Attachment 1_91st Cyber Ops Center Request for White Paper.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

White Paper Submission Requirements

Project Title: 91st Cyber Operations Center Solicitation Number: W9126G27QA008 Issuing Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District Response Deadline: 18 November 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 91st Cyber Operations Center 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 Design-Build Team capable of delivering a state-of-the-art facility that meets the complex operational, technical, and security needs of the Air Combat Command’s 91st Cyber Operations Squadron (COS).

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 91st COS partners to develop the project design and price.

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

Key objectives for this project include leveraging the OTA 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 and industrialized construction methodologies, including open modular design, prefabrication, modular and off-site construction, advanced materials, and other innovative engineering and construction solutions.

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

Mission Support: Constructing a specially purposed Cyber Operations Facility will allow optimal configuration of mission requirements on JBSA and ensure the Squadron is appropriately resourced to integrate new and expanded capabilities.

2.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Interested parties are invited to submit a White Paper that addresses the following criteria. Design-Builder offerors shall follow the structure below. Submissions that do not adhere to these instructions may be deemed non-conforming. If a submission is deemed non-conforming, it may be removed from further consideration, including pitch-meeting eligibility. The Government anticipates selecting up to three of the most highly qualified Design-Builders 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 – 12-page White Paper, you are allowed one page for a cover letter and all supporting back up cannot exceed 10 pages. Total page count can not exceed 23 pages.

File Format – The White Paper, including all attachments, shall be submitted as a single searchable PDF file. The Solicitation’s other permitted file formats apply only to communications pr materials expressly requested by the Government.

Factors 1 through 3 will be considered holistically in the Government’s qualitative qualifications-based assessment. Bonding Capacity, Factor 4, is a Go/No-Go requirement and is not comparatively evaluated. Do not exceed page limits. The Government reserves the right not to review or evaluate any pages exceeding the stated page limit. Do not change formatting. Do not omit sections.

Factor 1 – Team and Relevant Experience

The Design-Builder shall describe its proposed integrated team and provide up to five project examples that best demonstrate its ability to deliver the 91st Cyber Operations Center.

The response shall identify the prime Design-Builder, proposed Designer of Record, principal team members, key specialty capabilities, and the personnel the Design-Builder considers essential to successful project delivery. The Design-Builder shall describe how its team will integrate design, preconstruction, construction, site and building security, technical systems, cost, schedule, quality, commissioning, and stakeholder coordination.

For each project example, identify the client, location, collaborative delivery method, project value, scope, schedule, the Design-Builder’s role, and a reference who can verify the team’s performance.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed team and project examples demonstrate relevant, successful experience with project characteristics similar to those of this acquisition. Relevant characteristics may include mission-critical and secure facilities; cyber, intelligence, communications, or operations facilities; technically complex building systems and infrastructure; controlled-access or operational environments;

collaborative delivery; stakeholder coordination; and delivery within established funding and schedule constraints.

The Design-Builder may identify additional experience, capabilities, or team attributes it considers material to successful delivery of this project.

The Government reserves the right to use both Design-Builder-provided references and independent sources, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) records, to evaluate this factor.

Factor 2 – PDB with OTA Execution Approach

The respondent shall describe its approach to executing Phase 1 design and preconstruction services and how that approach will provide the government with a decision-ready basis for the Phase 2 Decision. The response shall explain how the Design- Builder will collaborate with the Government and project stakeholders, demonstrating an understanding that Phase 2 is intended to mature and validate scope requirements, develop and reconcile cost information, manage schedule and long lead items, assess constructability and phasing and identify and manage project risk before the Government decides whether to proceed to Phase 2.

The Design-Builder may propose innovative materials, methods, tools, work packages, industrialized construction strategies, early trade-partner engagement, or other commercial practices that it believes will improve project outcomes.

Factor 3 - Project Insight, Risk and Innovation

The Design-Builder shall describe its understanding of the 91st Cyber Operations Center and the project specific conditions most likely to affect successful delivery.

Generic risk-management items and narratives are discouraged.

The Design-Builder is encouraged to identify innovative, commercially proven, or otherwise distinctive approaches that may improve mission outcomes, quality, security integration, schedule certainty, affordability, constructability, resilience, commissioning, or operational readiness. The Design-Builder shall explain why each proposed approach is relevant to this project and the benefit it may provide.

Factor 4 - Bonding Capacity:

Bonding Capacity is a strict Go/No-Go requirement and is not a comparative evaluation factor. The Government will determine whether the Design-Build Team has demonstrated the required bonding capacity through acceptable documentation from a U.S. Treasury-listed surety.

The Design-Builder must demonstrate the ability to provide performance, and payment bonds equal to 100 percent of the final negotiated construction price for any authorized package, including Phase 2A, Phase 2B, or additional packages. The submission shall identify the Design-Builder’s applicable single-project bonding limit, aggregate bonding limit, and remaining available bonding capacity.

For purposes of the Step 1 evaluation, the Design-Builder must demonstrate single-project bonding capacity of not less than the current programmed amount ($96,000,000).

A Design-Build Team that receives a "No-Go" determination for bonding capacity will not be eligible for further consideration.

3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION AND DOWN SELECTION

The Government will conduct a qualitative, comparative evaluation of the White Papers to identify the Design-Builder most qualified to proceed to the pitch presentations. The evaluation will be based on the published factors and the relative significance of documented strengths, weaknesses, and any associated concerns.

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 will consider Factors 1 through 3 holistically. Bonding capacity, Factor 4, is a separate Go/No-Go requirement and is not comparatively evaluated.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which each Design-Builder demonstrates:

An integrated team with relevant, successful experience;

A credible and collaborative approach to Progressive Design-Build with Other

Transactional Authority delivery; and

A project specific understanding of the major delivery risks and opportunities, including innovative approaches that may improve successful project delivery.

The Government will not evaluate a proposed construction price during the White Paper phase. The Government may assess a Design-Builder’s demonstrated approach to cost validation, affordability, escalation management, and maintaining the project within the established funding limitation as qualifications relevant to Phase 1 and successful project delivery.

The Government intends to conduct a comparative evaluation of all submissions and identify the Design-Builders that provide the greatest confidence in successful project delivery. The Government will target three of the most qualified Design-Builders to proceed to pitch presentations.

During the evaluation, the Evaluation Board will document narrative strengths and weaknesses relative to each factor, supported by specific White Paper citations. The Evaluation Board will make Selectable or Not Selectable determinations based on the complete qualifications record. The Board’s comparative analysis will identify the material differences that support its recommendation regarding pitch invitations.

Following 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, overall merit, and is rated “GO” for bonding capacity. 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 OTA framework, the Government reserves the right to:

Modify the evaluation approach as necessary. Communication of any change in evaluation approach will be communicated by Amendment to the Solicitation.

Select none or up to three DB(s) for Step 2.

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