Market Intelligence - Dona Ana Base Camp Expansion - Aug 2026.docx

Project Information Packet (PIP)

1. Project Overview & Mission Goal

· Project Name/Number: Dona Ana Base Camp Expansion (PN # 096851)

· Location: Dona Ana Base Camp, New Mexico

· Mission Statement: The primary objective of this project is to construct a comprehensive set of facilities to support an additional 2,200 soldiers, expanding the camp's capacity to 4,000 to support a full Brigade Combat Team (BCT) during mobilization and rotational training exercises.

· Why DBtB? USACE is seeking industry innovation to maximize facility quality, durability, and performance within a fixed, non-negotiable budget.

2. Functional Requirements (The "What")

· Facility Type: Expanding camp facilities to accommodate 2,200 additional soldiers for a total of 4,000 soldiers.

· Estimated Scale: Multiple facilities

· Primary Functional Spaces:

· Space A: Transient Training Billets: Multiple barracks facilities to house approximately 2,200 soldiers, including separate billets for Enlisted personnel and Senior Officer/NCOs.

· Space B: Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs): Ready Buildings to support both Brigade (BDE) and Battalion (BN) level command and control operations.

· Space C: Range Support Buildings:

· An Austere Dining Facility (DFAC) without a full kitchen, designed to support both field and contractor feeding.

· An Indoor Physical Fitness Center (Gym).

· Space D: Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) facility

· Space E: Hygiene facilities to include latrine/shower and laundry buildings

· Space F: Vehicle maintenance to include a covered/enclosed vehicle maintenance training area, with a 35-ton bridge crane

· Space G: Supporting Facilities: The project also includes a fire pump building, redundant power generation, organizational vehicle parking, and all associated site work and utilities (electric, water, sewer, paving, storm drainage, and information systems).

· Key Performance Targets:

· Optimized 25-Year Facility Lifespan: The project will be designed to provide a 25-year service life. This approach is intended to provide strategic agility, align with supported missions, and enable rapid recapitalization for future Army requirements.

· Accelerated Project Delivery: A primary goal of this project is to leverage innovative and industrialized construction (IC) methods. The objective is to achieve significant schedule compression compared to the 15 - 36 months typical for traditional design-build projects of this magnitude.

· UFC Compliance: All facilities must meet or exceed all applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), including but not limited to standards for structural integrity, life safety, fire protection, and Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP).

3. Known Project Constraints

· Site Conditions:

· The site drains NW to SE and experiences high water flows during heavy rain events.

· The SE corner is a known ponding area that appears to drain via a culvert.

· Security/Access:

· The project is located within the Dona Ana Range Camp, an active military training area.

· The project site is not located behind a controlled military perimeter. The contractor will be able to establish and control access to the construction site as needed.

· Utilities:

· The contractor will be responsible for obtaining and coordinating all their utility requirements during the construction phase. All the utilities are privately owned.

· Natural gas is not currently available at the site. Per Fort Bliss DPW requirements, propane will not be used. All facility heating, cooling, and operational systems must be designed to be 100% electric.

· RGEC has confirmed adequate capacity to support camp expansion, but the project will require new connections from the existing network. (Note: The all-electric mandate will increase the required electrical load; verification of RGEC's capacity against the new all-electric demand will be required).

· Fort Bliss Water & Sewer systems have adequate pressure and capacity to support existing facilities, but a full demand analysis is needed to determine the impact of the expansion.

4. The Construction Cost Limitation (CCL)

· The Fixed Budget: $190,000,000

· What it Includes:

· This amount covers all design and construction activities required to deliver the complete and usable facilities outlined in the scope. This excludes Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE):

· Billet furnishing

· BDE/BN TOC furnishing

· MWR furnishing

· Dining furnishing

· Gym equipment

· Laundry equipment.

· The Progressive Design Build (additive construction) Challenge: USACE is seeking the design-build team that can provide the highest level of technical merit, quality, and mission-capability for this fixed amount.

5. Proposed Project Schedule

· Solicitation Release: March 2027

· Contract Award: August 2027

· Period of Performance: 730 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed (NTP).

· Critical Milestones:

· The primary critical milestone is achieving Agreement for Phase I within FY27.

· A specific Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) has not yet been established and may be a key component of the acquisition schedule.

6. The Procurement Process (The "Collaborative Path")

· Potential Agreement Type: The Government is considering executing this project using an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement in lieu of a traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract. We are actively seeking industry feedback to determine if an OT or a FAR-based approach is most appropriate for this specific project.

· Two-Phase Selection: Phase 1 will select the most qualified teams. Phase 2 will evaluate final technical and price proposals.

· Interactive Discussions: The Government intends to one pitch presentation (confidential, proprietary meeting) with Phase 2 offerors to review concept development and provide real-time feedback prior to final proposal submission.

· Stipends: Not applicable for this project.

Market Intelligence: First Look Questionnaire

Project Name: Dona Ana Base Camp Expansion Project Number: 096851 Date: 1 September 2026 Purpose: The answers to this section are critical. They will guide the PDT in determining whether Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) is viable, or whether the project’s complexity and risk profile require a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) approach.

Respondent Information Firm Name: _______________________________________________ Primary Point of Contact: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________________

I. General Feasibility & Model Selection (DBtB vs. PDB)

1. Agreement Preference The Government is exploring the use of an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for this construction project to potentially increase collaboration, speed, and innovation.

For this specific project, do you believe an OT agreement is the most appropriate contractual vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract?

Please explain your reasoning in detail, including any considerations related to risk allocation, flexibility, procurement efficiency, commercial terms, and project execution.

Response:

2. OT Risk & Barriers If the Government chooses to proceed with an OT framework rather than a traditional FAR Part 15 procurement, does your firm foresee any barriers, risks, or hesitations in proposing on or executing this project?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify and explain the barriers, risks, or concerns, including any potential mitigation strategies.

03. Model Viability Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet, does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price for this project after a 2–3-month collaborative design refinement period?

☐ Yes – A reliable price is likely achievable.

☐ No – There is too much risk or uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

Additional Comments:

4. Risk Justification Please explain your reasoning for the answer provided below.

What are the top 1–3 factors that influenced your assessment? Examples may include:

· Project complexity

· Site conditions

· Clarity of functional requirements

· Design maturity

· Unknown existing conditions

· Specialty systems or equipment

· Schedule constraints

· Market volatility

· Supply-chain risks

· Regulatory or permitting requirements

· Other factors Response:

Factor 1: ________________________________________________________________

Factor 2: ________________________________________________________________

Factor 3: ________________________________________________________________ Reasoning

5. PDB Threshold If you answered “No” to Question 3, at what level of design maturity would your firm feel confident in providing a reliable, fixed price or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) through a Progressive Design-Build process?

☐ 15% Design ☐ 35% Design ☐ 60% Design ☐ 90% Design ☐ Other: ______________________________ Please explain the rationale for your selection.

II. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $190,000,000 for approximately 245,000 square feet appear realistic in the current local market?

☐ Yes – The CCL appears realistic.

☐ Generally – The CCL is achievable with certain qualifications or adjustments.

☐ No – The CCL appears insufficient for the stated requirements.

Please explain.

2. Major Cost Drivers From a high-level review of the functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

Examples may include:

· Specialized security requirements

· Unique structural loads

· Specialized MEP systems

· High-performance building envelope

· Mission-specific technology

· Specialty equipment

· Resiliency requirements

· Site or utility requirements

· Other project-specific requirements

3. Market Precedents Are there specific benchmarks, comparable projects, or recent industry projects the Government should consider ensuring expectations for quality, performance, functionality, and cost are aligned with the proposed budget?

Relevant Project/Benchmark (if applicable):

Project Name: ______________________________________________________________ Location: _________________________________________________________________ Approximate Size: __________________________________________________________ Approximate Cost: __________________________________________________________ Completion Year: ___________________________________________________________

III. Flexibility & Innovation (The "How")

1. Prescriptive “Showstoppers” Are there any requirements in the functional description that appear overly prescriptive or “locked-in” and might prevent your firm from offering a more innovative or cost-effective solution that meets the mission requirements?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify the requirements and explain how they could be modified to enable greater innovation or value.

2. Innovation Opportunities For this building type, where do you typically see the greatest opportunities for an integrated design-build team to provide “more for the money”?

Examples may include:

· Modular systems

· Standardization

· Envelope efficiency

· MEP coordination

· Structural optimization

· Prefabrication

· Building systems integration

· Space planning

· Construction sequencing

· Energy efficiency

· Materials selection

· Technology integration

· Other opportunities

Top Innovation Opportunity: ______________________________________________ Potential Benefit: ______________________________________________________

IV. Market & Supply Chain – External Risks

1. Long-Lead Warning Even without a full design, are there specific systems, equipment, or materials common to this facility type that are currently experiencing extended lead times that could threaten the proposed project schedule?

Examples may include:

· Generators

· Custom AHUs

· Electrical switchgear

· Transformers

· Specialty laboratory equipment

· Security systems

· Specialty glazing

· Controls systems

· Other mission-critical equipment

Recommended Mitigation Strategies:

2. Local Labor Constraints Are there specific trades in the project area that are currently over-extended or in short supply and could impact the project's risk profile, cost, or schedule?

☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify the affected trades and describe the anticipated impact.

Potential Mitigation:

V. Defining Value – The “Betterment” Search

1. The Value Gap If your team discovers design efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which betterments or enhancements should the Government prioritize as most valuable for this facility type?

Please rank the following from 1–5, with 1 being the highest priority.

Please explain your ranking:

2. Sustainability Targets Is the proposed level of sustainability (e.g., specific energy goals, energy-use intensity targets, certifications, carbon-reduction goals, etc.) a standard “reach” for industry, or will achieving the target require significant premium pricing in this market?

☐ Standard / Routinely Achievable ☐ Achievable with Moderate Additional Cost ☐ Significant Premium Pricing Likely ☐ Target Requires Further Definition Comments:

Recommended Sustainability Target(s), if applicable: