Digital Twin platforms, or construction management software

• Defense acquisition, contracting, legal, or compliance expertise relevant to MILCON modernization

• Cleared construction and cleared labor workforce solutions

• Long-lead supply chain management for critical infrastructure components

2.2 Submission Format

Respondents are requested to address the questions in Section 4 of this RFI. Responses should be submitted in the following format:

• Maximum 5 pages, excluding cover page and table of contents

• Organized by the section and question numbers provided in Section 4

• Submitted electronically to: SAM.gov POC’s (both primary and alternate)

• Subject line: RFI Response — USSF Infrastructure Delivery Modernization — [Company

Name]

• Responses due no later than: May 4, 12:00 PM Eastern Time

Respondents are encouraged to be candid and direct. The USSF is specifically interested in honest assessments of what will and will not work, where the proposed concept has gaps, and what the Government should do differently.

2.3 Respondent Information

Please provide the following information as part of your response. This information will be used for market research purposes only and will not affect evaluation of your technical input.

Company / Organization Name

Primary Point of Contact Title Email Address Phone Number Company Size (employees) Cage Code (if applicable) Relevant NAICS Codes Facility Clearance Level (if applicable)

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 4

Please also indicate your organization's primary area(s) of relevance to this RFI (check all that apply):

• Large-scale construction program management / Delivery Partner

• Design-Build / CMAR / Progressive Design-Build contractor

• Construction technology / Digital Twin / BIM platform provider

• Defense acquisition, contracting, or legal advisory

• Cleared construction / secure facility contractor

• Supply chain / long-lead procurement specialist

• Workforce / cleared labor solutions

• Other (please describe)

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 5

SECTION 3: KEY AREAS OF INTEREST

The USSF is particularly interested, but not limited to, in industry perspectives on the following themes. Questions in Section 4 are organized by these areas:

Area Why It Matters to USSF IDA-DP Governance & Authority Getting the authority structure right is the precondition for everything else. Industry has seen what works and what doesn't.

Delivery Model Selection Matching the right delivery method to facility type and risk profile will determine schedule and cost outcomes.

Supply Chain & Long-Lead Procurement Early procurement is central to schedule compression — industry knows which items are truly long-lead and where the risk lies.

Cleared Labor & Security Phasing Construction enclave strategies must be practical, mitigate risk and not introduce new bottlenecks.

Digital Twins & Technology Stack The oversight model depends on technology maturity -- industry can validate or challenge USSF assumptions.

Risk Allocation & Incentive Design How risk and reward are shared determines whether the DP partnership will attract the right firms.

Regulatory & Compliance Barriers CMMC, PLA, and permitting requirements are identified barriers where industry can quantify their real impact.

Workforce & Talent Staffing the IDA with commercial talent/expertise requires understanding of roles, responsibilities and relevant expertise.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 6

SECTION 4: INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

4.1 IDA-DP Governance and Authority Structure

Q1. Is the IDA-DP construct as described executable as a federal entity? What precedents, federal or commercial, most closely resemble it and what were the roles, responsibilities and critical success factors?

Context: A semi-autonomous IDA with embedded contracting and legal authority, supported by a private-sector Delivery Partner. We welcome comparable examples from respondents' experience.

Q2. How should the IDA-DP contract be structured to genuinely share risk and reward and what mechanisms have you seen fail in practice that the USSF should explicitly avoid?

Context: The DP would share in both upside (incentive fees, program extensions) and downside (liquidated damages, performance bond requirements). We want industry perspective on what makes risk-sharing real versus contractually nominal.

Q3. What is your recommended approach for defining the boundary between IDA responsibilities and Delivery Partner responsibilities and how should conflicts between them be adjudicated?

Context: Poorly defined authority boundaries are a primary driver of program dysfunction in public-private partnerships. We are specifically interested in how respondents have managed interface risk in prior programs.

4.2 Delivery Model Selection

Q4. For which categories of USSF facility types (secure operations centers, launch infrastructure, data centers, administrative facilities) does each delivery model Design-Build, CMAR, Progressive Design-Buil, and IPD provide the greatest schedule and cost advantage and why?

Context: There is not an intent to mandate a single delivery model across all facility types. We are seeking a decision framework that matches delivery method to facility characteristics, risk profile, and schedule sensitivity.

Q5. What is the realistic schedule compression achievable under Performance-

Based Design-Build compared to traditional prescriptive MILCON for a notional secure facility of square feet? Please provide data from comparable programs where possible.

Context: The goal is to significantly reduce the 5–7 year MILCON lifecycle for priority facilities. We want to understand what is genuinely achievable versus aspirational and what conditions must be met to hit the lower end of that range.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 7

4.3 Early Procurement and Supply Chain Strategy

Q6. Which infrastructure components genuinely drive the critical path in mission-critical facility construction today?

Context: We would like an updated, ground-truth assessment of current market lead times and which components, if not procured early, will dictate the entire project schedule regardless of other efficiencies.

Q7. What contracting mechanisms — separate early procurement contracts, vendor-managed inventory, framework agreements, or other approaches — have been most effective in compressing supply chain lead times on large federal or commercial programs?

Context: The IDA is envisioned to have autonomous contracting authority to issue early procurement contracts before main facility design is complete. We want to understand both the mechanisms that work and the coordination risks they introduce.

4.4 Cleared Labor and Security Phasing

Q8. Is the construction enclave concept, physically separating cleared and uncleared work to maximize use of commercial labor, operationally feasible at USSF installations? What are the critical design, scheduling and security coordination requirements to make it work?

Context: Can enclaves allow uncleared commercial crews to complete shell and core work, with cleared labor introduced only for secure interior fit-out. We want industry's assessment of where this model works well and where it breaks down.

Q9. What is the realistic cleared construction workforce capacity in the current market and what are the primary constraints on scaling it for a major multi-year program?

Context: The cleared labor market represents a constraint that could become a bottleneck. We would like a candid market assessment.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 8

4.5 Digital Twins, Technology, and Oversight

Q10. What commercial construction management technology stack would you recommend for an enterprise-level IDA-DP program, and what level of portfolio visibility for schedule, cost, quality, risk can realistically be achieved through it?

Context: Live dashboards enable exception-based intervention rather than routine compliance reviews. We want to understand what is genuinely achievable with current technology, what data quality and integration requirements must be met, and where technology-based oversight tends to fail.

Q11. What Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should the IDA track at the portfolio level to enable genuine exception-based oversight and what thresholds should trigger escalation versus routine management?

Context: The shift from manual compliance review to KPI-driven oversight is central to the IDA-DP model. We want industry's experience with which metrics actually predict project outcomes versus which are compliance driven.

4.6 Compliance, Regulatory, and Workforce Barriers

Q12. Where Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements apply, what is the realistic impact on competitive pricing, schedule certainty, and access to specialty subcontractors and what strategies have been used to mitigate adverse effects while maintaining compliance?

Context: Where PLA requirements apply by law, we seek to understand their practical impact and structure programs to minimize adverse effects.

Q13. What staffing model would you recommend for the IDA itself — specifically the balance between government civilians, military personnel, contractors, and commercial talent?

Context: The IDA vision is to leverage subject matter experts from private-sector tech-infrastructure and commercial construction.

4.7 Risk, Incentives, and Program Design

Q14. What contract incentive structures: fee types, award fee criteria, milestone-based payments, shared savings have most effectively aligned Delivery Partner behavior with government schedule and mission outcomes on comparable programs?

Context: We want industry's experience with which incentive structures actually produce this alignment versus which are circumvented.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 9

Q15. What are the top three risks to the IDA-DP model that the USSF may be underestimating and what mitigation strategies would you recommend for each?

Context: This is an open invitation for candid risk assessment. What risks are not obvious from the inside organizational, political, market, or technical risks that have derailed similar initiatives.

4.8 Additional Input

Q16. What single change to the proposed IDA-DP concept would most improve its probability of success and what single aspect of the current proposal, if left unchanged, is most likely to cause the program to revert to legacy MILCON oversight and management?

Context: Seeking industry's most important insight rather than a comprehensive list of recommendations.

UNCLASSIFIED | Page 10

SECTION 5: LEGAL NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS

5.1 Not a Solicitation

This RFI is issued for market research and planning purposes only pursuant to FAR Part 10. This RFI does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), a Request for Quote (RFQ), or any other solicitation. The Government is not committed to and will not pay for any information, white papers, briefings, or other materials submitted in response to this RFI.

5.2 No Proprietary or Classified Information

Respondents should NOT submit information that is proprietary, classified, sensitive, or subject to export control restrictions. All information submitted in response to this RFI may be used by the Government without restriction.

5.3 No Commitment to Procure

Issuance of this RFI does not obligate the Government to issue a solicitation or award a contract.

The USSF reserves the right to cancel this effort at any time without obligation or liability to any respondent.

5.4 Industry Engagement

The USSF may conduct one-on-one follow-up discussions with respondents to clarify submitted information. Participation in such discussions does not confer any preferential treatment in any future procurement action. All respondents will be treated equitably in accordance with FAR Part 15.201.

5.5 Freedom of Information Act

Respondents are advised that information provided in response to this RFI may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Respondents who believe their response contains information exempt from FOIA disclosure should clearly mark such portions and provide a legal basis for the exemption.

The goal is not incremental improvement.

It is a fundamental shift from compliance enforcement to execution enablement.