EIE490 Market Intelligence Questionnaire.pdf

Comprehensive Market Research QuesƟonnaire

Project Delivery & AcquisiƟon Strategy

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

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

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

ClassificaƟon Unclassified / Pre-SolicitaƟon

Market Research QuesƟonnaire | Project Delivery & AcquisiƟon Strategy

Table of Contents

1. Project InformaƟon Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints

2. Industry QuesƟonnaire

Part I: Company InformaƟon & Bidding Intent

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Site and Environmental Constraints………………

2. Inter-Project CoordinaƟon & Site Handover

3. CMAR Partner IntegraƟon .…………

4. ConstrucƟon Manager at Risk with Early Contractor Involvement…

5. Temporary Space Requirements

6. ConstrucƟon DuraƟon & Schedule Realism

7. MobilizaƟon & Start-Work Readiness …

8. UnidenƟfied Project Risks ………

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

1. Budget Realism

2. Primary Cost Drivers

3. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, CollaboraƟon & Financial Drivers

1. CollaboraƟon PrioriƟes

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary MeeƟngs

3. SƟpends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

4. Contract IncenƟves

5. Program Capability/Interest

Part V: Overall Delivery RecommendaƟon

1. Recommended Project Delivery Path

2. Basis of RecommendaƟon & ContracƟng Vehicle

3. EvaluaƟon Strategy

4. Commercial Best PracƟces & Concerns

1. Project InformaƟon Packet (PIP)

Project Overviews & Constraints

Project Name & LocaƟon EIE490 Microreactor SynchronizaƟon, Eielson AFB, AK

Mission Statement InstallaƟon of a 45MWth/5 Mwe nuclear microreactor iniƟaƟve at Eielson AFB by extending the heaƟng, power, communicaƟons and water systems to support plant operaƟon and distribuƟon of general electrical and steam uƟliƟes to the installaƟon.

Facility Type & Scale UƟlidor and primary distribuƟon lines underground & overhead to enable synchronizaƟon of the CHPP and nuclear microreactor with the base electrical and steam heaƟng distribuƟon grids

Primary FuncƟonal Spaces UƟlidor (4,400 LF), Primary DistribuƟon Line Underground (3,500 LF) Primary DistribuƟon Line Overhead (6,200 LF), UƟlity building, and Microgrid Control System/SCADA

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $135M

Period of Performance FY27-FY31

CriƟcal Milestones Planning & Development started December 2025, ConstrucƟon Award in FY28, ConstrucƟon substanƟal compleƟon NLT October 2030, Fiscal Closeout FY31

2. Industry QuesƟonnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the opƟmal project delivery method and contracƟng vehicle (FAR-based or OTA) for the above faciliƟes. Please email your response to Pamela Iverson (Pamela.Iverson@usace.army.mil) and Mark Corn (Mark.R.Corn@usace.army.mil) by 16 October 2026 at 14:00 Alaska Time.

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

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

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

Part I: Company InformaƟon & 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: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________ Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount Here]_______________

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided

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

Part II: Project-Specific Challenges

1. Site and Environmental Constraints

Site locaƟon contains a high-water table (3’ below ground level in several areas) and likely soil contaminaƟon to include PFAS. What risks do you anƟcipate associated with the high groundwater condiƟons and contaminated soils during construcƟon? What methods would you use to help miƟgate these risks? What informaƟon or project requirements would you recommend be established during preconstrucƟon to reduce these risks?

2. Inter-Project CoordinaƟon & Site Handover

The Microreactor SynchronizaƟon project will require inter-project coordinaƟon between the facility and a separate design and construcƟon contract for the nuclear reactor. CoordinaƟon between both design and construcƟon contracts will need to take place for the overall success of the project, as well as phased commissioning. What project risks/conflicts do you foresee between the CM At Risk partner, power plant operaƟons, and the reactor contractor? What project controls or coordinaƟon mechanisms would you recommend for managing the three parƟes to miƟgate the potenƟally conflicƟng schedules and operaƟonal requirements. What preconstrucƟon coordinaƟon acƟviƟes would you recommend as the CM At Risk lead with the Government, powerplant operaƟons staff, and reactor contractor to idenƟfy and miƟgate operaƟonal and interface risks before construcƟon begins?

3. CM At Risk Partner IntegraƟon

The project is currently at a 35% level of design under an acƟve contract and is currently planned to go forward to the 65% design submission. What risks do you anƟcipate associated with joining the project at approximately 65% design rather than 35% design? What cost, schedule, constructability or risk reducƟon may be lost by bringing the CM At Risk partner onboard at the 65% design stage?

What informaƟon would you require upon joining the project to effecƟvely perform your preconstrucƟon services? What addiƟonal preconstrucƟon acƟviƟes or requirements do you recommend to compensate for late CM At Risk integraƟon (i.e hold off on performing a value engineering study unƟl a CM At Risk contractor can be integrated to the project)?

4. ConstrucƟon Manager at Risk with Early Contractor Involvement

Delivery method in which a construcƟon manager (CM) is engaged early in the project to provide preconstrucƟon services, including cost esƟmaƟng, scheduling, and constructability reviews. What collaboraƟve mechanisms encourage close cooperaƟon between the owner, CM At Risk, and design team, which can minimize costly redesign and delays. Describe your experience execuƟng CM At Risk or other highly collaboraƟve delivery methods. How do you approach "open-book" pricing and transparency during Phase 1 (Pre-ConstrucƟon) to build trust and ensure the Government is receiving fair market value?

5. 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 miƟgate the risks of a delay or project cost increase?

6. Temporary Space Requirements For the project idenƟfied, what is the esƟmated space requirement for temporary faciliƟes including, but not limited to: material laydown, worksite offices, workforce parking, etc.? Furthermore, do you foresee any need for new or upgraded supporƟng infrastructure, such as access roads or port faciliƟes, to support construcƟon logisƟcs for each of the idenƟfied projects?

7. ConstrucƟon DuraƟon & Schedule Realism What do you believe is a reasonable Ɵmeframe (in calendar days or years) to complete the project’s design and construcƟon phase, assume the awarded agreement is in the fourth quarter of the idenƟfied fiscal year?

8. MobilizaƟon & Start-Work Readiness Assuming an award is made, for the project, what is your firm's esƟmated lead Ɵme to mobilize Phase 1 (PreconstrucƟon Services) and Phase 2 (ConstrucƟon Services)? What is the opƟmal Ɵme of year for a contract award to align with your mobilizaƟon and maximize the acƟve construcƟon season?

9. UnidenƟfied Project Risks Outside of the challenges already idenƟfied, what other significant risks do you foresee for projects of this scale, type and complexity at Eielson AFB? Which project delivery method best supports potenƟal offeror’s ability to address unidenƟfied project risks with minimal cost and/or delay of project delivery?

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

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

2. Primary Cost Drivers What specific project needs or funcƟonal requirements do you anƟcipate 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, CollaboraƟon & Financial Drivers

1. CollaboraƟon PrioriƟes 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 CollaboraƟon Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time EsƟmaƟng _______________

Schedule Certainty & Phasing _______________

Constructability & Quality Control _______________

InnovaƟon & Scope BeƩerments (Geƫng more for the money) _______________

Overall Risk ReducƟon / Site MiƟgaƟons _______________

2. Industry Engagement & Proprietary MeeƟngs If the Government uƟlizes a delivery method that allows for confidenƟal, one-on-one proprietary meeƟngs during the solicitaƟon phase to collaboraƟvely discuss innovaƟve soluƟons, would your firm parƟcipate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

3. SƟpends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs In procurement methods with significant proposal phase efforts, would the Government's offer of a sƟpend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐Yes ☐ No

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

4. Contract IncenƟves What specific contract incenƟves would best drive innovaƟon and maximize your firm's interest in these projects?

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

☐ Award Fee for Quality / InnovaƟon

☐ Other [Insert RecommendaƟons Here] ______________________________

5. Program Capability/Interest Considering the project listed in SecƟon 1 for Eielson AFB with a combined esƟmated value of approximately $135M:

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 esƟmated project value?

☐Yes ☐ No

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

Part V: Overall Delivery RecommendaƟon

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

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

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

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a compeƟƟve (10-15%), fixed-price soluƟon, use of proprietary meeƟngs to advance design soluƟons (highly collaboraƟve).

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

2. Basis of RecommendaƟon & ContracƟng Vehicle Please explain your selecƟons above for each project. AddiƟonally, please indicate if you recommend execuƟng this via a standard FAR-based contract vs the provided OTA type opƟons:

3. EvaluaƟon Strategy For the project, rank what evaluaƟon criteria you believe the Government should weight most heavily to ensure the highest value project?

EvaluaƟon Factors Rank (1–4)

Past Performance _______________

Technical Approach/Design _______________

Price/GMP _______________

Key Personnel & Team IntegraƟon _______________

Other [Insert RecommendaƟons] ___________________________________ _______________

4. Commercial Best PracƟces & Concerns Please provide any addiƟonal comments, overly prescripƟve constraints to avoid, and/or commercial best pracƟces the Government should consider.