Industry Day Transcript - Minot AFB CVMC_SFOC_AC - D-B-B Under OTA.pdf

Industry Day - Minot AFB CVMCSFOCAC - D-B-B Under

OTA-20260827_145032UTC-Meeting Recording

August 27, 2026, 2:50PM

2h 11m 41s

Fechner, Daniel J CIV USARMY CENWO (USA) 9:42

Good morning, everybody.

Thank you for joining.

I think we'll get started here in a minute or two.

Just give everyone a chance to to call in.

We'll be walking through slides here and kind of giving a synopsis of the of the projects we're looking at.

So we'll start at 10:02. Thank you.

OK.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you.

Thank you for joining this call.

This is industry day, meant to inform.

Our future industry partners about the consolidated Vehicle Maintenance complex.

The security Forces operations complex and the athletic complex projects at Minot

Air Force Base.

This is I'll be running through slides here and kind of giving everyone an introduction to the project.

Checked kinda getting everyone up to speed and then.

At the end of the meeting, if you have questions, you can either post it in the chat or raise your hand and I can unmute you.

But this is.

This is just meant to inform and kind of provide a path forward.

Just trying to get the word out there on these projects and get get responses from industry.

So getting into the background of the project.

Yeah, you know, I kinda have.

Oh yeah.

Getting into the background, I guess I should start with introduction.

So I'm Dan feschner.

I'm the project manager with USIS Omaha District for all three of these projects.

I'm. I'm got a decent knowledge base of the projects in the room with me. I have

Andy Teemaer, Andy Temire, chief military programs branch MP3 MD here.

I know Omaha.

And Brandon Landis, I'm a contract specialist with the military construction.

Military branch your your National Mall, OK?

Thank you, Brandon and Andy.

So again, providing a little bit of background of the project, this is a part of the

Sentinel program.

So overall Sentinel program is is meant to replace the Minuteman 3 missile system.

There's bed down to various bases, a lot of you are probably aware of the Sentinel program already, so I won't go too in depth on it.

What we're looking at is the initial bed down at Minot.

Air Force Base.

So these three projects that were listed up top, they kind of represent the the initial effort at Minot to.

To lay down the the the groundwork for for future projects there.

Originally.

We were intending to go far based with this for for solicitation and acquisition.

Standard to all our projects we've been doing for the past, you know, decade or two, but.

Department of war policy changed, so we're now shifting to an OTA style process which some of you may begin to get familiar with.

But the process most of our projects are gonna undergo.

Undergo and and this is these are kind of at the front of that. So a lot of this presentation is just going to be walking through that OTA process.

And as we move through just getting input from industry and and.

Help Foster a collaborative environment and in how we we approach this new acquisition.

Going over the government, stakeholders quickly, we've got U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

We're the design and construction agent for the bed down. We've got aftec, which is the official point of authority for the Air Force, the liaison between uses and Big Air

Force.

We've got Air Force nuke Weapons Center, which is responsible for the program funding. We've got Sentinel task force.

That 12, which is provides program policy and and guidance and goals and then on the right side there we have our our local.

Wings and squadrons at Minot so we have the 91st missile wing. We're going to be the future users for the security forces operations complex. We have the 5th LRS, which is going to be the users for the vehicle maintenance complex and 5th CES which is the.

Engineering Squadron on base, they they oversee.

The construction and implementation of of a lot of the facilities on base so.

So going back to OTA, I set some requirements and then some goals of what we're looking for, so.

Requirements that the primary requirement is listed there first.

It's it's the same as if we were to do a far based acquisition a year ago. We want to deliver these projects on time and within budget.

How that gets accomplished is changed a little bit with this OTA process.

But the end goal is the same. We're trying to get a complete usable facility.

For the amount budgeted by Congress.

The new requirements are A2 phase OT agreement, so phase one for these projects will be pre construction services.

So I'll dive into it a little bit more here in a second, but it's it's essentially we'll select the single contractor to provide.

Constructability guidance that that may adjust the design they will provide open book pricing.

So we'll collaboratively reach a.

A.

Cost estimates instead of sending out, forbid and getting different bids in from.

Ten different contractors we we work on that with a single contractor to to get to an awardable construction estimate and then phase two of the OT that's construction.

So by the time we reach the end of that phase, one pre construction services that should lead right into awarding that phase two for the actual construction of these facilities.

And then the goals.

Kind of based on those requirements. First off, we would like to.

We would like to solicit all three of these projects under a single OT action.

We sent out a source of sought back on 14 August and one of the big questions on there was, is that feasible from industry putting all three projects on the same solicitation or would it make more sense to break them apart?

So right now we're approaching this as if we're going to.

Have all three under the same solicitation.

But that's that's a big question out there and and we're looking for input from industry on on how feasible that is.

Taking take advantage of those pre construction services as I described with that phase one OT the new process for us.

So we'll be looking for help from the contractor that we select.

As we develop those phase one goals, those pre construction services.

And then just general guidelines for dates looking to award that that phase one pre construction services in quarter three of FY20 7 and then actual construction no later than the end of FY20 7 so September 2027.

So getting into the solicitation process and how it differs from far based.

The the whole method shifts from advertising a design bid build package and having contractors propose on that package asking questions, but otherwise kind of siloed in in making their own proposals.

We make our selection entirely based on qualifications.

And then once we've selected a single contractor, we dive into the nuts and bolts of the design and get a cost estimate.

So going through that, the the first step is submitting an RFQ.

So there will be two parts to this will be sending out a draft RFQ in the next few weeks.

With that, we'll be looking for input from industry on.

If you have questions, we would love to answer your questions, but also suggestions

'cause this is kind of one of the first projects we're going through this process.

Looking for any input that industry has on what should be important in those RFQ papers.

What you're looking for? What? What benefits you think you could provide or should be requested in that information?

So our goal is to post the official RFU in October.

And then as a result of that, we'll receive white papers from interested contractors, so.

Then that RFQ will have requirements for those white papers.

And what we're looking for, I think it'll be a 10 page limit.

So again, we'll be sending out the draft looking from input from industry and then we'll send out that that official one and get white papers back once we receive those white papers will evaluate them and perform a down select.

So that's an internal government review of those white papers, and we'll select three firms to participate in Step 5, which will be pitch meetings.

So similar to the RFQ, the process for those pitches.

Meetings. We're kind of looking for input from industry as well.

The idea right now is that we would provide the 100% design package at the time of down select.

So the three firms that we invite for those pitch meetings would have the design documents in hand. We have two pitch meetings is what we're thinking right now.

The first based generally a contract was approached in construction and then the second pitch meeting.

Really diving into the design, identifying some risks.

Maybe even getting a ROM for construction.

Just collaboratively talking through what the primary issues are with the projects or the primary risks I should say with the projects and and how the different contractors could mitigate those risks?

And then finally step 6. After this pitch meetings will take both the White Papers and the pitch meetings into account and make a final selection on a single contractor.

And as they did throughout this.

It's not just based on specific qualifications.

During power based acquisitions, we'd have our pretty strict restrictions on how we grade the proposals and who selected or who gets the award for this.

It's it's more collaborative and.

It's it's kind of based on who the government sees as the best partner as we move forward. Since this is a new process for us.

We're just looking for a partner who will have our back and and help us.

Move through that process.

So going through the full OTA process, we covered the the blue boxes at the top there.

So that's our qualifications based selection. And then once we down select to a single contractor, we'll start with step 7 on the bottom. So as I said, we'll.

Once we make that selection of the final contractor.

Will enter into phase one negotiations and hopefully quickly award that phase one for pre construction services.

The three things I believe will be looking for out of those pre construction services is constructability adjustments to to the design.

So we'll have the the design teams.

In the room or in the meetings, and we'll we'll talk through any adjustments that the contractor might see as benefiting the project, both from a price perspective or a constructibility or schedule perspective.

So design adjustments and then integrated schedule, so kind of open up identify specific items, long lead items or risk to the project.

And laying out the whole schedule and talking it through with the government.

And the design team and then open book pricing so.

Again with with far based, we would request proposals. Each each firm would develop a proposal and a silo, and then send it to us and we would evaluate it internally.

With OTA, we're looking for that open book pricing. So basically.

The selected contractor would open up their cost files and we would go through maybe line by line, maybe through a few meetings, go through the cost estimate and collaboratively reach.

A final price for construction.

We had an A workshop over the last couple days where we had a couple well, actually.

Like quite a few firms come and talk to us about this process and it it seems like a huge benefit compared to.

That far based proposal system.

Helps mitigate risk on the government side. It helps helps our teaming arrangements with the contractor. So we're actually working together towards the same goal instead of having maybe a little bit more adversarial relationship.

So that open book pricing is is a major focus.

Focus of that of that phase one.

Once we establish those three items, we will hopefully reach a phase two agreement and that's for construction. So that is similar to how far based would be for the contract award.

That's kind of shifted to this phase two award for OT.

And then those last three boxes are just pretty standard.

How we operate currently we we constructed.

We have red zone and then turnover after construction's complete.

I won't go too deep into this.

It's a lot of walls of text. The next 4 slides so.

I will be posting this PowerPoint.

Onto the same sam.gov posting that that we posted the Industry day information on.

So you all can read more about it, but this is this is the meat and potatoes of what's in that draft RFQ that we'll be sending out.

In a couple weeks.

And it identifies what the evaluation factors are going to be for those white papers.

So again, I'm not gonna go over this specifically because it's it's a lot of text and I don't wanna read it word for word, but in general the first part would be leadership strategy so.

Just general constructibility. How you define the success of the project?

What is your standard approach to issue resolution?

What your leadership structure?

Pretty similar to some of the proposals we would ask for under far based acquisitions.

Factor 2 is your execution strategy.

So this dives a little bit more into.

How you see this design but build under OTA approach, benefiting the project? How you would help.

Guide the government through the process.

What? What benefits?

You could provide through those pre construction services.

In addition to innovative approaches for construction itself.

Again, that's that's more standard, far based, but the big difference here is is focusing on what benefits you would provide to this OTA process.

3rd factor is capability and past relevant experience.

These white papers are limited to again, I believe 10 pages.

So we're limiting it to three path projects and.

Obviously, projects that relate to these specific projects would would be best, but.

It's it's largely up to the the contractors to determine what those projects would be and and how they would best.

Demonstrate experience related to our projects and then 4th is team composition and organization. So.

One thing to focus on here is.

If you're one of the down selected firms, we would like to have identified the team members who are going to participate in the pitch meetings as well, and I'm thinking primarily the Superintendent will be on the project, the project manager, the construction manager.

Umm.

They would be identified in the White Papers and then also participate in the pitch meetings and that's that's important because you know we we want corporate leadership there as well.

But really, we'll be working with the contractors or we'll be working with the the PMS and the Supers as the project moves along. And we really want to hear from them since they're the ones will be interacting with during the project and then also.

Identifying subcontractors we don't expect.

You to get quotes.

At this stage, we're not asking for a price, but some some method of of how you intend to retain or on board.

Subs North Dakota is a challenging environment and as we ramp these Sentinel systems up and potentially oilfield work and.

AI data center work.

It's obviously a struggle to retain Subs, so that's another thing we'll be looking for.

So again, I'll get into the designs quickly here, but as a reminder, these are these are the draft evaluation factors we'll be sending this out to industry to get responses and depending on your responses, they very well could affect what these evaluation factors are.

So if you're listening to this and thinking well, that's that's not a good way to evaluate a contractor on, on how they'll perform a project. Let us know, we'll be setting up.

A.

A projnet comment system.

We want to hear from industry.

We want to.

We want to try to adjust these requirements and the whole process.

To benefit the project and and prevent industry's been doing this for a while.

So I contractors could definitely have quite a bit of experience with that.

The last item I wanted to cover is just a general overview of the designs.

So again, we were intending to advertise.

This project under Farbase probably in October, but Department of Warship shed its strategy.

So we're now using this OTA process. As a result, we actually have 100% design documents already.

So in the future, this OTA process is going to.

Involve the contractors.

Or a design team earlier.

To facilitate those pre construction services, develop the the open book cost model, identify constructability issues.

In this case, we are trying to provide as much time as possible for those items, but also trying to award by the end of FY20 7 so.

Yeah, the 100% design is complete and.

We will be providing that at the time of down select but.

Just looking for mainly constructibility adjustments as we go through those pre construction services.

Site overview.

So again, 3 Project, 3 projects, the security forces site is on the West side, their vehicle maintenance is kind of in the in the middle, just to the South. And then the athletic complex is on the east side.

So they're all there.

All three pretty close to each other.

In terms of base location, but obviously they are separate, so.

That might provide some challenges with lay down and and 1:00 on.

Security forces say two-story facility, approximately 130,000 square feet. It has classrooms, warehouse space, cleaning rooms and Armory.

That's a big one.

It's unique to this facility.

Umm.

Your classroom that is also unique or a briefing room.

I suppose that's also unique with this project, but otherwise it's it's largely administrative space and classroom space.

Not not a totally unique facility.

There's no skift spaces.

There's no SAP or hardening spaces so.

Pretty standard, aside from the Armory and the the briefing room, exterior work is limited.

We got a little parking lot. One thing to note is we have privatized utilities on base.

So a part of that pre construction phase will be kind of working with the selected contractor.

On how we approach those privatized utilities, how we develop contracts for them.

How we work with those entities otherwise pretty standard landscaping. There isn't any an existing building that we'll demo.

We have a HAZMAT survey of that and.

Should be fairly simple, but they don't identify that.

Moving on to the vehicle maintenance complex, this is 2 separate facilities.

I provided a site plan instead of a rendering of the building here because a lot of this project is site based.

You do have a 88,000 square foot building on the South side. That vehicle maintenance facility. And then on the north side, you've got the 28,000 square foot vehicle operations facility.

Mainly it's base spaces, so it's primarily gonna be the maintenance of vehicles happening in inside of both buildings.

There will be administrative space in both with the vehicle maintenance facility having more administrative space.

But other than the facilities themselves, it's a lot of site work.

You can see all the the hatched area on the drawing there. That's all.

Paving. So it's going to be a lot of paving work, lot of lot of BMPS and and environmental.

Stormwater retention, that sort of thing.

Same deal with the privatized utilities.

Both of these facilities are free engineered metal buildings, so that's another item that we would like to talk through during pre construction services is the the design of the structure is delegated and trying to take advantage of those pre construction services. How we can start that perhaps earlier.

Or approach it differently?

Based on the contractor's experience.

That'll be a. That'll be a nice goal to shoot for during those pre construction meetings.

Otherwise, there's there's some phasing so.

Where the vagal operations facility is on this drawing, there is an existing building so that existing building would have to be demolished before the vehicle operation facility is constructed.

So there is some phasing involved.

That is, that is a primary driver of the schedule that we've got for this.

And again another thing we're looking for during this pre construction services perhaps getting some some input from industry on how we can.

Umm.

How we can mitigate those schedule impacts based on phasing?

Finally, we've got the athletic complex a little bit simpler project.

There's no vertical construction.

It's just two softball fields and a soccer field. A little bit of sidewalk.

We've got some pads for future.

Future sheds got a couple dugouts.

Ball field lighting and an electronic scoreboard.

Those are probably the two most complex things on this project.

Otherwise, it's a lot of seating, lot of little bit of grading, lot of fence.

So pretty standard ball field construction.

And that's that's really it kind of a whirlwind of information. I would encourage folks to to raise their hands or ask questions in the chat and we'll try to respond to those.

Before we close the meeting out, but just, just as a synopsis.

This new OTA process is meant to be collaborative.

Hopefully I emphasize that during this meeting.

Instead of asking for proposals and and asking for information in a silo from each contractor or each proposer, we'd like to collaborate on that information with the selected contractor and not just in those pre construction services, but also during the pitch meetings. Even during the white Papers we.

Looking to identify a contractor who can work with us and provide the best benefit to the project.

By by utilizing this new process.

Feedback on on most portions of this process is welcome. As I said, we'll be posting the draft RFQ sometime in the next couple weeks.

That is not meant for responses.

That is meant for industry to take a look at and let us know what changes they would suggest or what questions they have.

Because we wanna. We wanna be asking the right questions.

And the industry's been doing this in the private world for years, and we want to utilize that.

We want to take advantage of of the experience that firms have on the private side.

So we sent out a source that saw it on 14 August.

The responses are due on Monday, I believe 31 August.

It's got some questions in there.

That's kind of our first step.

We're looking for responses to those questions.

Questions that are posed again the probably the biggest one is whether or not we can solicit this under a single OTA action. Getting industries input on that, whether it's it's too large of a of a project or whether the sites are separated.

But our goal right now is to solicit under a single.

OT.

In the next couple weeks, we'll be posting the draft articles you looking for.

Responses on that after we incorporate those responses and answer questions, we'll be posting the official RFU and solicitation and requesting White Papers in response.

And then we'll be evaluating those white papers and down selecting to a goal of three firms to participate in pitch meetings.

Go ahead.

So this is Andy. A couple couple of comments.

We're aware of multiple CM at risk type structured or 100% design type structured

OTS that are being pressed forward by multiple core districts.

I believe this will be the first one that Omaha District is is pressing forward.

You know, we've received some feedback from industry about consistency and and things of that nature.

That is 100% acknowledged. However, I just Telegraph that you will see.

Some slightly different variations on this approach.

Some of that is a bit transitory, given where individual projects are at in delivery.

Given this, pivot from far to non far based acquisition, the other part of it is is we we will likely be taking slightly different approaches to learn from those different approaches as well as.

Acknowledging the fact that under this OT framework we have an immense amount of flexibility as partners.

To take slightly different approaches as we interface.

One agreements for how we structure pricing, how we how we address risk, how we negotiate a fee for construction and things like that and that will be done in response to the feedback in partners that are ultimately selected for the delivery of these projects.

So the other part that I was gonna Telegraph is that our intent is to press this forward as a single acquisition unless there were strong and clear basis by which we thought that that ultimately represented risk to the delivery of.

Project.

Then again, that is that is a question that is posted on the sources off, so responses to the sources sock will be pretty valuable.

Just in informing how we how we move forward.

Any other comments?

Oh, did we ask how much time they need for the RFQ response?

Or provide the White Paper response.

No. So.

Yeah, this is an example of of. I think we have. We're currently projecting 3 weeks for

White paper responses, but when we send out that draft RFQ, which again is is the request for White Papers.

That will have a draft date in there.

So that's why when we post that draft.

It would help us a lot if industry could read it and and let us know what their thoughts are, because that's a good instance that three-week time is in there. And if if folks think that's not sufficient time to develop the white Papers, that would be a.

Great comment to receive and we'll react accordingly.

Obviously, the government wants to to select the the most highly qualified partner for the deal of these projects under this framework.

There there is some focus on, not, not.

You know two or weeks is probably going to become somewhat of a standard request for those responses for those white white paper responses. Certainly if there is a a need, please react accordingly.

But I guess the question or the assumption would be is is that we will be telegraphing that draft RFQ well ahead of the formal RFQ being issued.

Yes, and that's the goal of of this industry day is mainly to get these projects out there.

It's, you know, it's a fairly large set of projects, I think.

Hopefully it's it's of interest to a lot of contractors, a lot of firms.

And the more the more.

More input we get the more interest we get on this, the better. The end result's gonna be because.

You know we we when we post these things, we want to get responses.

This is a new process. We want to have industry help us.

Develop how we how we move forward because they have experience going through this process.

So yeah, just trying to trying to generate interest in the project and and encourage responses from everyone.

You got anything?

This is Brandon Landis, so I know this is in the comment sections, but I want to reiterate, so this action will be.

In, it'll be headed up by Jen Gilbreath.

She'll be the agreements officer and Ariel Vogan will be the specialist on this action.

So Ariel, probably your primary point of contact for this acquisition going forward.

And I see questions right now. So one of them is, can we get a list of attendees emailed to us in the teams meeting?

Yes, we will most likely post that.

I assume we're doing that right.

Yes. So we'll, we'll post the we'll post the attendance list along with along with

PowerPoint and.

This this was recorded so.

Post that reporting as well.

And the slides, yes and the slides.

And then there's another question about Cui markings on drawings and specs and the CMMC requirements. Great question.

Great question.

No, no. Right now we are CMMC is not applicable.

We have no CUI markings on any of these projects.

That's a great question.

Because it maybe got another question.

Who is the current current design level and who's the Dr.

No, we'll be in our intended to issue 100% design complete designs and you can answer the viewer questions.

Yeah. So another good question should have covered it in my design wrap up.

So we've got the the core internally is the Dor for the vehicle maintenance project and the athletic complex project.

Cooper, Clark and associates.

Along with Tetrotech and a few other Subs are the Dor for the security forces complex so.

During probably during those pitch meetings and certainly during the pre construction phase.

They will be pretty heavily involved in.

Talking with the selected contractors.

Talking to constructability items.

Yeah. So just to put stamp, our intent is to retain that that contractual relationship in somewhat similar to CMR, the CMR framework throughout the delivery of these projects.

So design liability design.

There's no intent to to to pivot this to a design build type acquisition or anything like that.

We will retain our in House staff and the AE separately for construction phase support and there is intent.

To to provide that support.

The only variance is on that would be.

Is is that if we enter into phase phase one agreement we get into the E type alternatives and we you know we mutually agree to some sort of value engineering type alternative we may have discussions about delegated design.

There are some delegated design features in the projects already, so it would be somewhat similar to what you're used to in a design bid build type acquisition with the Corp engineers previously.

Yeah. So basically 100%.

Design documents.

With the recognition that we'll be expecting to adjust things during this pre construction meetings.

One thing that we learned during this workshop the last couple days with with the industry panels, a lot of that will probably be based on the O1 specs, particularly since the design that the scope is validated and and can't really be changed.

Obviously we can adjust the.

Drawings for constructability items. But those O1 specs will probably be the primary focus and.

And umm.

A lot of the fire could still apply if it benefits the Turks and conditions.

The terms and sorry, the terms and conditions.

You know, we don't have to change everything about the way we've done things previously.

Some things are good.

It sounds like and and we want to identify those items, retain those.

In those specs and then potentially remove others or adjust others.

After discussion, so I will offer, there is many of you likely reviewed the playbook for progressive design build issued by headquarters you say.

The terms, the draft terms and conditions in that playbook that will be our primary reference point for this deliverable.

We're working with an integrated team to look at the nuances of those terms and conditions and how they will relate to CM at risk, heightened design type approach under an OT.

But you know rough #990 ish percent of those terms and conditions will be can still be considered mandatory and will apply to this type of acquisition.

Any other questions? I hand it.

Yeah. So the the question was about potential influence on system types and assemblies.

So keep in mind our our design teams are still they developed its design.

Their typical approach is to design items and I I see this as a question from blue blue frog grouping.

Based off of performance under the TM at risk under a phase one agreement, assuming you're a part of that phase one, there will be a much more open and dynamic ability to discuss specific systems rather than.

You know, say specifying for performance. In general terms, our intent would be is.

Ultimately we're trying to construct some facilities.

Right there.

There would be the ability to discuss those, discuss.

There may be some typical solicitation file amendment issues, but there may not be an intent to fully redesign that that system to reflect, you know, a shop drawing or or an as built type condition.

So those are all types of discussions, but the short answer would be yes.

That we we will be discussing onboarding of of key subcontractors, potentially addressing system specific nuances and details.

Potentially variances VE type alternatives. All that stuff would typically be formalized once we make a down select to a prime offer and engage directly with their their subcontractor base.

Hopefully that answers the question.

Any other questions? Your hands free? No.

OK.

I'll go through one final synopsis.

Give people a chance to ask some final questions, and then then we'll adjourn just one more time. Going back to this path forward. Again, I want to emphasize that that draft RQ will be sent out.

In the next couple weeks, we'll be looking for source of salt responses by Monday.

And then that official RFQ, we're looking at October for that.

That date might shift one way or the other, but we intend to be as open as possible.

About the whole process, taking into account any comments from industry on this process.

But to do that, we we need industry to be.

To to try to keep their ear open on these sam.gov post things, we can also try to alert folks when when these when these documents are posted.

But again, I the more feedback we get the better this process is going to go, not only for the government, but also for the.

For industry, because we'll be able to adjust the criteria with which we grade, we'll be able to adjust slightly the process one way or another to to help benefit the project both on the government contractor side.

Any other comments?

I'll just reiterate from a contracting perspective, just make sure you're identifying yourself as an interested vendor vendor on each of those sam.gov postings and follow those as we update them.

That's the best way to to monitor and track everything, especially if you're a subcontractor and you're you're trying to look for prime contractors to subcontract underneath.

That's what I keep telling our small businesses 'cause I know there there's some concerns about the OTA process going forward, but.

I think in general industry understands that there's a lot of subcontracting that has to.

Happen from within our small business community and so that has to be established and everybody has to know what's going on and the best way to do that is to identify yourself as interested vendor on each Sam, Gov posting.

OK.

Yeah, the sources saw it.

Responses to that. I think there's some questions that you can ask if if you think of something after this, potentially you could provide that in resources, our response and we'll address those as needed.

I think that wraps it up.

I really appreciate everybody calling in listening to my 40 minute spiel about the OTA process and and the projects moving forward so.

Again, just any input is good input and yeah, be expecting additional documents to be posted here in the next couple weeks.

Thank you all very much.

Have a good rest of your day.

Fechner, Daniel J CIV USARMY CENWO (USA) stopped transcription