Industry Day Follow Up Feedback Request.pdf

Valued Partners, As a follow up to our recent Patton Hall Industry Day, we've attached the presentation slides and attendance list to this communication.

We're eager to continue to build on the conversations we started and would appreciate your feedback on the following questions:

*PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES BY COB TUESDAY, 24 DECEMBER 2025.

1. The Government does not plan to stipulate a contract duration. The contract duration offered will be incorporated into the contract award and contractually binding on the successful offeror. Based upon this approach, please provide feedback to the following items ~

a. How should the government evaluate an offeror’s schedule for logic and realism in comparison to an offeror’s technical approach?

b. What approach to schedule could the Government take (i.e., commercial practice) that would facilitate more successful accountability by both the government and contractor for schedule compliance?

c. A resource loaded schedule is routinely used for progress payments. If a different schedule approach is used, how should progress payments be determined?

d. Schedule is very important to the stakeholder. How should the Government incentivize schedule during proposal evaluation and in performance?

2. What extended procurement lead times is the construction industry experiencing that would be relevant to this project? To mitigate schedule impacts, what flexibilities does the USACE need to consider?

3. The Government currently intends to utilize the design-build to budget collaborative delivery method for the delivery of the Patton Hall Strategic Engagement Center. What innovative approaches should the Government consider which balance cost risk, maximize scope, and deliver faster? How do you think the Government should value the scope that the Government receives for the budget established?

4. Design-Build to Budget Evaluation Criteria. Please provide feedback on the following Phase

I criteria and approach.

a. What submission criteria should the Government request to evaluate and down-select to the three (3) most highly qualified offerors?

b. When reviewing past performance and an offerors success in delivering design-build projects what key elements should the Government evaluate?

c. What are the important aspects the Government should consider when evaluating an offeror’s approach to executing the project?

d. What is a reasonable time to prepare a Phase I proposal?

5. Prior to the issuance of the formal Phase II RFP, the Government intends to hold a series of iterative meetings after issuance of a DRAFT Phase II RFP to the down-selected offerors.

Please provide feedback on the following questions related to criteria and approach.

a. What duration should the Government plan between each meeting to allow sufficient time for offerors to capture feedback and be prepared for the next meeting?

b. The Government plans for three (3) proprietary meetings. As discussed at Industry Day, the goals of each meeting are identified below. What suggestions or changes do you recommend to the below approach?

c. How do we work collaboratively within the proprietary meetings to ensure we are getting alignment on scope, schedule and budget?

d. How would you convey to the government your approach to validate the solution?

e. Do you have concerns with the AE1 participating in the proprietary meetings? If so, how would you like the Government to mitigate those concerns?

f. At the conclusion of the final engagement, the final Phase II RFP will be issued with a proposal due date of not less than 30 days from issuance in accordance with regulation. What is a reasonable timeline to finalize your proposal and submit along with pricing? Greater than 30 days? If so, how long?

g. What criteria should the Government consider when selecting the successful offeror that would support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals?

6. The Government plans to issue a Stipend for unsuccessful Phase II offerors to offset the cost of planning and engineering to support the iterative process and proposal development.

How much should the Government reserve for each Stipend?

7. Small business subcontracting is a required evaluation factor per FAR 15.305. What recommendations do you have for how the Government should evaluate small business participation? Provide specific strategies and recommended subcontracting goals.

8. Do you have any significant concerns with protecting and stabilizing the guardhouse during the demolition of Patton Hall?

9. Project Labor Agreements. Executive Order (E.O.) 14063, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, requires agencies to use project labor agreements in large-scale construction projects greater than $35M to promote economy and efficiency in the administration and completion of Federal construction projects. (emphasis added).

Please provide clear data and information that supports your position to aid in the Government’s analysis. General narratives without supporting information are less helpful to the Government when completing the analysis to determine if a PLA would “advance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters” (FAR 22.503(c)(1)(i)).

a. Would use of a PLA promote economy and efficiency in the administration of this construction project? Why or why not? (Reference FAR 22.503(c)(1)(i))

b. How does the use of a PLA impact subcontracting capability and interest by small businesses?

c. How many construction projects have you proposed on that require a PLA? How many construction projects have you proposed that do not require a PLA?

d. If you indicate an interest during market research to propose on a construction project, how often do you submit a proposal? What factors do you weigh to determine your go – no-go decision at the time the requirement is solicited in comparison to when market research is conducted?

Your responses will directly inform how we improve the Design Build to Budget approach and develop innovative processes for the future, ensuring we meet the evolving needs of our stakeholders.

Please submit your responses to robert.l.ferebee@usace.army.mil and tamara.c.bonomolo@usace.army.mil by COB, Tuesday 24 December 2025.

*All interested parties are HIGHLY encouraged to review updates and provide feedback accordingly to the SAM.gov notice listed below for Patton Hall New Strategic Engagement Platform at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Virginia:

• Revised Sources Sought: W912DR25R17WQ https://sam.gov/opp/e73c93c561204f5da24672b0d5da3aeb/review

*Please carefully review the instructions found in the above notice and provide the requested comments/feedback accordingly.

mailto:robert.l.ferebee@usace.army.mil mailto:tamara.c.bonomolo@usace.army.mil