Fort Bliss Questions Submitted.pdf

Questions Received Specific to Fort Bliss

Q.1. Attachment F; Bliss Q&A - The Fort Bliss Industry Day Q&A noted that the available acreage was reduced from approximately 6,000 acres to 1,384 acres due to cultural and environmental considerations. Can DA confirm that the remaining 1,384 acres have been cleared of cultural and environmental constraints that would preclude data center development, or should Offerors anticipate that portions of the 1,384-acre parcel may still be subject to development restrictions following further environmental or cultural review?

A.1. The area was chosen for low probability of environmental and cultural constraints, but offerors should anticipate that portions of the 1,384-acre parcel may still be subject to development restrictions following further environmental or cultural review.

The selected Offeror will be required to complete environmental studies and documentation as provided in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the RFP. The selected Offeror will also be required to complete any required mitigation at its sole cost and abide by any development restrictions identified through such studies and documentation.

Q.2. Attachment F (Environmental) - Attachment F states that the site “may have been used for weapons firing prior to the 1970s.” The Industry Day Q&A indicates no known unexploded ordnances. Has DA conducted a Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) assessment or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this parcel? If so, are the results available to Offerors? If not, is the Offeror solely responsible for conducting munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) surveys, and would DA permit phased site characterization concurrent with early design work?

Q.2. A Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) and Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (EA) have not been done for this parcel. The probability of encountering Munition of Explosives Concern (MEC) is low. There is no known history of MEC at the property proposed for lease. USATCES approval for subject construction site regarding MEC (UXO) Clearance was provided on 23 January 2026. DA will permit a phased site characterization concurrent with early design work for the property.

Q.3. Attachment F; Bliss Q&A - El Paso Electric (EPE) provides 115kV service to Fort Bliss, with 345kV transmission available on the range at East Bliss. Can DA clarify the distance from the 1,384-acre parcel to the nearest 345kV transmission interconnection point? Has EPE provided any indication of available transmission capacity or queue position constraints in the Fort Bliss area? Is there any existing infrastructure (e.g., right-of-way corridors, transmission easements) between the parcel and the 345kV line that an Offeror could utilize?

A.3. The 345kV substation is approximately 6 miles from the property, but there are other connection points adjacent to the property. There are easements to El Paso Electric (EPE) in this area. For further information, EPE should be contacted.

Q.4. Attachment F (Utilities) - Attachment F identifies both El Paso Natural Gas Co.

(Kinder Morgan) interstate and ONEOK intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines on the installation, with connection available from Texas Gas Services. Can DA confirm whether lateral gas connections from either pipeline to the 1,384-acre parcel are feasible without crossing restricted military operations areas? Is there an existing gas metering or tap station proximate to the parcel, or would the Offeror need to construct new pipeline lateral infrastructure?

A.4. These lines could be for transmission and/or distribution, and the companies would be able to confirm connection points, fuel capacity, etc. There are no military operations in this area.

Q.5. Attachment F (Water) - Attachment F notes that water is available from Fort Bliss wells and El Paso Water. Given the “Extremely High” water risk designation for the El Paso area, for an air-cooled data center facility with minimal water requirements (domestic and fire suppression use only, no evaporative cooling), can DA confirm whether existing water infrastructure is adequate to support these limited needs? Would the Offeror need to secure an independent water supply agreement with El Paso Water, or could limited domestic water be provided through the installation’s existing system?

A.5. Questions concerning water service should be directed to El Paso Water.

Q.6. RFP §2.2.1; §2.2.2; Att. H - Will DA serve as the lead agency for NEPA review of a proposed data center at Fort Bliss, or is the Offeror expected to prepare the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for DA review? Given the site’s history (potential weapons firing, reduced acreage due to environmental/cultural factors), does DA anticipate that an EIS rather than an EA will be required?

A.6. Please refer to Section 2.2.2 of the RFP concerning compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the roles and responsibilities of DA and the selected Offeror.

Q.7. Attachment F (Environmental) - Attachment F references the presence of Burrowing Owl and Texas Horned Lizard on or near the parcel, as well as potential hazardous materials and archaeological sites. Has DA or USFWS conducted recent biological or archaeological surveys of the 1,384-acre parcel? Are there any existing Programmatic Agreements with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices that would govern cultural resource compliance for this development?

A.7. Archaeological surveys have been conducted and can be provided upon request. No current biological surveys have been conducted, and this will be part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process. Fort Bliss has a current Programmatic Agreement that will require consultation during the NEPA process and can be provided upon request.

Q.8. RFP §7.3.5; Bliss Q&A - The Fort Bliss Industry Day Q&A suggested quality-of-life improvement projects such as renovated barracks and resurfaced roads as preferred in-kind consideration. Can DA provide additional specificity regarding priority in-kind projects at Fort Bliss? Is there a published list of unfunded installation requirements or a prioritized facility investment plan that Offerors may reference when structuring in-kind proposals?

A.8. Please refer to Section 6.5.a of the RFP. An official list of projects will be provided by the Installation during lease negotiations.

Q.9. RFP §6.5; Attachment. B - For a phased development on the 1,384-acre parcel (e.g., 75 MW initial phase with master-planned expansion to 300+ MW over multiple phases), does DA have a preference for how the phased buildout is structured within the EUL and BTA? Would DA consider a single EUL covering the entire 1,384 acres with phased development milestones, or does DA prefer that Offerors propose leasing only the acreage needed for the initial phase with options for additional acreage as phases are triggered?

A.9. The lease to be executed will be for the entire acreage to be leased to the selected Offeror. “Options” will not be provided in the lease for additional acreage in a phased approach.

Q.10. Attachment F; Bliss Q&A - The Industry Day Q&A states there are no access control points for the property and express authorization is not required for access. Can DA confirm that commercial vehicle traffic (including heavy construction equipment, transformer deliveries, and ongoing data center operations traffic) can access the parcel without requiring military escort or passing through installation security checkpoints?

What is the primary road access route to the parcel from US 62/180?

A.10. Commercial vehicle traffic can access the property without military escort or passing through Fort Bliss security checkpoints. There are multiple access roads from US 62/180 through either City or County roads.