REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / MARKET INTELLIGENCE NOTICE
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 a formal solicitation be issued in the future.
NAICS Code: 237110 – Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures 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), Alaska District, has a requirement for Preconstruction Services and construction for the Utilities and Infrastructure Fighter Town Recapitalization at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER), Alaska. This project executes Phase I of a multi-phase recapitalization program to prepare a 500+ acre site and establish the critical civil, utility, and airfield infrastructure. Due to complex topography and concurrent MILCON construction schedules, the work must be highly sequenced to ensure uninterrupted operational capabilities and facilitate staggered facility occupancy dates. Key deliverables may include:
- Mass Civil Earthworks: Excavation of approximately 10 million cubic yards of material to grade the 500+ acre site.
- Comprehensive Campus Utilities: Installation of a new 20 MVA electrical substation and utility networks (water, sewer, electrical, communications) for 25+ future MILCON buildings.
- Airfield & Logistics Infrastructure: Construction of heavy-duty airfield pavements, a dedicated airfield lighting vault, and a new POL tank farm with a truck fill stand.
- Phased Project Execution: Structured sequencing of utility upgrades and site preparation to allow concurrent facility construction.
Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $400,000,000 to $600,000,000
Planned Acquisition Strategy: Construction Manager at Risk via Other Transaction Authority (OTA)
The Alaska District is conducting market intelligence to assess industry capability and interest in supporting this effort utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a, Facility Construction or Repair: Transactions Other Than Contracts and Grants. This authority is distinct from the Department of Defense prototype OT authorities commonly associated with 10 U.S.C. § 4021 and 4022. This authority is intended for military construction projects that involve testing and experimentation associated with new and emergent construction technologies to achieve potential benefits such as enhanced mission resilience, improved installation support, or cost and schedule reduction. The anticipated delivery method is Construction Manager at Risk (CM@R).
- Phase 1: Pre-Construction Services - The OT Awardee shall assist the Government collaboratively in achieving its goals with respect to the project’s scope, constructability, budget, quality, schedule, and in coordination with the Designer of Record (DOR).
- Phase 2: Construction - Upon reaching an agreed-upon level of design (e.g., 65% to 95%), the Awardee will propose a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). If the GMP is accepted, the Government will exercise construction execution. If a GMP cannot be agreed upon, the Government retains an "off-ramp" to complete the construct the facility via alternative methods.
INFORMATION REQUESTED
1. Company Profile:
- Firm Name, Address, and Point of Contact (Name, Title).
- Phone Number, Email Address, and Unique Entity ID (UEI).
- Socioeconomic Status (Large, Small, 8(a), SDVOSB, etc.).
2. Other Transaction Authority (OTA) & Statutory Compliance:
- Innovative Technologies: The authority for this OTA (10 U.S.C. § 2808a) is focused pecifically designed to bring the fast-paced, iterative, and flexible principles of Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which traditionally governs research and technology prototyping, into the physical infrastructure and military construction (MILCON) domain. 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.
- OTA Experience: Describe your firm's previous experience (if any) executing prototype projects under an OTA.
- Barriers to Innovation: What commercial or Government-imposed barriers currently make it difficult to propose or implement innovative construction technologies on traditional military construction projects? How could the flexibility of an OTA help overcome these barriers?
- What project characteristics make CM@R-OTA particularly advantageous or disadvantageous for this requirement?
3. Construction Manager at Risk/ Early Contractor Involvement:
- Baseline Definition: Delivery method in which a construction manager (CM) is engaged early in the project to provide preconstruction services, including cost estimating, scheduling, and constructability reviews.
- Collaborative Framework: What collaborative mechanisms encourage close cooperation between the owner, CM, and design team, which can minimize costly redesign and delays.
- Describe your experience executing CM@R or other highly collaborative delivery methods.
- How do you approach "open-book" pricing and transparency during Phase 1 (Pre-Construction) to build trust and ensure the Government is receiving fair market value?
4. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Risk Allocation & Compensation:
- Phase 1 Off-Ramp Risk: If the Government and the contractor cannot reach an agreement on the GMP or final design (the "off-ramp"), what specific compensation structures (e.g., stipends, time-and-materials for design effort) would adequately compensate your firm for pre-construction efforts?
- Payment Milestones: Because an OTA allows for flexible payment structures, what milestone payment arrangement during Phase 1 (e.g., monthly progress, completion of design percentages, deliverable-based) best supports your firm's cash flow and resource allocation?
- Data Rights: Under an OTA, data rights and intellectual property can be negotiated. What data rights structure for the final design deliverables (if an off-ramp is taken) would provide a fair balance between the Government's need to construct the facility and your firm's proprietary design methods?
- In your experience with CM@R, at what design milestone (e.g., 35%, 65%, 95%) is it most advantageous to lock in the GMP for a complex airfield and utility infrastructure, and why?
- How do you handle the procurement of long-lead items (e.g., switchgear, specialized fire pumps, large span steel) prior to establishing the final GMP?
- What level of cost growth would you typically expect between conceptual planning and GMP establishment?
5. Horizontal Utilities and Infrastructure Construction Expertise:
- Describe your specific experience with airfield development projects of similar size and complexity, including heavy utility and power infrastructure, large-scale grading, and specialized airfield & fueling assets.
- What are the greatest supply chain, scheduling, or technical risks you foresee for a project of this type at JBER, and how would the CM@R delivery method help mitigate them?
- Are there specific trades, materials, equipment, or subcontractor resources in the JBER/Alaska market that are currently constrained?
- Would early contractor involvement through CM@R materially improve the Government’s ability to manage these market risks? Why or why not?
6. Teaming & Subcontractor Integration:
- Under a CM@R model, how and when do you plan to on-board your critical subcontractors (e.g., Electrical, POL)?
- Will you compete these subcontracts openly during Phase 1, or do you prefer bringing in established partners from day one?
7. Feedback on the Acquisition Strategy & Alternatives:
- Does the proposed CM@R-OTA strategy incentivize your firm to participate? Why or why not?
- Are there alternative acquisition strategies, phasing approaches, or commercial practices the Government has not considered that would yield a better site infrastructure, faster delivery, or lower cost?
- Have current market conditions increased the value of collaborative delivery methods compared to traditional procurement methods? If so, how?
8. Bonding Capability:
- Phased Bonding Approach: Would a phased bonding structure—where the contractor is only required to bond the value of the Phase 1 effort initially, and construction bonds are deferred until the execution of Phase 2—effectively mitigate this risk?
- Surety Timelines: If construction bonds are deferred to Phase 2, what is the maximum duration your surety would hold a commitment open between the finalization of the GMP and the Notice to Proceed for construction?
- Funding Gap Mitigations: If funding for construction is delayed beyond an anticipated window (e.g., 90-180 days post-design completion), what mechanisms (e.g., formalized escalation clauses, right to off-ramp without penalty) would your firm require to maintain the agreement?
- Specify your maximum bonding (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture.
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Please email your responses in PDF format to Jason Linn at Jason.Linn@usace.army.mil and Theresa Afrank at Theresa.M.Afrank@usace.army.mil by 24 July 2026 at 2:00PM Alaska Time.
