Attachment E - combined questions for industryV1.pdf

Reverse Industry Day: Consolidated Question Set

Innovative Methods — European Contracting Community Supporting USG Construction

Question Tiers:

[T1] = Most important to the Government; assume it will be asked [T2] = Very Important to the Government; it will be asked should time allow [T3] = Important to the Government; may be asked should time allow

Italicized Questions are Breakout Session questions.

CONTRACTING (CT)

Selection, Qualification & Competition

1. [T2] Two-Step Qualifications-Based Selection. Our selection uses a Request for White Papers (qualifications-based, ~20 pages) followed by interactive "Pitch" sessions, with price addressed only after a single partner is chosen. Does this approach give your team a fair and sufficient opportunity to convey your true capabilities and collaborative culture? What would make the Pitch sessions more meaningful and less of a "performance"?

2. [T1] Accessibility for a Mixed European Base. For European and host-nation firms unfamiliar with U.S. acquisition norms, is a qualifications-first, English-language pitch process accessible? What would help local and joint venture (HN/U.S.) teams compete on equal footing rather than narrowing competition to a few U.S. primes?

3. [T1] Bid & Proposal Investment Across Borders. Because Phase 1 award leads to a sole-source follow-on for construction without further competition, the stakes of initial selection are very high. Given cross-border pursuit costs (translation, dual legal review, inter-country travel), how does this affect your willingness to compete? What up-front information would justify that investment, and what concerns do you have about pursuit costs?

4. [T1] Local Subcontracting & Supply-Chain Reality. OCONUS construction depends heavily on local subs, materials, and labor. How does the qualifications-based selection model and open-book estimating interact with the way European prime/sub relationships and local procurement actually work, and what should the Government expect regarding the depth of the local market available to support an OTA approach?

Open-Book Estimating & Pricing

1. [T1] Open-Book Transparency. This model depends on transparent "open book" estimating, including subcontractor pricing. What proprietary or competitive concerns arise from sharing native estimate detail with the Government? What protections may be required by your firm or subcontractors? How can the agreement be structured to reduce cost risk contingencies to the greatest extent possible? What would enable you to reduce preconstruction (Phase 1) or construction (Phase 2) contingencies?

2. [T2] Currency & VAT Within Open-Book. With costs incurred largely in euros (or other local currency) but appropriations in U.S. dollars, how do you handle currency exposure within an open-book framework over a multi-year build — and would you prefer a currency-adjustment mechanism, dual-currency split pricing, or hedging?

3. [T1] GMP Negotiation as Joint Problem-Solving. The Phase 2 price is set through a negotiated Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) benchmarked against an Independent Government Estimate. What is your firm’s experience with this form of negotiation? What lessons learned can you share from your firm’s experiences?

4. [T1] GMP Off-Ramp & Design Reuse. If parties cannot agree on a fair, in-budget price, the Government retains the design and may competitively procure construction separately. How does this off-ramp affect your willingness to invest fully in Phase 1, and how should design ownership, licensing, and reuse rights be handled? Are you able to jointly share ownership of the open book estimate with the Government? Would sharing ownership of the estimate affect the level of detail you are willing to provide?

5. [T2] Funding Arrangements. Does interaction with NSIP or host-nation co-funding approval cycles affect your willingness to share innovative solutions in Phase 1?

6. [T1] Estimate Format. During standard design phase efforts, USACE uses a modified version of the Uniformat estimate structure. What is the estimate structure/format you would use for Open Book Estimating? Would you be able to select from a list of standardized estimate formats (e.g. Masterformat, Uniformat, DIN 276, Microsoft Excel) for this process?

7. [T2] Level of Detail. How detailed are your estimates at any particular design phase (15%, 35%, 65%)? Are you able to break out individual work items? What level of detail can you provide on labor, equipment, and material pricing?

8. [T1] Sub-Contractors & Vendor Quotes. How many vendor quotes do you typically request on pricing for materials? What would be a best practice to ensure a high quality and reliable sub-contractor base while still ensuring competitive pricing?

9. [T1] Overheads, Profit, & Mark-ups. What overheads and mark-ups do you use? What level of detail is standard in open book estimating to share with clients? What level of detail do you expect from your sub-contractors?

10. [T1] Value Engineering. Have you used a formalized Value Engineering and Value Management process with Progressive Design Build? At what phase of pre-construction was that most effective?

PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PM)

Risk & Contingency

1. [T3] Joint Risk Register & Contingency. We plan to use a shared Risk Register with transparent risk pools and defined criteria for contingency use.

Do you treat the risk register as proprietary and confidential? How can USACE best reduce risk (quality, schedule, cost, budget) and increase efficiency during the construction execution phase? For example: What performance metrics, reporting requirements, and quality assurance approaches do you recommend to ensure quality, cost-effectiveness and safety without creating excessive administrative burden?

Schedule, Fast-Tracking & Long-Lead Procurement

1. [T1] Fast-Tracking, Long-Lead Procurement & Cross Border Commitment Risk. The model encourages advancing critical-path packages (early site prep, foundations, long-lead MEP equipment) to a "Ready-for- Construction" state before GMP. What are the realities of long-lead procurement and supply-chain volatility in this region — including cross-border customs, CE marking/certification, and lead times — and how should we structure early-works packages to account for them? If a project later off-ramps or de-scopes after you have authorized long-lead items, how should you be made whole for cross-border long-lead commitments, and what funding instrument gives you enough certainty to commit your supply chain?

Roles, Governance & Partnering

1. [T2] Government Roles & Decision Authority. The model replaces the ACO/COR with an Administrative Agreements Officer (AAO) and phased Agreements Officer Representatives (Design-Phase and Construction-Phase AORs). What level of decision-making authority and responsiveness do you need from these representatives to keep a fast-track schedule moving, and where have unclear authority limits caused you problems before?

2. [T2] Interface with Host-Nation Construction Authorities. In many European countries, a host-nation construction agent or Bauamt-type authority sits in the approval chain. How should the AAO/AOR roles interface with HN construction authorities to avoid duplicative direction and keep decisions timely?

3. [T2] Collaborative Governance & Issue Resolution. Success depends on a non-adversarial, "project-first" culture and an Issue Resolution Ladder with 24– 48 hour elevation timeframes. What behaviors, governance structures, or "rules of engagement" most determine whether collaborative delivery succeeds or breaks down?

4. [T2] Partnering Across Cultures & Languages. In a multinational setting (U.S. PM, European prime, host-nation subs and labor), what cultural, language, and business-norm differences most often erode trust, and what partnering practices have proven effective on your prior NATO or U.S.-in- Europe projects?

5. [T2] Government Readiness in Theater. Success depends on the Government adopting a non-FAR mindset and resisting reversion to FAR-like behavior. In an OCONUS European setting — with HN construction agents, U.S. forces stakeholders, and local approval authorities in the loop — what Government behaviors, staffing gaps, coordination failures, or currently employed pre- or post-award processes/requirements, most undermine collaborative delivery, and what would give you confidence the team can administer the Agreement as a true commercial partner?

Industrial Base

1. [T1] Broadening the European Industrial Base. For established European firms that don't typically pursue U.S. work, which barriers persist (SAM registration, security/clearance and base-access requirements, ITAR/export-control concerns, unfamiliar terms), and what single change would most encourage you and your key local subcontractors to compete?

ENGINEERING (EN)

Innovation

1. [T1] Removing Government Bureaucracy. For contractors that have past performance experience with the USG, what are three pre- or post-award processes/requirements, currently employed by USACE, that, in your professional opinion, would hinder the stated goals of this new approach, namely delivering MILCON facilities in shorter timeframes and with less cost growth?

2. [T1] Incentivizing Innovation. How can we best incentivize innovation from industry? How can we tailor the selection process to leverage and reward innovation? How can the selection be optimized to improve cost/time savings through innovative solutions to technical requirements (e.g., ICD 705)?

3. [T3] Technology Driven Decision Making. How are you seeing technology (e.g., Digital Twins, BIM, AI) being integrated into these collaborative models to improve decision-making and transparency?

Project Scope & Criteria Definition

1. [T1] Scope Definition. What level of scope definition (e.g., DD Form 1391, planning charrette reports, concept designs, etc.) is optimal for defining project requirements in the RFQ (Request for qualifications)? Are concept designs beneficial, or do they limit your innovation and creativity?

2. [T1] Criteria Definition. What level of criteria definition is optimal for defining project requirements in the RFQ? Is a list of UFCs appropriate or do specific mission-critical requirements within each UFC need to be defined?

3. [T1] Preconstruction SOS. There are certain aspects of the design that we want to review to ensure U.S. interests are accurately represented in the design. However, we do not want to dictate means and methods or limit innovation. What level of definition is optimal for the scope of preconstruction services? What direction do you need from the Government? How little is too little? How much is too much?

4. [T2] Criteria Changes. What is the best way to incorporate criteria that we know will change during the delivery of preconstruction services (e.g., ICD 705

SCIF acoustic/RF-shielding)? How can we write the agreement to best enable changes to criteria? What challenges do you foresee implementing criteria that may change? Are there any mitigations that would reduce the impact of these challenges?

5. [T2] Mission Changes. What is the best way to incorporate mission or operational changes during delivery of preconstruction services? How can we write the agreement to best enable flexibility to user operational or mission changes?

6. [T1] US and HN Code Implementation. The project must meet both US and Host Nation codes and criteria. Conflicts that arise between these codes will need to be resolved during the delivery of preconstruction services. The intent is to find resolutions with the least cost and time impacts that still meet the mission and operational needs of the project. How can we write the agreement to best enable flexibility in the application of criteria? What challenges do you foresee implementing the two sets of criteria? Are there any mitigations that would reduce the impact of these challenges?

Teaming & Local Capacity

1. [T1] PDB Use Within the HN. Has this method been used in the Host Nation? What specific challenges or lessons can be learned to inform our process?

2. [T1] Integrated Team Formation & Local Capacity. Given the requirement for early integration of construction expertise during design, how readily can the European/host-nation industrial base form integrated design-build teams? Are there gaps in local subcontractor or specialty-trade capacity we should understand before structuring a solicitation, and where does the Government most often fail to bring construction personnel "to the table" early enough?

3. [T1] Teaming Relationships: Do you have existing teaming arrangements/partnerships for design-build delivery in the European Market?

Risks

Codes, Permitting & Fast-Tracking Feasibility

1. [T1] Host-Nation Codes & Permitting Reality. How do host-nation building codes, environmental requirements, labor regulations, local inspection regimes, and permitting timelines affect design-development and fast-tracking. What permitting/approval risks most threaten fast-tracking?

What is the appropriate time for permitting packages to be submitted and reviewed? Assume the HN is Germany.

2. [T1] Design Maturity for GMP. What level of design maturity (e.g., 60% Design Development, 90% Construction Documents) is the optimal point to establish a reliable and fair GMP that minimizes the need for excessive contractor contingency? How does this impact fast-tracking? How does this impact ability to pre-order long-lead items? Do permits impact ability to negotiate GMP?

3. [T2] GMP and Fast-tracked Construction. Does overall GMP need to be negotiated before releasing phase 2 services for fast-tracked construction?

Can GMP be negotiated on components of the project separately to facilitate fast-tracked construction? What level of design maturity is the optimal time to identify which components of the facility will be fast-tracked?

Allowances

1. [T1] Allowance Shared Savings. The Government proposes using Allowances with a "Shared Savings" mechanism for highly unpredictable risks (such as ICD 705 SCIF acoustic/RF-shielding mitigation or third-party utility connection fees).

i. What is an industry-standard shared savings percentage split (e.g., 50/50, 60/40, etc.) that would successfully incentivize the Design-Builder to drive down costs?

ii. What are the major project risks that impact cost where an Allowance/Shared Savings structure would be beneficial?

OFFICE OF COUNSEL (OC)

1. [T2] Proprietary Cost Data Under GDPR. Open book estimating requires sharing your native WBS, Schedule of Values, and subcontractor quotes, which may include personal data subject to GDPR. How should the Agreement protect both your commercially proprietary pricing and personal data, and where do U.S. transparency expectations collide with EU data-protection obligations?

2. [T2] Local Labor Law vs. U.S. Labor Expectations. Davis-Bacon does not apply OCONUS, but host-nation labor law, works councils, collective bargaining agreements, posted-worker rules, and EU social legislation do.

What is your understanding of which labor obligations flow down in an

OCONUS OTA construction Agreement, and where do you need clarity to protect yourself and your local subcontractors?

3. [T1] Single Greatest Compliance Uncertainty. Beyond the questions above, what single host-nation compliance issue — e.g. SOFA application, VAT, social-insurance/posted-worker rules, or prevailing local wage — creates the most uncertainty in pricing and executing a U.S.-funded OTA project in your country, and how would you like to see it addressed in the Agreement?

4. [T1] Performance Security & Guarantee Instruments. U.S. Government construction contracts typically rely on performance bonds or bank letters of guarantee (BLG) as the standard security instrument. European commercial practice often varies by jurisdiction and relies on surety products that differ from the U.S. bonding market. In your experience, what is the actual market standard for performance security on European construction projects, is a BLG readily available and priced competitively in your market, and does moving to an OTA structure (versus a traditional FAR-based contract) change what security instrument is customary, required, or even obtainable from local or host-nation banks?

5. [T2] VAT, Host-Nation Taxes & Duty Relief. European projects often implicate VAT, local payroll/social charges, and customs duties, often with SOFA-based relief requiring specific documentation. How should the open-book estimate and GMP treat VAT and tax relief, and what is your concern if relief is delayed, denied, or clawed back by host-nation tax authorities?

6.[T1] Not at FAR-based Contract. This agreement is governed by its negotiated commercial terms rather than the standard FAR clauses. Do you foresee any challenges aligning this flexible commercial framework with your corporate risk policies?

7. [T2] OTA Within Host-Nation Law & SOFA. The negotiated Agreement may have to coexist with mandatory, non-waivable host-nation construction, labor, and safety law and the applicable SOFA/supplementary agreement.

Where have you seen conflicts between a U.S.-style instrument and HN mandatory law, how have you reconciled them, and how should this Agreement allocate the risk of HN legal requirements that are unknown or change mid-performance?

8. [T1] Localizing the OTA Article Library. The Government plans a pre-drafted Division 01 and an "OTA Article Library" as negotiation baselines.

Which articles most need a European variant (e.g., VAT/tax treatment, host-nation insurance and bonding regimes, local warranty/defects-liability periods, and works-council/labor rules)?

CONSTRUCTION (CD):

1. [T2] Execution Risk. Where do you see the most risk during construction execution?

2. [T1] CQM Process. How does the construction quality management process differ compared to the USACE’s traditional 3-phase QA-QC process used on FAR-based contracts?

3. [T1] Schedule management. How does the construction schedule management process differ compared to the USACE’s traditional schedule management process used on FAR based contracts?

4. [T1] Design Process. How does the Construction Team’s engagement during the design process differ compared to the Construction Team’s typical involvement during the design process?

5. [T2] Change Management. How does change management differ with OTA contracts compared to FAR based contracts?