NAVSTAR_Market_Intelligence_Questionnaire_ JBMDL.pdf

Progressive Design Build Delivery Method Market Intelligence Questionnaire

Purpose:

The purpose of this market intelligence questionnaire is to obtain industry’s professional feedback regarding the project delivery method – Progressive Design Build – for the described requirement. The Government seeks expert feedback on the acquisition strategy, project delivery method, contracting vehicle, risk allocation, and commercial structure for the project.

Project Description:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, has a requirement for the design and construction of a new roughly 26,000 SF hangar at Lakehurst on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

(JBMDL).

The project is anticipated to provide a permanent, secure, and efficiently configured Naval Secure Test and Research (NavSTAR) hangar to support aircraft compatibility testing at the Lakehurst test site on JBMDL. The Government is seeking industry feedback regarding the most effective means to plan, design, procure, construct, commission, and transition the new hangar.

1. NavSTAR Hangar Facility and Utility Systems

• New Hangar Facility:

o Construct a new permanent 25,172 SF footprint steel-frame hangar facility west of Bldg.

685 to support simultaneous 1-in/1-out fixed-wing carrier aircraft compatibility testing.

o Space includes several secure rooms that must be designed, built, and certified to the current ICD 705 standards with all appropriate secure network connections.

o Include a fully climate-controlled maintenance and testing bay, maintenance workshop, two (2) logistics warehouses, a payloads storage room, a security office, and dedicated support space for personnel.

o Ensure the facility incorporates high-performance and sustainable building design features maximizing energy efficiency in accordance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), federal laws, and Executive Orders to meet or exceed useful service life.

• Primary Power and Electrical Distribution:

o Provide a new 750 kW standby generator to supply emergency/backup power to the hangar facility and its secure testing operations.

o Provide complete primary and secondary electrical distribution systems, including transformers, apron lighting, and exterior security lighting.

o Integrate telecommunications infrastructure and secure communications lines directly with the existing installation network.

• Climate Control, Mechanical, and Fire Systems:

o Provide a fully climate-controlled HVAC system tailored for the maintenance/testing bay and personnel support areas, including dedicated environmental controls for secure operational zones.

o Provide potable water lines, sanitary sewer lines, natural gas piping, and a dedicated fire suppression system.

o Ensure all mechanical systems utilize life-cycle cost-effective, high-efficiency systems engineered for long-term utility-support operations.

• Commissioning, OMSI, and Post-Award Support:

o Provide complete system commissioning, cybersecurity feature testing, and operational validation.

o Develop and deliver Operations and Maintenance Support Information (OMSI) technical manuals to the Government.

o Provide Post Construction Award Services (PCAS) to support transition-to-operations.

2. Civil, Structural, and Site Infrastructure

• Site Preparation, Grading, and Drainage:

o Perform site clearing, excavation, and site preparation, including the possibility of 10,000

CY of bulk cut/fill earthwork.

o Implement a comprehensive storm water management facility incorporating Low Impact

Development (LID) design elements to control runoff and protect local ecosystems.

• Foundations and Structural Systems:

o Construct a structural steel-frame building super-structure utilizing a built-up roofing assembly.

o Provide a spread footing reinforced concrete foundation engineered to mitigate local soil bearing and settlement risks.

• Paving and Site Access Improvements:

o Construct a dedicated fixed-wing taxiway to connect the hangar with the adjacent catapult system on the test runway.

o Construct a rotary-wing parking apron, a hangar access apron, and organizational vehicle parking.

o Construct dedicated concrete and asphalt access roads, including curbs, grading, and sidewalks, connecting the facility directly to the existing base road network via Deweese Road and E. Clubhouse Lake Road.

3. Utility Connections, Interfaces, and Cutover Work

• Existing Utility Interfaces:

o Connect the new facility to existing base potable water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electrical, telecommunications, and storm water drainage networks.

o Confirm existing-system capacities, tie-in locations, and coordinate necessary utility outage windows with base public works.

• Operational Continuity & Interface Management:

o Coordinate all tie-in actions directly adjacent to the existing active catapult system on the test runway to ensure zero unplanned disruptions to active aircraft compatibility testing.

o Coordinate utility cutovers and final energization sequences with JBMDL installation operations to maintain continuous mission capabilities.

4. Security, Cybersecurity, and Site Safeguards

• Physical Security and Site Access:

o Provide dedicated physical security features in accordance with Geographic Combatant

Commander policies and Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) for DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.

o Construct roughly 650 LF of 8-foot industrial chain-link perimeter security fencing to establish a secure boundary.

o Install two (2) overhead vehicle slide gates to provide strictly controlled physical access to the secure aircraft operational apron and hangar apron areas.

• Cybersecurity and Secure Information Exchange:

o Provide robust cybersecurity features for all Facility-Related Control Systems (FRCS) in accordance with current DoD criteria.

o Ensure secure communications infrastructure and information systems are fully commissioned, with all technical compliance costs fully integrated under the early-stage conservative risk posture.

o Securely handle and store all project data, design files, and specifications in accordance with federal laws and regulations governing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

Estimated Acquisition Magnitude:

$50,000,000.00 to $75,000,000.00

Delivery Method Under Consideration:

1. Progressive Design-Build (PDB) – Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) Subject to applicable approvals, determinations, and statutory requirements, the Government is considering utilizing an Other Transaction Agreement for this requirement under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

Progressive Design-Build is a collaborative delivery method in which the Government selects the most qualified design-build team to perform Phase 1 design development and preconstruction services.

• Phase 1 – Design and Pre-Construction:

o The Government and selected team will collaboratively advance the design.

o Perform site investigations, constructability reviews, operability and maintainability reviews, open-book cost estimating, integrated scheduling, logistics planning, risk management, and long-lead procurement planning.

o Develop a Basis of Design, design-development package, project controls, commissioning plan, risk register, and priceable project baseline.

o The Government will establish approval gates for major design decisions, long-lead procurement, early works, and final construction pricing.

• Phase 2 – Final Design, Construction, and Commissioning:

o Upon reaching an agreed-upon level of design maturity and completion of agreed scope, schedule, logistics, risk, and cost gates, the Awardee will propose a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) or other agreed final construction price.

o If the Government determines the proposed price is fair and reasonable and all required approvals are obtained, the Government may elect to proceed with Phase 2.

o If the Government and Awardee cannot reach agreement on Phase 2 pricing, the Government retains the right to discontinue the project under the OTA and complete design and construction using an alternative method, subject to agreed terms for Phase 1 compensation, deliverable ownership, and data rights.

2. Alternative Delivery Methods for Industry Comment

The Government is also seeking industry feedback regarding the potential suitability of:

• Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) under an OTA.

• Conventional Design-Build.

• Design-Bid-Build.

• Multiple-prime, separately packaged, or hybrid acquisition approaches.

• Other innovative delivery methods.

Information Requested:

1. Company Profile

• Firm Name

• Address

• Unique Entity ID (UEI), if applicable

• CAGE or NCAGE Code, if applicable

• Point of Contact (Name and Title)

• Phone Number

• Email Address

• Proposed Role:

• Prime Contractor

• Design-Builder

• Construction Manager

• A-E/Design Firm

• Specialty Utility Contractor

• Generator/Switchgear Supplier

• Commissioning Agent

• Subcontractor

Other

2. Responses to the Following Market Research Questionnaire

Submission Instructions:

Please email your responses in PDF format to Michael McCue at michael.l.mccue@usace.army.mil and Francis Cashman at Francis.Cashman@usace.army.mil, US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (NAN-CT), no later than November 12,2026

Market Research Questionnaire

Question 3 – Progressive Design-Build / Early Contractor Involvement

Assume the Government provides performance-based requirements, available site and utility information, and a preliminary Basis of Design rather than complete prescriptive specifications or bridging documents.

The Government is considering a Progressive Design-Build approach consisting of a collaborative Phase 1 and a Phase 2 construction option.

Would this approach provide an appropriate framework to establish a realistic, competitive, and reliable final construction price for the construct the NAVSTAR hangar requirement?

☐ Progressive Design-Build is recommended.

☐ Additional collaborative design development is recommended before final price/GMP.

☐ A competitive Firm-Fixed-Price can be established from the Government’s initial information baseline.

☐ Another delivery method is recommended.

☐ Other.

Please explain.

In your response, address:

1. What minimum level of Government-furnished information would your team require before entering Phase 1?

2. What collaborative mechanisms should the Government use during the first 30–90 days of Phase

1?

☐ Planning Charrette ☐ Joint Site Visit ☐ Target-Value Design Workshop ☐ Existing-System and Utility Interface Validation ☐ Operational Requirements Workshop ☐ Geotechnical ☐ Logistics ☐ Long-Lead Equipment Strategy ☐ Risk and Opportunity Register ☐ Phased Scope Approval Gates ☐ Other

3. What Phase 1 decision gates should be completed before:

a. Releasing long-lead procurement packages.

b. Authorizing early works.

c. Establishing the final construction price or GMP.

d. Beginning Phase 2 construction.

Response:

Question 2 – Other Transaction Authority, Innovation, and Commercial Flexibilities

Subject to applicable approvals and statutory requirements, the Government is considering use of an Other Transaction Agreement for this project.

1. Describe innovative materials, resilient utility technologies, sustainable building technologies, modular construction approaches, prefabricated systems, modern construction processes, digital tools, or other methods that your firm could use to:

a. Improve mission resilience.

b. Accelerate design, procurement, fabrication, shipping, construction, or commissioning.

c. Improve maintainability and lifecycle value.

d. Reduce fuel consumption, operating cost, or maintenance burden.

e. Increase the projected service life of the NAVSTAR hangar

2. Describe your firm’s experience, if any, executing projects under an Other Transaction

Agreement, collaborative delivery arrangement, Progressive Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, target-cost arrangement, or similar commercial model.

3. What traditional commercial, acquisition, schedule, technical, or Government-imposed barriers make it difficult to implement innovative methods on complex military utility or power-generation projects?

4. How could the flexibility of an OTA help overcome those barriers?

5. What specific commercial terms would your firm recommend, if permitted and appropriate, including:

a. Rapid issue-resolution or executive escalation mechanisms.

b. Commercial milestone-payment structures.

c. Open-book cost and audit provisions.

d. Shared contingency or risk-pool mechanisms.

e. Indexed pricing for fuel, steel, shipping, electrical equipment, or other volatile commodities.

f. Incentives for schedule acceleration, commissioning success, lifecycle value, or reduced operational risk.

g. Data rights or intellectual-property provisions associated with innovative systems.

h. Off-ramp, suspension, termination, or transition provisions.

Response:

Question 3 – GMP, Risk Allocation, Long-Lead Procurement, and Pitch Presentation

A. GMP and Risk Allocation

1. In your experience, at what design milestone is it most advantageous to establish a GMP or final construction price for a hangar project with secure spaces?

☐ 35% Design ☐ 50% Design ☐ 65% Design

☐ 90% Design ☐ Draft Construction Documents or Equivalent Design Maturity

2. What deliverables or milestones would your team typically require before establishing a final construction price?

☐ Planning Charrette ☐ Basis of Design ☐ Civil/Site Design ☐ Geotechnical and Permafrost Investigation ☐ Electrical Load and Power-System Studies ☐ Generator and Switchgear Basis of Design ☐ Fuel-System Design ☐ Heating/Mechanical-System Design ☐ Controls and Communications Design ☐ Utility Interface and Tie-In Plan ☐ Phased Cutover and Temporary-Power Plan ☐ Commissioning and Integrated Systems Testing Plan ☐ Integrated Project Schedule ☐ Logistics, Sealift, and Workforce Plan ☐ Draft Construction Documents or Equivalent Design Maturity ☐ Open-Book Cost and Risk Model

3. How should the Government allocate, retain, share, or compensate risks associated with:

C. Off-Ramp and Design Rights

1. If the Government and selected team cannot agree on a final construction price or GMP:

What compensation structure would adequately compensate your firm for Phase 1 efforts?

☐ Fixed Fee ☐ Time-and-Materials ☐ Cost-Reimbursable with Fixed Fee ☐ Milestone Payments ☐ Design Stipend

2. What design rights, ownership interests, licenses, or Government-use rights should apply to Phase 1 deliverables, models, studies, estimates, schedules, procurement data, and technical information?

3. What information would the Government need to transition the project to an alternative delivery team without unnecessary schedule or cost impact?

Question 4 – Bonding, Financial Capability, and Funding Continuity

1. Specify your maximum bonding limits:

a. Single-project bonding capacity:

b. Aggregate bonding capacity:

c. Bonding capacity as sole prime contractor:

d. Bonding capacity as joint-venture partner:

e. Applicable parent-company, surety, or other financial support:

2. Would a phased bonding structure mitigate risk for your firm?

☐ Phase 1 effort bonded initially; Phase 2 construction bonds provided only upon construction authorization.

☐ Full project bonding required at Phase 1 award.

☐ Other.

3. If construction bonds are deferred until Phase 2, what is the maximum duration your surety would hold a commitment open between GMP agreement and Notice to Proceed for construction?

4. Has your surety expressed any reservations or constraints regarding issuing standard Performance and Payment Bonds (SF 25 and SF 25A) for a non-FAR Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a?

5.

6. If funding, execution authority, or construction authorization is delayed after Phase 1, what contractual mechanisms would your firm require to maintain the agreement?

☐ Escalation Clause ☐ Price-Reopener Mechanism ☐ Right to Off-Ramp ☐ Extended Commitment Fee ☐ Storage or Early Procurement Funding ☐ Revised Construction Schedule

Question 5 – Overall Recommendation

Based upon the project information provided and your responses above, what project delivery method would you recommend for the NAVSTAR Hangar?

☐ Progressive Design-Build (OTA) ☐ Construction Manager at Risk (OTA) ☐ Conventional Design-Build ☐ Design-Bid-Build ☐ Multiple-Prime or Separately Packaged Acquisition ☐ Hybrid Approach ☐ Other (Please Specify): ______________________________

Please explain the basis for your recommendation.