Attachment 1 - Request for White Paper.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

White Paper Submission Requirements

Project Title: Multi-Domain Cyber and Intelligence Operations Center Solicitation Number: W9126G279A001 Issuing Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District Response Deadline: 25 September 2026 at 1400 Central Time

1.0 SYNOPSIS AND OBJECTIVES

The USACE Fort Worth District, on behalf of the Department of the Air Force (DAF), is seeking White Papers from interested parties for the design and construction of a new Multi-Domain Cyber and Intelligence Operations Center (MDCIOC) at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2808a, this project will be solicited under an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to promote rapid acquisition and leverage innovative, commercial solutions. The Government is seeking a collaborative partnership with a firm capable of delivering a state-of-the-art facility that meets the complex operational, technical, and security needs of the 16th Air Force (AF).

This acquisition emphasizes:

• Qualification-Based Selection: The Design-Builder will be selected based on the factors identified below, not on price.

• Collaborative Project Development: The selected Design-Builder will work directly with USACE and 16th AF partners to develop the project design and price.

• Speed and Flexibility: The project will be executed under an OT which is not subject to RFO based procurement procedures.

Key objectives for this project include leveraging the OT Framework to emphasize speed, innovation in material and delivery methods, and optimal mission outcomes:

• Speed to Market: Employing innovative design and construction techniques to accelerate the project schedule significantly while maintaining security and quality fundamentals.

• Innovation: Incorporating commercial best practices, open modular design, and cutting-edge engineering solutions, specifically tailored for data center and secure facility construction including a purpose-built HPC/AI/ML data center.

• Collaboration: Facilitate and establish a close and collaborative environment between contractors, stakeholders and Government, throughout the project lifecycle.

• Mission Consolidation: Consolidating over 3,000 members of the 16th Air Force from outdated facilities into a single, multi-purpose-built location to improve operational efficiency.

2.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Interested parties are invited to submit a White Paper that addresses the following criteria. Design-Builders shall follow the structure below. Submissions that do not adhere to these instructions may be deemed non-conforming. The Government anticipates selecting a target of the three most highly qualified Design-Build (DB) firms to participate in pitch meetings (invitation only).

General Format Requirements:

• Font – Minimum 10 pt (Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri)

• Spacing – Single-Spaced

• Page Size – 8.5” x 11” (if charts or graphs are submitted, they may be on 11” x

17”)

• Margins – Minimum 1 inch

• Page Limit – 20 pages maximum, excluding cover letter (limited to 1 page), resumes and surety letter.

• File Format - PDF

The evaluation criteria below, except for bonding capacity, are in equal order of importance. Do not exceed page limits. Do not change formatting. Do not omit sections.

Factor 1 - Team Composition and Organization The respondent shall describe the proposed design-builder team, including:

• Prime design-builder.

• Lead design firm.

• Major design disciplines.

• Key subcontractors or specialty consultants.

• Proposed project management structure.

• Key personnel and roles.

• Prior working relationships among team members.

• Ability to support secure, mission-critical, and technically complex facilities of similar scale.

The response should clearly explain how the team will be organized to support rapid decision-making, collaboration, design integration, cost validation, quality control and assurance, and construction execution.

Factor 2 - Relevant Project Experience The respondent shall provide examples of relevant projects that demonstrate experience with:

• Mission-critical federal facilities.

• Cyber, intelligence, communications, operations, or secure facilities.

• Facilities meeting ICD 705 standards and TEMPEST countermeasures (including

RF shielding) with successful accreditation.

• Progressive Design-Build, Design-Build, or other collaborative delivery methods.

• Fast-track or phased construction.

• Projects requiring stakeholder coordination and secure operational requirements.

• Incorporation of ‘future workplace’, environmental quality, and human performance initiatives within secure environments.

• Projects with complex building systems, communications infrastructure, or controlled access requirements.

• Projects requiring cost control within a constrained funding environment.

• High-Quality Performance History: The Design-Builder must demonstrate a history of successful performance on the submitted project examples. The Government will evaluate performance based on:

o Official Performance Assessments in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) o Third-Party Recognition: Letters of recommendation, customer satisfaction credentials, news articles, and local/national awards (i.e. Chamber of Commerce or industry-specific awards) o Execution Quality: Demonstrated ability to control cost, maintain schedules, adhere to safety standards, and cooperatively resolve disputes

Project examples should identify the client, location, delivery method, project value, scope, schedule, the respondent’s role, and contact information for references who can verify the team's past performance. The Government reserves the right to use both developer-provided references and independent sources (such as CPARS) to evaluate this factor.

Factor 3 – PDB with OTA Execution Approach The respondent shall describe its approach to executing Phase 1 design and preconstruction services, including:

• Collaborative design development.

• Open-book estimating.

• Cost model development.

• Risk identification and mitigation.

• Coordination with the government’s site security manager (SSM) for security concept buy-in.

• Constructability reviews.

• Schedule integration.

• Long-lead procurement planning.

• Stakeholder engagement.

• Decision support for Phase 2 authorization.

• Pre-construction coordination strategy for high-density power and cooling infrastructure, including physical and structural integration and early coordination with privatized utility providers during Phase 1.

The response should demonstrate an understanding that Phase 1 is intended to mature scope, cost, schedule, and risk before the Government commits to construction.

Factor 4 - Project Understanding and Risk Management The respondent shall describe its understanding of the MDCIOC project and identify major risks that may affect successful execution.

At a minimum, the response should address:

• Mission-critical facility requirements.

• Security and access considerations.

• Cyber, intelligence, communications, and information technology integration risks.

• Site, utility, permitting, and installation coordination risks.

• Cost and escalation risks.

• Schedule and long-lead procurement risks.

• Stakeholder coordination risks.

• Meeting schedule demands with key subcontractors

• Coordination with SSM and Accrediting Official for security approvals and accreditation.

• Strategies to reduce risk during Phase 1.

Factor 5 - Key Personnel The respondent shall determine which positions are key to successful project delivery and shall identify those positions based on its proposed approach to project management, secure facility design integration, construction execution, and phasing.

The respondent shall also explain why each proposed key person is critical to successful project delivery.

Factor 6 - Bonding Capacity: Note: This is a strict Go/No-Go financial requirement.

Interested parties must submit a formal letter from a U.S. Treasury-listed surety confirming:

• The Builder's demonstrated single-project bonding capacity to provide performance and payment bonds in the amount of 100% of the final negotiated Phase 2 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). For purposes of evaluation, offerors will receive a Go if they provide minimum bonding of the current Programmed Amount.

• Current single-project bonding limits, aggregate bonding limits, and total remaining bonding capacity are available for this specific project.

• Any firms proposing a phased bonding approach must clearly identify the methodology to use phased bonding.

3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION AND DOWN SELECTION

The Government will evaluate White Papers for merit and select respondents that demonstrate the most compelling and innovative approaches to our objectives. The evaluation will focus on the respondent's clear understanding of the project requirements and its collaborative strategy to deliver a high-quality facility on a rapid timeline.

The Government intends to:

• Conduct a comparative evaluation of all submissions.

• Identify qualified Design-Builders based on White Paper submissions and select the three best-qualified firms which demonstrated the most merit.

• Invite the best-qualified firms to proceed to pitch presentations.

Following completion of pitch presentations, the Government intends to select one Design-Builder that provides maximum assurance of successful project delivery based on qualifications, demonstrated capability, collaborative approach, technical understanding, and overall merit. The selected Design-Builder may then be invited to enter post-selection discussions and negotiations with the Government for the PDB OT agreement. The Government may:

• Seek clarifications or engage in communication(s)

• Consider the relative strengths and weaknesses between DB(s)

• Make selections without further communication(s)

Consistent with the OT framework, the Government reserves the right to:

• Modify the evaluation approach as necessary

• Consider additional information obtained through this process

• Select none, one, some, or all DB(s) for Step 2.

This evaluation is not conducted under RFO Part 15 procedures, and formal source selection processes do not apply.