Fort Hood Questions Submitted.pdf

Questions Received Specific to Fort Hood

Q.1. RFP §2.2.6(a); Attachment D - Can DA confirm the specific ONCOR transmission voltage available at or immediately adjacent to Parcel 1 (i.e., whether the 345kV line referenced as “adjacent” is within the ONCOR-designated interconnection corridor for this parcel)? Has ONCOR provided any indication of available capacity on the 138kV or 345kV lines serving the Fort Hood area, or is the Offeror expected to conduct an independent interconnection study?

A.1. As provided in Section 2.2.6.a of the RFP, offerors are responsible for conducting their own due diligence.

Q.2. Attachment D; Fort Hood Q&A - The Fort Hood Q&A indicates that the Offeror may develop and operate a substation on the parcel. Is there any restriction on the voltage class (e.g., 345kV/138kV step-down) or physical footprint of an Offeror-constructed substation within the 207-acre parcel? Would DA require review or approval of substation design beyond standard NEPA compliance?

A.2. No known restrictions, but the selected Offeror will be required to coordinate with ONCOR. Fort Hood would review the plans.

Q.3. RFP §2.2.1; §2.2.2; Attachment H - Will DA serve as the lead agency for NEPA review of the proposed data center project, or is the Offeror expected to prepare the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for DA review? What is the anticipated timeline for DA’s NEPA determination following proposal selection and BTA execution?

A.3. 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.4. Att. D (Environmental) - Attachment D references the potential presence of Golden- Cheeked Warbler and Bald Eagle on or near Parcel 1. Has DA or USFWS conducted any recent biological surveys of the parcel that would be available to Offerors, or is the Offeror solely responsible for conducting Section 7 consultation-level surveys? Are there any existing Biological Opinions or Incidental Take Permits applicable to development activity on this parcel?

A.4. The parcel is not known to contain endangered species’ habitat.

Q.5. Attachment D (Utilities) - Attachment D identifies water and wastewater service through Bell County WCID #1 via the City of Copperas Cove. For an air-cooled data center facility with minimal water consumption (domestic/fire suppression use only, no evaporative cooling), can DA confirm whether the existing water infrastructure capacity is sufficient to support the project without requiring the Offeror to fund offsite water infrastructure improvements?

A.5. Questions should be directed to Bell County Water Control & Improvement District (WCID) #1.

Q.6. RFP §7.3.5; Fort Hood Q&A - The RFP indicates a preference for in-kind consideration including infrastructure and road improvements. Can DA provide greater specificity regarding priority in-kind projects at Fort Hood? For example, are there identified road segments, facility needs, or infrastructure deficiencies that the installation has prioritized and would value as in-kind consideration? Is there a published Installation Real Property Master Plan or similar document available to Offerors?

A.6. Road improvements on the west side of Fort Hood along Tank Destroyer Boulevard are the priority for the Installation. In addition to repairs, the road needs to be upgraded to support truck transport as Fort Hood plans to move its truck entry to this area. The Real Property Master Plan would not likely be of value to an offeror.

Q.7. RFP §2.2.6; Attachment C - The sample EUL (Attachment C) references the Lessee’s obligation to comply with Installation rules including antiterrorism and cybersecurity requirements. For a commercial data center not processing classified information and located outside the access control point, can DA clarify the scope of cybersecurity and antiterrorism compliance obligations? Will the Offeror be subject to DFARS 252.204-7012 (NIST SP 800-171) or similar cybersecurity requirements, or are the obligations limited to physical security and access protocols?

A.7. Since the data center will be privately owned, outside of the security gate, and not connected to the Army network, cybersecurity and anti-terrorism requirements will likely not apply. Please refer to Section 2.2.4.d of the RFP concerning physical security requirements.

Q.8. Attachment D; RFP §2.2.3 - Attachment D notes that the parcel falls within an Approach-Departure Clearance Surface from Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport with height restrictions of 375–417 feet. Can DA confirm whether this restriction applies to permanent structures only, or also to temporary construction equipment (cranes, etc.)?

Is FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction) required, and if so, has DA or the airport authority issued any determination regarding data center structures within this corridor?

A.8. This requirement applies to permanent construction; however, FAA Form 7460-1 should be submitted and identify temporary construction equipment.

Q.9. RFP §6.5; Attachment B (BTA) - The BTA sample (Attachment B) requires milestone compliance. Can DA provide guidance on the expected timeline from BTA execution to EUL execution? Is there flexibility in the milestone timetable for projects that propose phased development (e.g., initial phase operational within 12 months, full buildout within 36–48 months)?

A.9. Offerors should propose milestones for DA’s consideration.

Q.10. Attachment D; Q&A-1 - Q&A-1 indicates that the project is subject to PUCT and ERCOT jurisdiction as it is on federal land within Texas. Can DA confirm that a self-generation facility (e.g., natural gas turbines or reciprocating engines for behind-the-meter power) located on the leased parcel would not require a PUCT Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN), given that the generation would serve only the data center and would not be offered for retail sale? Has DA coordinated with ERCOT regarding interconnection procedures for generation assets on federal land?

A.10. DA does not have authority to waive Texas regulatory requirements for energy systems. DA expects ERCOT and/or PUCT rules will apply.

Q.11. RFP §7.1; §7.3 - For the purpose of preparing the financial capability volume, can DA clarify whether a proposal from a special purpose entity (SPE) formed specifically for this project is acceptable, provided the SPE’s parent company or sponsors demonstrate adequate financial capability and experience? Or does DA require that the proposing entity itself have a standalone operating history?

A.11. Evidence of the special purpose entity’s parent company or sponsors having adequate financial capability and experience should be acceptable.

Q.12. Attachment. D (Quality-Distance) - Attachment D references quality-distance arcs associated with ammunition operations at the Railhead. Can DA provide the current quality-distance arc boundaries relative to Parcel 1, including whether any portion of the 207-acre parcel falls within inhabited building distance (IBD) or public transportation route (PTR) arcs? Is ammunition presence at the Railhead continuous or periodic, and is there any planned relocation of munitions operations that could affect the development timeline?

A.12. The parcel does fall inside the quality distance arc for ammunition at the railhead. The presence of ammo at the railhead is infrequent and limited to small arms only.