ID USACE Response Do you have any questions for the USACE team that you wouldn't mind us sharing with the group?

1 Whole Building Commissioning will be included in the scope of the PDB agreement.

Does USACE intend to include Whole Building Commissioning in the scope of the PDB contract, or will commissioning be sourced separately? If separate, are there any details on how and when it will be sourced and what the scope will be (envelope Cx, MEP Cx, etc.)?

2 Yes, an Owner Advisor contract is expected to be awarded July 2026. The Owner Advisor will not be a voting member.

Are you planning to bring on an Owner Advisor to support the govt team on this PDB?

Follow-Up Question: Will that separate Owner-Advisor be a voting member?

NEPA requirements to be provided to the progressive design builder.

Answer to follow-up: This will be confirmed at a later date.

Are there any NEPA requirements ahead of the construction? Also, Will there be any Environmental planning and permitting or site investigation requirements to support construction Follow-Up Question: Will it be a 'clean' site?

The Government will evaluate the relevant experience, qualifications, and capabilities of the proposed prime contractor, design partner, key specialty firms, and key personnel. Prior experience working together as an integrated design-build team may be viewed favorably as it can demonstrate established coordination, communication, and collaborative delivery processes; however, it is not anticipated to be a prerequisite. Comparable experience may be demonstrated individually by the proposed team members on cyber, secure, mission-critical, data center, or similarly complex facilities, even when that experience was gained on separate project teams. The Government’s objective is to negotiate an agreement with the best-qualified team, considering relevant experience, technical capability, team integration, and demonstrated success delivering complex projects collaboratively.

As you evaluate past performance, are you primarily looking for comparable experience across the proposed team members individually, or is it important that the prime contractor and design partner have delivered these types of projects together as an integrated design-build team?

Britni Vaughn, Turner Construction

Verbal reply from 16th Air Force Representative: DOD does not need to comply with the UI tiers; UFC 4-141-03 specifies the military-specific standards for and C5ISR facilities (hyper-scale mission-critical data centers), though the project will be comparable to a Level 3 facility under UI standards.

Has an Uptime Institute Tier level been assigned for the data center design? If so, what is the current tier level that is required?

6 We anticipate needing a Level 2 self-certification. That will need to apply to everyone on the team.

What is the anticipated CMMC level for this project? We are concerned about having a trade partner market that can support a level 2 self certified.

A required completion date has not yet been established, and speed to completion is not a stand-alone evaluation factor. However, schedule performance, schedule risk, and the team’s approach to developing and managing the project schedule will be considered.

Are there specific schedule.pressures that apply to this project? We often see speed to capability efficiencies as part of the innovation & delivery criteria. Confirming if this may be the case for this project.

Follow-up Question: When will the construction completion date be?

A portion of Phase I (Schematic Design) requires approval before entering the design development phase. Based on the decision of the PDT for the development of cost, it will be determined for the GMP to account for escalation which could include the time waiting for funds receipt.

PCRs Follow-Up Answer: Yes Funding Follow-Up Answer: incrementally

Ph 2 is subject to congressional approval, what is the anticipated duration for funding receipt? Will the GMP account for a midpoint of construction escalation factor that includes the time waiting for funding receipt?

Follow-Up Question: With an open-book, will the government allow PCRs from this project as a reference point?

Follow-Up Question: Will the project be incrementally or fully funded?

Answer: Yes for using MCACEs.

SWD AIEM Answer: No, what we negotiate will be the definition of what we are expecting.

What will be the format of the open book estimate, MCACEs?

Will the SWD AEIM be the definition of what the USACE and Air Force are expecting in deliverable for the design phase?

The Government has provided the current programmed amount for the project to ensure everyone has the same data to prepare the white papers and pitches (if invited). A ROM is not required during the white paper or pitch phase.

Offerors may provide one at their discretion. Formal cost development will occur after down-selection during the progressive design process.

Appreciate the clarity that iterating to a project cost (eg GMP) will come later in the process after down select. Do you expect to request a ROM or some.other form of rough project delivery estimate during white paper or pitch phases of this opportunity?

11 USACE is considering other commercial pricing models however our approved price model is Firm Fixed Price.

Beyond Firm Fixed Price and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), is USACE considering other commercial pricing models for future OTA Progressive Design Build procurements, such as Cost Plus with a negotiated fee or Construction Manager at Risk style pricing where the contractor is compensated on a fee percentage basis?

For now, we will always post on SAM.gov; we expect other possibilities in the next few years but unsure on when exactly.

How does USACE envision future OTA opportunities being announced? Will they generally be publicly advertised through SAM.gov, or should industry expect some opportunities to be released through consortiums, commercial solutions openings, or other invitation based processes?

Currently, USACE is using OTs for a wide range of projects. OTs are best suited for complex projects which rely on innovative technical solutions. They are also suited for projects which require significant involvement between the contractor and the end-user. This will not be limited to certain types of projects.

What types of projects does USACE anticipate being the best candidates for OTA procurement? Will this be limited to highly innovative projects like cyber, AI, and Industrialized Construction, or do you foresee broader application to military construction?

PDB w/OTA is authorized under 10 USC 2808a. That authority does not provide for a statuatory preference for non-traditional defense contractors. The preference you are referring to is for prototype or R&D OTAs. Traditional and non-traditional contractors can serve as Prime.

There has been discussion within industry that traditional federal contractors may be at a disadvantage under OTAs because of the statutory preference for nontraditional defense contractors. How does USACE anticipate applying those requirements to future Progressive Design Build OTAs? Would a traditional federal contractor still be eligible to serve as the Prime if the team includes significant participation from a qualified nontraditional contractor, or do you envision a different approach?

If you are able to demonstrate to the board that your innovative solutions will work, and get the project built, then yes.

Follow-Up Answer: No there is not

Can I use innovative construction methods, like 3-D printing or industrialized construction methods, if they save time or reduce cost while meeting requirements like ICD 705? For instance, must the building be reinforced concrete or can it be another exterior shell that meets requirements?

Follow-Up Question: Is there any high-tech electromagnetic bomb-proofing (HEMP) on top of the TEMPEST sheilding system?

16 Yes, the government has those certification layers

Need to ensure you have the right authority personnel to certify the secure areas during the design process. This is critical. Does the govt have all of those layers of certification authorities aligned with POCs for the collaborative team and can ensure active participation?

RFQs: 26 August - 25 September, OT agreement to award in FY27 (MILCON Design funds) with Ph2 construction award in FY29 (MILCON Construction Funds). Construction completion not yet established

Can you recap the RFQ/P issuance date, award date, and if there is an anticipated completion date established

The OA has been selected. Their role is simply to assist the Government through PDB IAW DBIA best practices. The OA will not perform any design work, nor will they be party to selection of any contractor.

Can you explain the Owner Agent that was mentioned and their role? Has the Owner Agent been selected?

We anticipate one pitch meeting, but may need two if we need more information Downselecting will occur three weeks after proposals are due Pitches will be due three weeks after downselection There is no stipend for PDB teams

Risk Follow-Up Answer: We have not yet done a risk register, but will seek to include something for that in the packages

Please confirm if one or two pitch presentations will be afforded the PDB Teams? Also confirm the approximate time duration allowed the team once a shortlist has been made before the pitch presentation. Finally, advise the stipend paid to the PDB Teams?

Follow-Up Question: Can you share your assessment of risk on the project?

The entire agreement is negotiable, so this can be discussed.

Some of them however, have the power of law, and will therefore always apply

Design Follow-Up Answer: Zero design is required for the pitch, but if you bring some, that helps.

Dallas Follow-Up Answer: One is not weighed over the other. Be the best proposal for this project.

Age of Experience Follow-Up Answer: We do not plan to put a stipulation on that in this project.

Given the scope, complexity, and intent to innovate design and incorporate commercial contractor experience, will USACE consider waiving UFC/UFGS, as recommended by the PDB Contractor team to maximize innovation opportunities?

Follow-Up Question: What level of design or solution will be expected in the pitch?

Follow-Up Q2: Is it considered favorable to have Dallas USACE Project Experience over other DOD Projects?

Follow-Up Q3: Will the RFQ ask for a specific age of experience with simmilar projects / cyber, etc?

21 The project goals will be identified when we request the white papers / RFQs.

Could you discuss the goals and concerns for the project more? The OTA and PDB discussion was great, but hoping to learn more about the project itself.

22 Yes, Level 2 (Self Certification) Will project include CMMC Level 2 requirements?

23 Yes, Level 2 (Self Certification) What CMMC Level will be required?

24 There is no stipends offered for this project. Please discuss the use of stipends?

The entire PDT will be involved throughout the duration of the project, and USACE is deliberate in our approach that the project team members be involved throughout the entire process.

Matthew mentioned stakeholders involved with pitch presentations evaluation, but will these parties also be the actual project team members? If not, don’t we run into the same silo issues of source selection you want to get away from?

There is no preference given for Fort Worth District experience. Again, our primary goal is selection of the best contractor for this project

Is experience with USACE Fort Worth District planned to be scored more favorably than experience that tags other DoW project collaborators?

The USACE PDT coordinated with the end-user to develop the evaluation criteria based on what makes the most sense for this project. How did you determine your criteria for evaluating the qualifications in Step 1?

28 Yes Is USACE Fort Worth the ultimate AHJ? Or is this shared across AFCEC and other DoW collaborators?

29 Having the end-user involved during the progression of design should mitigate growth during construction.

How are you approaching planned mission growth knowing construction completion will be years away?

And how do we approach as a team the mission transference to the new facility? Any issues to be considered?

30 This will be up to the DB teams to determine what they want to submit for their Qualifications. Are you requiring subconsultants to submit a letter of commitment to their Prime?

31 No.

Is there a bigger plan for a client campus with other future requirements that this project will need to consider for efficiencies in our design?

32 Yes. Training for the Air Force will occur the week of 27 July. Training for USACE MSCs has already occured.

Will the govt be training BOTH USACE and stakeholder project team members on PDB prior to ph1 start? DBIA best practice.

33 Yes Current environment is encouraging joint ventures in regards to Data center builds, due to resources Will this project consider a JV venture ?

34 Draft DD1391 has been created and a Campus Development Plan has been completed. What planning and programming work has been done already?

FCL Does not apply to this project. There is a requirement for US Citizens with certain work that can be performed with US persons. We are actively working on limiting this restriction as much as possible.

What FCL will be required for submission or award?

And will there be any requirement for US-only personnel? If so, we hope you will limit this restriction to the smallest extent possible.

36 Yes we have been reviewing lessons learned from other cyber projects.

Are you looking at lessons learned from other recent MDOC projects?

If so, what have you learned?

37 This will be determined before the request for white papers are sent out.

At any point in design or construction will a specific/minimum security clearance be required for any key team members?

A majority of the facility is currently anticipated to require ICD 705 compliance. The specific areas and applicable clearance requirements for Designer of Record personnel will be refined during Phase 1 in coordination with the security stakeholders.

What portion of the facility is expected to be ICD-705? What clearance requirements will apply to DOR personnel?

USACE, 16th Air Force, 802nd Civil Engineer Squadron, and AFCEC are actively engaged as members of the PDT.

During Phase 1, the team will collaboratively define requirements, evaluate cost and schedule tradeoffs, and establish the scope that can be delivered within the approved budget. After budget lock, the PDT will be authorized to make routine design and execution decisions within the approved scope, budget, and project objectives. Requirements that exceed those parameters will require elevation and separate approval.

One of the best practices for PDB is to insure key decision makers are AT the project team level. Since this is often contrary to traditional project execution approval levels, what are the structured changes USACE is implementing to ensure govt team members and especially stakeholders are fully engaged and authorized to make timely scope and cost trade-off decisions?

Phase 1 design and preconstruction services are planned for award in the third quarter of FY27 using MILCON design funds. The design will then progress through FY27 and FY28 to support budget lock and development of the Phase 2 construction GMP. Phase 2 construction award is planned for FY29, subject to receipt of construction funds.

There was lots of discussion about a fiscal year 2029 award. This was confusing as to what exactly was being awarded when:

A) Can you clarify that this is in reference to a full construction GMP award?

B) is the intent to award the project in FY 2027, and progress the design throughout FY2027 and FY 2028?

Correct. Site surveys, permitting, utility coordination, and other preconstruction activities may occur before FY29;

however, no construction activities may begin until construction funds are received and the construction phase is awarded.

With the mention of FY2029 award, is it the governments intent that NO construction work will take place prior to this FY2029 award?

In other words, there will be no use of early packages and early GMPs to begin make-ready work prior to FY 2029?

Sheet1