Altus AFB Market Research (3).docx

Market Research Questionnaire | Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy Comprehensive Market Research Questionnaire Project Delivery & Acquisition Strategy

Table of Contents

1. Project Information Packet (PIP) Project Overview & Constraints

2. Secure classrooms for classified training

3. Secure briefing and mission planning rooms

4. Simulator computer room

5. Administrative offices

2. Blast booth and Hazmat storage

3. Consolidated Tool Kit

4. Supporting administration offices and break area

5. Airfield pavement and heavy vehicle parking area

2. Aircraft paint back shops

3. Fuel Cell Maintenance back shops

4. Supporting administration offices and break area

5. Separate LOX Plant facility

2. Traffic Check House (467 SF) w/ Canopy as required

3. Visitor Control Center (2004 SF)

4. Vehicle Inspection Facility (1763 SF)

5. Reinforced Security Fencing and Security Systems

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

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)

Aggregate Limit: $[Insert Amount]

☐ Yes as Sub ☐ No ☐ Undecided

☐ 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 scopes 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?

[Insert Response Here]

6. Primary Cost Drivers What specific mission needs or functional requirements do you anticipate driving the most cost?

[Insert Response Here]

7. Schedule/Supply Chain Risk What systems or trades present the most significant schedule risk (e.g., long-lead MEP, local labor)?

[Insert Response Here]

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).

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 these projects?

☐ 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 Altus AFB with a combined estimated value of approx. $280M:

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 these 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):

[Insert Response Here]

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:

[Insert Response Here]