Tinker AFB Market Research(2).pdf

Market Research Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Comprehensive Market Research Questionnaire

Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Originating Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Tulsa District

Document Type Sources Sought / Request for Information (RFI) Template

Target Audience Project Delivery Teams (PDTs) & Industry Partners

Classification Unclassified / Pre-Solicitation

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

2. Industry Questionnaire

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Part II: Delivery Method Feasibility & Risk

1. Design Control vs. Single-Point Responsibility

2. Feasibility of Early Price Certainty

3. Rationale

4. Relevant Delivery Experience

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

5. Budget Realism

6. Primary Cost Drivers

7. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

8. Collaboration Priorities

9. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

10. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

11. Contract Incentives

12. Program Capability/Interest (Tinker AFB)

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

13. Recommended Project Delivery Path

14. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

15. Evaluation Strategy

16. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

1. Project Information Packet (PIP)

Project Overview & Constraints

Project Name & Location 2-Dock Program Depot Maintenance Hangar, Tinker AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides a single, high bay, 2-dock aircraft maintenance hangar w/2-story area housing a metal shop, kitting area, tool room, composite repair, auxiliary power unit area, and break room on the first floor and administrative offices on the second.

Facility Type & Scale Maintenance Hangar and associated back shops / administrative area

102,150 GSF / 20,500 GSF

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay maintenance area with overhead crane

2. Administrative offices

3. Airfield Apron paving

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $124M

Period of Performance 2.5-3 years

Critical Milestones Site utility infrastructure, aircraft parking apron, access ramp and movement area, stormwater management, and hangar construction.

Project Name & Location Aircraft Pavement and Engine Runup, Tinker AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides aircraft apron to connect two PDM Hangar projects together and provides two, engine runup pads on a nearby, distinct site.

Facility Type & Scale Administrative / 45,000 GSF across two stories

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay maintenance area with overhead crane

2. Secure administrative offices (SCIF standards)

3. Controlled-humidity storage

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $60M

Period of Performance 1.5-2 years

Critical Milestones Site utility infrastructure, extensive site grading, airfield pavements, and blast shield deflectors.

Project Name & Location 2-Dock Program Depot Maintenance Hanger, Tinker AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides a single, high bay, 2-dock aircraft maintenance hangar w/plant equipment maintenance support, associated back shops, administrative and facility support spaces.

Facility Type & Scale Maintenance Hangar and associated back shops 102,150 GSF

Primary Functional Spaces 1. High-bay maintenance area with overhead crane

2. Airfield Apron paving

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $115M

Period of Performance 2.5-3 years

Critical Milestones Site utility infrastructure, aircraft parking apron, access ramp and movement area, stormwater management, and hangar construction.

Project Name & Location Support Shops and Staging Building, Tinker AFB, OK

Mission Statement This project provides a general-purpose aircraft shop as a standalone facility consisting of a landing gear shop, flight controls shop, engine shop, boom/centerline drogue system shop, related inventory area drop off area, administrative area, restrooms, and utility rooms.

Facility Type & Scale General Purpose Support Shops / 40,000 GSF

Primary Functional Spaces 1. Specialty Shops

2. Administrative area

Funding Type MILCON

Target Budget (CCL) $24M

Period of Performance 1.5-2 years

Critical Milestones Site utility infrastructure, extensive site grading, POV parking, and shop construction.

2. Industry Questionnaire

Purpose: The Government seeks your expert feedback to select the optimal project delivery method and contracting vehicle (FAR-based or OTA) for the above facilities. Please email your response to Daniel Foyil – Daniel.A.Foyil@usace.army.mil, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (CECT- SWT), no later than 2:00PM CST 23 July 2026.

Accelerated Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) FAR-based delivery approach where the Government develops sufficient project definition to competitively establish a Firm-Fixed-Price before collaborative design development.

Construction Manager at Risk (CM At Risk) - OTA Project delivery method where a construction manager acts as a consultant to the owner during the design phase and transitions to a general contractor role during construction.

Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – OTA Single design-build agreement. Phase 1 collaboratively matures the design and negotiates a Guaranteed Maximum Price before the Government decides whether to proceed with construction.

Part I: Company Information & Bidding Intent

Company Name & CAGE Code [Insert Name & CAGE]

Point of Contact [Insert Name, Email, Phone]

Socioeconomic Status (Check all that apply)

☐ Large Business ☐ Small Business (SB) ☐ 8(a) Business Development Program ☐ HUBZone Small Business ☐ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVOSB) ☐ Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

Bonding Capacity Single Project Limit: $[Insert Amount] Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount]

Intent to Propose ☐ Yes as Prime ☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided

Anticipated Teaming ☐ Standalone Prime ☐ Joint Venture (JV) ☐ Mentor-Protégé ☐ Subcontractor/Designer Only

Part II: Delivery Method Feasibility & Risk

1. Design Control vs. Single-Point Responsibility

Given the projects scale and complexity described in Section 1, which foundational approach poses the least risk to cost and schedule?

☐ Owner-Controlled Design: The Government should retain the design team but hire a builder early for constructability/pricing (CM@Risk).

☐ Single-Point Responsibility: The Government should shift design-completion risk to a single Design- Build entity (DBtB or PDB).

2. Feasibility of Early Price Certainty

For the projects listed above, is it feasible to propose a reliable fixed-price early in the process (e.g., DBtB), or are the scope too undefined, requiring progressive design development (e.g., PDB)?

☐ Yes, a reliable price is achievable early based on the provided requirements.

☐ No, there is too much risk. We would need the design to reach [Insert %] completion before offering a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

3. Rationale

Please briefly explain the top 1–2 factors driving your answers to Questions 1 and 2:

[Insert Response Here]

4. Relevant Delivery Experience

Has your firm successfully executed projects of similar size/complexity using your recommended delivery method in the last 5 years?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, please provide 1 brief project name/location:

[Insert Response Here]

Part III: Budget, Cost Drivers & Schedule

5. Budget Realism

Based on current market data, does the target budget appear realistic for these facility types and scale?

6. Primary Cost Drivers

What specific mission needs or functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

7. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk

What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead MEP, local labor)?

Part IV: Defining Value, Collaboration & Financial Drivers

8. Collaboration Priorities

Please rank the areas that would benefit most from early builder involvement during the design phase of the above projects (1 = Greatest Benefit, 5 = Least Benefit).

Area of Collaboration Rank (1–5)

Cost Certainty & Real-Time Estimating [ ]

Schedule Certainty & Phasing [ ]

Constructability & Quality Control [ ]

Innovation & Scope Betterments (Getting more for the money) [ ]

Overall Risk Reduction / Site Mitigations [ ]

9. Industry Engagement & Proprietary Meetings

If the Government utilizes a delivery method that allows for confidential, one-on-one proprietary meetings during the solicitation phase to collaboratively discuss innovative solutions, would your firm participate?

☐ Yes ☐ No

10. Stipends (Honorariums) & Proposal Costs

In highly collaborative procurement methods (like DBtB), offerors will incur design and proposal development costs. Would the Government's offer of a stipend significantly influence your decision to compete?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If Yes, what is a commercially reasonable stipend amount for a project of this scale? [Insert Amount/Percentage Here]

11. Contract Incentives

What specific contract incentives would best drive innovation and maximize your firm's interest in this project?

☐ Shared Cost Savings (e.g., within a GMP structure)

☐ Award Fee for Quality / Innovation

☐ Other: [Insert Response Here]

12. Program Capability/Interest (Tinker AFB)

Considering the four projects listed in Section 1 for Tinker AFB with a combined estimated value of approx. $320M:

a) Would your firm be interested in proposing as a prime contractor for all four projects?

☐ Yes ☐ No

b) If yes, does your firm have the necessary bonding capability to cover the total estimated program value?

☐ Yes. Please state your firm's current aggregate bonding capacity: $__________________ ☐ No

Part V: Overall Delivery Recommendation

13. Recommended Project Delivery Path

Considering all factors, which project delivery path is optimal for this specific projects? (Provide a response for each project listed in Section 1 above)

☐ Design-Bid-Build (DBB): Scope is simple and fully defined (closer to 30-35%); traditional FAR Part 36 and FAR 15 is sufficient.

☐ 6CM@Risk: Government needs to control the design but needs early builder collaboration.

☐ Design-Build to Budget (DBtB): Requirements are understood enough to drive a competitive (10- 15%), fixed-price solution, use of proprietary meetings to advance design solutions (highly collaborative).

☐ Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Scope is highly complex/undefined. Requires a single contract to collaboratively mature the design before locking in a GMP.

14. Basis of Recommendation & Contracting Vehicle

Please explain your selections above for each project. Indicate if you recommend executing this via a standard FAR-based contract or an Other Transaction Authority (OTA):

15. Evaluation Strategy

For these specific projects, what evaluation criteria do you believe the Government should weigh most heavily to ensure success? (Rank top 3: 1 being most important)

☐ Past Performance

☐ Technical Approach/Design

☐ Price/GMP

☐ Key Personnel & Team Integration

☐ Other: [Insert recommendations here]

16. Commercial Best Practices & Concerns

Please provide any additional comments, overly prescriptive constraints to avoid, or commercial best practices the Government should consider: