Project Information Packet -B21 Utilities Site Improvements-Comms and Electric.docx

Project Information Packet (PIP)

1. Project Overview & Mission Goal

· Project Name/Number: B21 Utilities & Site Improvements (Communications & Electrical Infrastructure, FNWZ243116 & FNWZ220040

· Location: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

· Fiscal Year: FY 2026 / FY 2027 MILCON

· Mission Statement: This combined project provides foundational, high-reliability primary electrical power distribution and dedicated fiber-optic communications infrastructure supporting the beddown of the B-21 weapons system at Dyess Air Force Base. Dyess AFB operates 23 B-1B bomber aircraft and 28 C-130J aircraft across over 9,000 annual sorties. The B-21 beddown includes 29+ planned facilities, 5 facility renovations, and 28 environmental protection shelters. Sited predominantly across the north end of the main Dyess parking apron, this project establishes the critical backbone utilities required prior to vertical facility construction. Combining the electrical and communications infrastructure under a single procurement eliminates redundant trenching, avoids compounding contractor markups, minimizes flightline disruptions, and ensures energized connections are ready when new facilities break ground.

· Potential Shift to OTs: To accelerate infrastructure delivery, manage complex airfield utility interfaces, and increase flexibility, the Air Force is transitioning this projected from a traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Design-Bid-Build track to an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

This requirement combines two previously separate projects that are both currently at 100% design completion, prepared by the same Architect-Engineer firm across both the Communications and Electrical scopes. The Government does not intend to revert either design package back to a 35% design milestone. Instead, the Government is evaluating how an OT Agreement or alternative delivery framework (such as CMAR, PDB, or DBtB) can best leverage these completed 100% design packages to accelerate procurement, secure long-lead equipment early, optimize joint utility trenching, and mitigate flightline risk, while preserving the investment already made in the design.

A Contractor will need to demonstrate how shelving the existing 100% design and starting fresh will deliver the facility faster, at a lower cost, or with higher performance. The preference is to maintain the current DOR.

· Why See Alternate Delivery? The Government is seeking industry feedback across non-FAR procurement methodologies, Progressive Design-Build (PDB), Construction Management at Risk (CMAR), and Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) to determine the best path forward to execute this requirement.

2. Functional Requirements (The "What")

· Facility Type: Infrastructure/Utility Distribution (Category Code 812-225 Primary Underground Distribution Line, 890-181 Utility Line Ducts, and 113-321 Aircraft Parking Apron)

· Estimated Scale:

· Electrical: 3,494 Linear Meters (LM) of high-voltage underground distribution lines.

· Communications: 2,603 LM of multi-way concrete-encased duct bank.

· Trenchless Boring: 1,155 meters of horizontal directional boring beneath the active aircraft parking apron.

· Airfield Pavement: 2,049 Square Meters (SM) of apron slab demolition and full-depth replacement.

· Primary Functional Spaces (per DD 1391):

· High-Voltage Electrical Infrastructure: High-voltage 3-phase primary underground distribution network, medium/high-voltage switchgear, sectionalizing cabinets, concrete-encased duct banks, primary power cabling, manholes, handholes, and system appurtenances. (Note: An $8.0M private utility electric substation in the DD 1391 is excluded from this procurement).

· Communications Backbone & Ducts: Concrete-encased duct banks (2-way and 4-way), innerducts, heavy-duty communications manholes, handholes, connections, trenching, and backfill. Splicing, terminating, and testing high-strand single-mode fiber optic (SMFO) cabling to replace legacy, non-compliant dual-mode fiber and feed new beddown facilities.

· Airfield Horizontal Boring & Pavements: Jacking and receiving pits, casings, horizontal directional drilling beneath the operational parking apron, and complete full-depth reconstruction of aircraft parking apron slabs.

· Supporting Site Preparation & Improvements: Earthwork, temporary contractor staging/laydown yards, sediment and erosion control, topsoil placement, grading, seeding, and sodding across all disturbed corridors.

· Key Performance Targets:

· Distribution Standards: High-voltage 3-phase electrical distribution engineered to accommodate installation-wide facility electrification and heating power loads.

· Cybersecurity & Controls: Cybersecurity of Facility-Related Control Systems per UFC 4-010-06 for monitoring, SCADA, and switchgear telemetry.

· Airfield & Force Protection Standards: Compliance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01 (General Building Requirements), DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards (UFC 4-010-01), UFC airfield pavement criteria, Air Force Corporate Facilities Standards (AFCFS), and Installation Facilities Standards (IFS).

3. Known Project Constraints

· Geotechnical & Soil Conditions: Horizontal boring beneath the main aircraft parking apron is required for 1,155 meters of communications casement and ducting. Because the total required length is several times longer than the maximum boring distance, construction requires establishing multiple jacking and receiving pits, along with full-depth aircraft apron slab demolition and replacement..

· Construction Security Surveillance: Work takes place in support of the B-21 beddown within flightline operational zones. Construction requires compliance with DoD antiterrorism/force protection standards (UFC 4-010-01) and applicable installation security requirements for contractor personnel, laydown yards, and airfield access.

· Active Operations Coordination: Dyess AFB operates both B-1B and C-130J aircraft in over 9,000 annual sorties. The B-1B program must be supported until fully divested, and the C-130J program must be supported indefinitely. Construction logistics must not impact these active mission capabilities.

· Utilities & Infrastructure: The north end of the main parking apron contains existing underground utility networks. An alternative alignment through the grassy area east of the apron was evaluated and rejected due to the presence of multiple existing critical utilities and the unacceptable risk of mission disruption. Work requires close coordination with base civil engineering to identify existing utilities and prevent outages. Additionally, new facilities cannot be supported by existing infrastructure, making the timely completion and tie-in of this new distribution backbone critical.

4. The Construction Cost Limitation (CCL)

· The Target Fixed Budget (CCL): $28,550,000 (Total Contract Cost, which includes construction, trenching, boring, pavement restoration, and 5% contingency).

· Communications Cost (FNWZ220040): $15,150,000

· Electrical Cost (FNWZ243116): $13,400,000.

· Total Programmed Amount: $31,500,000 (Combined Programmed Amount Rounded: $15,000,000 for Electrical + $16,500,000 for Communications)

· What it Includes: Covers all primary facilities (Primary Underground Distribution Line, Utility Line Ducts, Aircraft Parking Apron replacement) and supporting facilities (Site Preparation and Site Improvements), including all horizontal boring, casements, switchgear, cabling, fiber optic networks, manholes, handholes, and apron slab restoration.

· What is Excluded: The $8,000,000 Electric Substation is funded separately for a private utility service provider and is expressly excluded from this construction contract, CCL, and programmed amount (Dyess infrastructure will tie into the provider's demarcated point of connection). Also excluded are end-user network server equipment, communication terminal electronics, and non-appropriated furnishings.

· The OT Challenge: USACE is seeking the team that can provide the highest level of technical merit, system reliability, durability, and schedule efficiency for this fixed budget limitation, maximizing field value against the completed 100% design baselines.

5. Proposed Project Schedule

· Solicitation Release: November 27, 2026

· Contract Award: June 8, 2027

· Period of Performance: 690 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed (NTP).

· Critical Milestones: Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) required by March 8, 2030 to support critical combat capability.

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

If the Government determines that an alternative delivery strategy is more advantageous than a traditional Design-Bid-Build path, a collaborative procurement framework may be structured as follows:

· 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: Under an OT or qualifications-based collaborative model, a two-phase selection process will be utilized. Phase 1 will evaluate and select the most qualified teams based on various factors such as technical capability, past performance, and collaborative execution history. Phase 2 will evaluate final technical and price proposals.

· Interactive Discussions: The Government intends to hold 2 to 3 confidential, proprietary meetings with Phase 2 offerors to review concept development and provide real-time feedback prior to final proposal submission.

· Stipends: To offset the technical and pre-construction design modeling costs associated with Phase 2 conceptual proposals, USACE is evaluating the feasibility and necessity of offering competitive proposal stipends.

· Incentives: The Government is exploring performance and schedule incentives. No structures have been finalized, and we welcome industry feedback on models that have proven effective on similar projects.

Progressive Design-Build – Progressive Design-Build is a collaborative project delivery method where the owner selects a design-builder based on their qualifications and experience, rather than on a detailed bid. Success hinges on proactive, early integration of construction expertise, a commitment to transparent "open-book" estimating, and a culture of collaborative decision-making.

The defining characteristics of PDB:

· One integrated team: The Government selects a design-builder—designer and constructor working as one team—at the beginning of project development, before a meaningful amount of design is complete.

· Qualifications led selection: Selection focuses heavily, and often exclusively in the initial stage, on relevant experience, past performance, technical capability, proposed personnel, and ability to collaborate—not a low construction bid.

· Construction not priced at award: The initial agreement award Phase 1 services. A price for construction, such as a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is set only once the design, scope, schedule, and risks have been sufficiently developed.

Design-Build to Budget – Design-Build to Budget is a project delivery method where the project's budget is established as a firm, fixed design constraint from the beginning. Its ultimate outcome is a fixed-price contract with a single, integrated design-build team.

The defining characteristics of DBtB are:

· Budget as a Primary Driver: Unlike other methods where the design determines the final cost, DBtB challenges the industry to innovate and provide the best possible technical solution within a pre-established, maximum budget.

· Performance-Based Requirements: The owner defines what the facility must achieve (performance, operational needs, quality) but does not provide a prescriptive design. This leaves the how entirely up to the competing design-build teams.

· Collaborative Refinement: The procurement process involves confidential, proprietary meetings with shortlisted teams. In these meetings, the owner provides feedback on preliminary concepts, allowing teams to refine their solutions to best align with the project's goals before submitting a final proposal.

Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) – Construction Management at Risk is a delivery method in which the owner hires a construction manager during design to provide preconstruction support and later serve as the general contractor. The CMAR firm commonly delivers the project under a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

The defining characteristics of CMAR are:

• Early Involvement: The CMAR provides cost estimating, scheduling, constructability reviews, and procurement advice during design.

• Separate Contracts: The owner contracts separately with the architect/engineer and the CMAR firm, which typically manages the trade subcontractors.

• Guaranteed Maximum Price: The CMAR develops a GMP and accepts defined cost and construction-performance risk within that agreement.

• Collaborative Delivery: The owner, designer, and CMAR coordinate throughout the project; phased construction may begin before design is fully complete.

Market Intelligence Report: Industry Day/First Look Questionnaire

Note: The questions below reflect the online form and are provided as a working reference for your team's internal coordination prior to online submission.

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

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 an appropriate vehicle, or would your firm prefer a traditional FAR-based contract? Please explain your reasoning in detail.

1. 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? If yes, please explain.

1. Model Viability: Based on the parameters provided in the Project Information Packet, and the existence of 100% design packages, does your firm believe it is feasible to propose a reliable, fixed price (including incentives) 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/uncertainty to provide a reliable price this early.

1. Risk Justification: Please explain your reasoning for the answer above. What are the top 1-3 factors (e.g., project complexity, site conditions, clarity of functional requirements) that influenced your choice?

1. PDB, DBtB, CMAR Threshold: With the Government maintaining the 100% designs developed by the A-E and having no intent to regress back to 35% or 65%, which alternative delivery method (CMAR, PDB, DBtB) provides the most effective structure to execute construction without reopening the design?

I. Budget & Financial Realism

1. Budget Alignment: Based on your firm's recent experience with similar projects, does the proposed Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) of $28,550,000 for approximately 3,500 LM of electrical distribution, 2,600 LM of communications ducts, 1,150 meters of horizontal boring, and 2,050 SM of apron pavement restoration appear realistic in the current local market?

1. Major Cost Drivers: From a high-level view of our functional requirements, do you see any specific mission needs (e.g., horizontal boring under active apron pavements, jacking/receiving pits, switchgear lead times, apron concrete replacement) that you anticipate will be the primary drivers of cost?

1. Market Precedents: Are there specific benchmarks or recent industry projects we should look at to ensure our expectations for quality and performance align with this budget?

II. Flexibility & Innovation (The "How")

1. Prescriptive "Showstoppers": Based on the functional requirements, site constraints, and scope parameters outlined in this packet, do any of the described requirements appear overly restrictive or "locked-in" that might prevent your firm from offering an innovative, schedule-efficient, or cost-effective execution solution?

1. Innovation Opportunities: In this infrastructure type, where do you typically see the most opportunity for an integrated contractor or CMAR to provide "more for the money" (e.g., advanced horizontal boring methods, joint-trenching electrical and comms, precast manhole assemblies, early switchgear packages)

III. Market & Supply Chain (External Risks)

1. Long-Lead Warning: Based on the high-level infrastructure scope described above, (e.g., high-voltage switchgear, primary underground distribution cabling, associated appurtenances, single-mode fiber optic cabling), what lead times is your firm currently experiencing in the commercial market that would threaten the proposed project schedule?

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

IV. Defining Value (The Betterment Search)

1. The Value Gap: If your team discovers design and construction efficiencies during the proprietary meetings, which "betterments/enhancements" (e.g., enhanced durability, lower life-cycle costs, better technology) should we prioritize in our evaluation criteria as the most valuable for this facility type?

1. Sustainability Targets: Is the proposed level of sustainability and electrification support (e.g., life-cycle cost analysis, low-loss distribution equipment) a standard "reach" for industry, or will it require significant premium pricing in this market?

V. Proposal Effort & Contract Incentives

Stipend Necessity: Given the requirement to participate in proprietary meetings and conduct constructability reviews for Phase 2 evaluation, is a stipend necessary for your firm to justify the pursuit costs of this procurement? Yes or no, and why?

1. Stipend Alignment: If a stipend is offered, what amount (or percentage of the CCL) does the market currently consider sufficient to offset the level of effort required for a Phase 2 proposal of this complexity?

1. Effective Incentives: In a fixed-budget environment, what types of post-award contract incentives (e.g., award fee for exceptional quality, schedule acceleration, shared savings) are most effective at motivating your team to exceed minimum performance requirements?

VI. Additional Comments or Inquiries

General Industry Feedback & Additional Comments: Please provide any additional comments, feedback, or recommendations your firm may have regarding this project, the proposed collaborative OT procurement strategy, risk allocation, or general execution considerations that were not addressed in the questions above.

Additional Inquiries: We have established a ProjNet, http://www.projnet.org/projnet, for additional inquiries and questions. To self-register, go to the web page, click “Quick Add” link, select agency “USACE”, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, and your e-mail address, then click Continue. Fill in all required information and click Add User. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Solicitation Number: W9126G27R1CSY Key Number: SU5NCI-3Q276C