Market Intelligence FY26_FY27 Barracks (Final).pdf

Title: Sources Sought/Market Intelligence: FCKY UEPH Barracks – Use of CM@Risk using Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

Notice ID: W912QR-CMRISK-Campbell

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / MARKET INTELLIGENCE NOTICE

This is a Request for Information (RFI) for market intelligence and for informational purposes only. This announcement does not constitute a Solicitation or a Request for Proposal (RFP), and no solicitation is currently available. Participation in this RFI is strictly voluntary. The Government will not be obligated to award any agreement or contract because of this RFI, nor will it reimburse respondents for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of information. Submitting a response will not affect a firm’s ability to submit a proposal should formal solicitation be issued in the future.

NAICS Code: 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

(Note: While Other Transaction Authority is not subject to FAR-based small business regulations, this NAICS code is provided for market research to help the Government understand the size and demographics of the interested industrial base.)

Small Business Size Standard: $45 Million

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Louisville District, has a requirement for the design and construction of two (2) Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing Barracks at Fort Campbell, KY. Each barracks will accommodate 260 personnel. The scope of work consists of furnishing all necessary equipment, materials, labor, supervision, quality control, and supplies to deliver two fully functional maintenance barracks.

Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $205,000,000

ACQUISITION STRATEGY UNDER EVALUATION: Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) via Other Transaction Authority (OTA).

The Louisville District is evaluating a Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) delivery strategy utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a. This authority authorizes transactions other than standard contracts to carry out facility repair and construction projects—including planning, design, engineering, piloting, and execution—enabling early contractor involvement, commercial pricing transparency, and schedule and cost efficiencies.

Currently, the Government has advanced the design to 100%. Therefore, the Government is utilizing this RFI to assess industry capability, interest, and the advantages of utilizing Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

The CM@Risk Course of Action (10 U.S.C. § 2808a):

This path allows USACE to execute a construction project where the design is complete but contractor feedback is received on the design documents prior to award of the guaranteed maximum price (GMP).

Phase 1 Preconstruction: The builder is hired during Phase 1 to act as an expert consultant by completing constructability reviews and VE studies of the current design using open book pricing to establish a GMP, real-time market data and MII (MCACES

2nd Generation) cost comparisons.

Phase 2 Construction: Once the preconstruction readiness reviews are complete and the MII estimate validates the open-book pricing, the agreement transitions to Phase 2, where the builder goes "At-Risk" to construct the facility under a Guaranteed Maximum

Price (GMP). The DOR retains design liability, but the contractor drives constructability and assumes responsibility for layout, schedule, and trade coordination.

The CM@Risk Pricing Structure:

Preconstruction Services Fee: A fixed-price or time-and-materials amount paid to the contractor strictly to fund their time spent completing the pre-construction readiness reviews.

The Target Fee: The contractor’s transparent profit margin for managing the actual construction, bid competitively upfront.

The GMP: The absolute ceiling for the construction phase (Validated Direct Costs +

Target Fee + Shared Contingency).

PHASED EXECUTION PLAN

Phase 1: Preconstruction Services Agreement (CM@Risk Advisory)

• Solicitation (White Papers): The Solicitation would likely include the 100% design. The Deliverable is anticipated to be a concise 5-10 page White Paper.

Evaluation Criteria will likely include Corporate capability and experience with collaborative project delivery methods ( including CM@Risk, Progressive Design-

Build (PDB) and/or Design-Build to Budget (DBtB)) under an OT framework;

preconstruction approach (how the firm plans to collaborate with the

Government's to complete the pre-construction readiness reviews, identify value-engineering opportunities, and mitigate supply-chain risks); proposed estimated

Target Fee (for construction) and Preconstruction Services Fee.

• The Pitch Meeting (Oral Presentations): A 90-minute pitch where the contractor must bring their Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and their Preconstruction

Manager. The Government team assesses how well the contractor's team will integrate with the Government. The OT is initially awarded and funded only for the

Preconstruction Services Fee.

• Pre-Construction Readiness Review: The contractor’s Preconstruction team sits with the Government and the DOR. Because the design is not locked, they can actively change it. They perform value engineering, finalize equipment selections, and ensure the drawings are 100% constructible.

• Open Book Pricing vs. MII: As the design reaches 100%, the contractor conducts open-book market outreach. The Government and contractor review actual sub-bids together. USACE cost estimators finalize the Independent Government

Estimate (IGE) using the MII software to validate costs and establish the GMP base.

Phase 2: Construction Execution Agreement (Going "At-Risk")

• Execution: The Agreements Officer (AO) executes a bilateral modification to the

OT Agreement, incorporating the GMP and funding the physical construction.

• Risk Allocation: Under CM@Risk, the contractor is now "At-Risk." While the DOR retains design liability, the contractor collaborates to identify constructability conflicts during Phase 1. During Phase 2, while the DOR still owns fundamental engineering failures, the contractor loses the ability to claim "defective design" for constructability issues, material delays, or coordination errors, because they were explicitly paid to help finalize those exact decisions using market and MII data during Phase 1.

INFORMATION REQUESTED

Interested parties are requested to respond to the following questions to help shape the final acquisition strategy:

Company Profile:

Q1. Firm Name Q2. Address Q3. Point of Contact (Name, Title) Q4. Phone Number Q5. Email Address Q6. Unique Entity ID Q7. CAGE code Q8. Socioeconomic Status (Other Than Small, Small, 8(a), SDVOSB, etc.)

Q9. Participating Role (Prime Contractor, Subcontractor, Design Firm, Other)

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) & Statutory Compliance:

Q10. Innovative Technologies: The authority for this OTA (10 U.S.C. § 2808a) is focused on prototyping with new or emergent construction technologies. Describe any innovative materials, methods, or technologies your firm could propose for a project of this scale that could lead to cost savings, schedule acceleration, or enhanced facility performance and resilience.

Q11. OTA Experience: Describe your firm's previous experience (if any) executing prototype projects utilizing OTA.

Q12. What project characteristics make CM@Risk-OTA particularly advantageous or disadvantageous for this requirement?

CM@Risk & Design-Assist Involvement:

Q13. Design Maturity & Early-Builder Benefits: Given the scale of this barracks project

($205M), what are the primary benefits of bringing on a CM@Risk builder prior to awarding the GMP, and how can the Government maximize those benefits?

Q14. CM@Risk Experience: Describe your experience executing Construction

Management at Risk (CM@Risk) or other highly collaborative delivery methods, particularly where you served as an advisor before going "at-risk".

Feedback on the Acquisition Strategy & Alternatives:

Notice ID: W912QR-CMRISK-Campbell

Q15. Does the proposed CM@Risk-OTA strategy incentivize your firm to participate?

Why or why not?

Q16. Two-Phase Selection Process & Proposal Burden: Does the proposed two-phase selection framework (Phase 1: Concise 5-10 page White Paper; Phase 2: 90-minute Pitch

Meeting/Oral Presentation) provide an efficient mechanism for your firm to demonstrate its qualifications and CM@Risk capabilities without creating an undue proposal cost burden? What specific submission requirements, page limits, or response timelines would encourage robust competition from top-tier firms?

Q17. Are there alternative acquisition strategies, phasing approaches, or commercial practices the Government has not considered that would yield a better facility, faster delivery, or lower cost?

Q18. Differentiating Evaluation Criteria: To differentiate high-performing CM@Risk collaborative builders from traditional low-bid general contractors, what evaluation criteria

(e.g., past collaborative-delivery/CM@Risk performance, key personnel/superintendent experience, trade-partner/subcontractor open-book engagement strategy, or proposed

General Conditions fees) should carry the greatest weight in the Government's evaluation?

Teaming and Subcontracting Integration:

Q19. Given the scale of this project and ongoing construction demands in the Fort

Campbell region, how does your firm assess the current availability and capacity of local skilled trades and subcontractors? What strategies will you employ to attract and retain high-quality trade partners?

Q20. Under a GMP structure, how does your firm mitigate and manage subcontract default risk? Do you typically utilize Subcontractor Default Insurance (SDI), require subcontractor payment and performance bonds, or use other mitigation strategies?

Bonding Capability:

Q21. Project Bonding Capacity: Specify your maximum bonding (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture.

Q22. Phased Bonding Approach: Given the distinct phases of the CM@Risk OTA structure, would a phased bonding approach - where your firm is only required to bond

Notice ID: W912QR-CMRISK-Campbell the value of the Phase 1 preconstruction services initially, with full construction

Performance and Payment bonds deferred until the bilateral execution of Phase 2 (GMP)

Q23. Does your firm see any cash flow or milestone payment schedule concerns under an OTA framework for a project of this magnitude? What commercial payment terms do you recommend for Phase 2?

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Submission Requirement: Responses should be compiled into a single document that is no more than ten (10) pages long. The document can then be submitted via email to Mr. Ranzel Merideth at Ranzel.L.Merideth@usace.army.mil.

Please submit your responses by 13 October 2026 at 1200 Eastern Time.

Any questions regarding the RFI’s can be submitted directly to Mr. Ranzel Merideth via email.

The questionnaire is the Government's primary mechanism for obtaining detailed market intelligence and addresses industry capability, experience, technical capabilities, construction considerations, and recommended OTA and commercial practices.

The Government welcomes candid industry feedback and recommendations regarding commercial practices, agreement terms, project phasing, risk sharing, governance, pricing approaches, and other considerations that could improve successful execution of this project under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a.

Interested firms are encouraged to add themselves to the Interested Vendors List associated with this announcement on SAM.gov to receive future updates.

Note: Do not submit proprietary trade secrets, protected technologies, or classified information in your response. All feedback received will be handled as public market research to shape the Government's final acquisition approach.

mailto:Ranzel.L.Merideth@usace.army.mil