Comprehensive Market Intelligence Questionnaire Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Originating Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Alaska District

Document Type Sources Sought / Request for Information (RFI) Template

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

Classification Unclassified / Pre-Solicitation

Market Intelligence Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Arctic Adaptation of Army Standard Design ………………

2. Inter-Project Coordination & Site Handover

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction .…………

4. Structuring the OTA for Success …………………

5. Temporary Space Requirements

6. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness …

8. Unidentified Project Risks ………

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

2. Primary Cost Drivers

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

1. Collaboration Priorities

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

3. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

4. Contract Incentives

5. Program Capability/Interest

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path

2. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

3. Evaluation Strategy

4. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints

Project Name Location Site Characterization

(FTW516) Ft Wainwright Dining Facility Ft Wainwright, AK.

Project is located within the secure facility perimeter, on a previously developed site, and in Climate Zone 8.

Mission Statement Design and Construct a Dining Facility at Fort Wainwright Alaska, adapted to Arctic Conditions and the Ft Wainwright Installation Design Standards.

Facility Type & Scale Kitchen and dining facility, approximately 33000 square feet.

Primary Functional Spaces Construct a modified standard design permanent party dining facility consistent with the Campus Style Dining Venue. Project includes food preparation and cooking areas, entrance/control area, serving, dining, dishwashing, pot wash, administration, locker area, waste disposal, receiving and loading dock, cold and dry storage, information systems, fire protection and alarm systems, Intrusion Detection System (IDS) installation, and Energy Monitoring Control Systems (EMCS) connection. Sustainability and energy enhancement measures are included. Supporting facilities include site development, utilities and connections, lighting, paving, parking, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, information systems, landscaping and signage.

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $125M

Period of Performance FY27 – FY30

Critical Milestones Design Starts FY27, Construction Starts FY28, and Construction complete not later than FY30.

2. Industry Questionnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR-based) or Other Transactional Agreements (OTA) for the above facilities. Please email your response to Michelle Nelsen Michelle.Nelsen@usace.army.mil and Brittney Morrison at Brittney.morrison@usace.army.mil by 27 August 2026 at 14:00 Alaska Time.

Accelerated Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) FAR-based delivery approach where the Government develops sufficient project definition to competitively establish a Firm-Fixed-Price before collaborative design development.

Construction Manager at Risk (CM At Risk) - OTA Project delivery method where a construction manager acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and transitions to a general contractor role during construction.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – OTA Single design-build agreement. Phase 1 collaboratively matures the design and negotiates a Guaranteed Maximum Price cost before the Government decides whether to proceed with construction.

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Company Name & CAGE Code

Point of Contact

Socioeconomic Status (Check all that apply)

☐ Large Business ☐ Small Business (SB) ☐ 8(a) Business Development Program ☐ HUBZone Small Business ☐ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB) ☐ Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

Bonding Capacity Single Project Limit: $_______________ Aggregate Limit: $______________

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided mailto:Michelle.Nelsen@usace.army.mil mailto:Brittney.morrison@usace.army.mil

Anticipated Teaming ☐ Standalone Prime ☐ Joint Venture (JV) ☐ Mentor-Protégé ☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Arctic Adaptation of Army Standard Design The Dining Facility is based upon Army Standard Designs. The Standard design has required program areas and adjacencies to be incorporated into the final design. Approval of the Final designs require concurrence with Army Centers of Standardization for Permanent Party Dining Facilities. Awarded offerors must coordinate with this Centers of Standardization in addition to normal local Ft Wainwright Directorate of Public Works, End User Groups, and USACE Alaska District project Stakeholders. What project delivery method, of those identified previously in this questionnaire, offers the most opportunity for engagement and coordination with project stakeholders without incurring risk of project cost increases or delays?

2. Inter-Project Coordination & Site Handover The Government intends to provide mainline utilities to the point of demarcation for each project site. Design and construction coordination with the Government representatives for the final utility installation will be a significant responsibility of an awarded offeror. How would you mitigate risks associated with this, and what specific validation criteria would you require upon site turnover?

3. Schedule Risk & Winter Construction Given the aggressive timelines required to complete design in one year and the realities of the short Alaskan construction season, how would you mitigate weather delays? Please describe off-site prefabrication strategies, modular construction, winter-enclosure techniques, and/or other strategies that you would propose to maintain construction momentum year-round. How could the Government best structure the Phase 1 collaborative period to evaluate the cost-versus-time tradeoffs of these methods before finalizing a Guaranteed Maximum Price?

4. Structuring the OTA for Success Describe which OTA vehicle your firm feels will yield the highest probability of a completed facility at or below the budget target without compromise to project quality. What performance metrics or strategies do you recommend the Government build into an OTA to mitigate the risks of a delay or project cost increase?

5. Temporary Space Requirements For projects of these magnitudes, what is your estimated space requirement for temporary facilities such as staging, material laydown, offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporting infrastructure, such as access roads or port facilities, to support construction logistics?

6. Construction Duration & Schedule Realism What do you believe is a realistic and reasonable timeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete each projects design and construction?

7. Mobilization & Start-Work Readiness Assuming a contract award is made, for each separate project, what is your firm's estimated lead time to mobilize Phase 1 (Design and Preconstruction Services) and Phase 2 (Final Design & Construction Services)? What is the optimal time of year for a contract award to align with your mobilization and maximize the active construction season?

8. Unidentified Project Risks Outside of the challenges already identified, what other significant risks do you foresee for a project of this scale at Ft Wainwright? What are factors that the Government should address to reduce costs or increase competition?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism Based on current market data, do the target budgets appear realistic for these facility types and scale?

2. Primary Cost Drivers What specific mission needs or functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead MEP, local labor)?

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

1. Collaboration Priorities Please rank the areas that would benefit most from early builder involvement during the design phase of the above projects (1 = Greatest Benefit, 5 = Least Benefit).

Area of Collaboration Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time Estimating _______________

Schedule Certainty & Phasing _______________

Constructability & Quality Control _______________

Innovation & Scope Betterments (Getting more for the money) _______________

Overall Risk Reduction / Site Mitigations _______________

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings If the Government utilizes a delivery method that allows for confidential, one-on-one proprietary meetings during the solicitation phase to collaboratively discuss innovative solutions, would your firm participate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

3. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs In highly collaborative procurement methods (like DBtB), offerors will incur design and proposal development costs. Would the Government's offer of a stipend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable stipend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert Amount/Percentage Here] ______________________________

4. Contract Incentives What specific contract incentives would best drive innovation and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

☐ Shared Cost Savings (e.g., within a GMP Structure)

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

5. Program Capability/Interest Considering the project listed in Section 1 for Ft Wainwright with a combined estimated value of approximately $125M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor?

☐Yes ☐ No

b) If yes, does your firm have the necessary bonding capacity to cover the total estimated project value?

☐Yes ☐ No

c) If yes, please state your firm’s current aggregate bonding capacity. [Insert Amount Here]

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path Considering all factors, which project delivery path is optimal for these specific projects?

(Provide a response for each project listed in Section 1 above)

☐ CM@Risk: Government needs to control the design but needs early builder collaboration.

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a competitive (10-15%), fixed-price solution, use of proprietary meetings to advance design solutions (highly collaborative).

☐ Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Scope is highly complex/undefined. Requires a single contract to collaboratively mature the design before locking in a GMP.

2. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle Please explain your selections above for each project. Indicate if you recommend executing this via a standard FAR-based contract or an Other Transaction Authority (OTA):

3. Evaluation Strategy For these specific projects, what evaluation criteria do you believe the Government should weigh most heavily to ensure success? (Rank top 3: 1 being most important)

☐ Past Performance

☐ Technical Approach/Design

☐ Price/GMP

☐ Key Personnel & Team Integration

☐ Other [Insert Recommendations Here] ______________________________

4. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, or commercial best practices the Government should consider.