Walla Walla District Dworshak Unit 4

Walla Walla District Dworshak Unit 4

Industry Day One-on-One Sessions Announcement

Registration and General Information

W912EF26RSN15

USACE Walla Walla District is developing multiple acquisitions to expand the generation capability of the Dworshak Dam Powerhouse by installing a fourth generating unit (Main Unit 4) and associated powerhouse structure extension.  Dworshak Dam is located on the Clearwater River in Ahsahka, ID, approximately 50 miles east of Lewiston, ID. Additional scope of work can be found on the following pages along with a list of questions and desired information the Government would like to learn about your company regarding this project.  This information is intended to provide you awareness of what the Government would like to learn.  However, you are encouraged to share more information if you believe it will help the Government in developing the solicitation packages.

The multi-functional team within the Walla Walla District and Hydroelectric Design Center will be conducting one-on-one sessions May 4-5, 2026, and May 11, 2026, in order to share information on the government’s requirements and preliminary acquisition strategy, as well as to obtain industry feedback.  One-on-one sessions will be conducted virtually.  Each company will be allotted one (1) hour for the one-on-one session. Please limit the number of company representatives to no more than three (3) attendees in order to facilitate effective one-on-one dialogue.  The purpose of the one-on-one session is to answer questions and allow the government to obtain specific feedback from your company’s representative.  Marketing/capability briefings are not authorized during the one-on-one session.

For our planning purposes, you are requested to provide the following information if you are interested in participating in the one-on-one session:

1. Name of Company
2. Name of each individual attending, his or her contact number and e-mail addresses

Please provide the above information to jani.c.long@usace.army.mil and Leanne.r.walling@usace.army.mil by April 28, 2026.  Please include the title, “Company Name – Industry Day Attendees” in the email subject line.  You will be notified of your scheduled one-on-one session within two (2) days of receipt of your request. 

If you have questions you would like to submit in advance, please provide them to the above e-mail addresses no later than April 28,2026. If you consider the questions proprietary, please clearly mark them as such.

Note: Project Labor Agreement (PLA) questions will need submitted by notice closing date (April 28,2026) see submission requirements for responding at the end of this notice.

Summary of Scope of Work:

The Government intends to accomplish this work in a single, firm fixed-price procurement with a proposed work breakdown and general scope as follows:

1. Powerhouse Building Extension and Site Development – Design and construction of preparation of site, construction of powerhouse substructure, and erection of functional building envelope for powerhouse extension.
    
2. Turbine-Generator – Design, supply, installation and commissioning of a hydroelectric generator with an approximate rating of 300MW.
    
3. Balance of Plant – Design and construct auxiliary mechanical and electrical systems to support power generation and powerhouse operations.
    
4. Contractor Access and Work Hour limitations: The office building will be occupied throughout the duration of the project.  Normal business hours for US Army Corps personnel will be 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday.  On-site construction activities will be limited to specific areas.
    
5. On-site construction is estimated to begin in June 2028.

Existing Conditions, Constraints & Challenges

1. The Government intends to extend the configuration and design of the existing powerhouse for Main Unit 4. 
2. Operation of the existing powerhouse and associated operations and maintenance activities will continue throughout all construction related to the addition of Main Unit 4.  Contractor operations must minimize disruption to Government operations and personnel.
3. Disruption of the power generating capacity of existing units will not be allowed except during specific defined times when the units are out of use. These periods will be referred to as “outages.” Additional outages necessary for construction may be coordinated by the contractor, subject to Government approval.
4. The project site has very limited room for contractor operations and equipment staging adjacent to the powerhouse. Access to the powerhouse is currently through a single road which has minimal turnaround and parking spaces. Remote sites, either Government- or Contractor-provided, will likely be necessary for work crew parking, equipment staging, office trailers and tool storage.
5. Contractor means and methods including the construction of temporary in-water structures in the tailrace or necessary site development of the skeleton bays may be considered to reduce cost and schedule impact of site constraints.
6. Should it prove advantageous to project cost and/or schedule by providing additional site access, an unmaintained roadbed from the dam’s original construction remains along the east bank of the North Fork Clearwater River between the town of Ahsahka and Dworshak Dam’s spillway.
7. Transportation and delivery routes for large or heavy equipment may be limited by the capacity of bridges and other public transportation infrastructure.
8. The work will occur adjacent to, over, or in water. Environmental controls will be critical to avoid oil spills and other impacts.
9. There may be other prime contractors on-site at the same time for other proposed procurements. Contractors will need to coordinate between other contractors and with the Government

General Questions

1. The government will be utilizing a Design-Build contract. What are industry’s recommendations to make this approach most successful?
2. What are the primary risks that drive contractor cost and pricing in a design-build environment? How could the government’s design or contracting terms mitigate those risks?
3. The government is especially concerned about cost potentially introduced by prime contractor markup on top of turbine-generator manufacturer pricing. What strategies could your firm use to minimize costs due to tiered markups with a combined contract of this size?
4. What are some areas the government should focus on to minimize risk that would lead to increased proposal pricing?
5. Do you have existing relationships and past experience with other firms that allow your company or team of companies to be best suited to the full scope of work?
6. How would a Defense Priorities Allocation System (DPAS) rating for this contract influence your execution, proposal and willingness to bid for this project?
7. Including both design and construction phases of this contract and assuming the government-furnished GSU transformer and new intake gate/cylinder do not constrain the schedule, what duration would you expect for this contract from award to the completion of turbine-generator commissioning?
8. Can you provide an estimate of the maximum onsite workforce necessary to perform this contract, and a quantified projection of how that may change over the contract period?
9. Besides the turbine-generator and provision of the government-furnished GSU transformer, what long-lead items would you want to track most closely?
10. Are there other long-lead items besides the GSU transformer recommended to be furnished by the government outside of this contract to accelerate schedule or mitigate other risks?
11. What Contracting considerations does industry want to highlight to maximize participation in this design-build solicitation? (ex. correct NAICS codes, etc.)
12. What length of proposal time for the Phase 2 solicitation would your organization request, given the scope?
13. How much more likely would your organization be to participate in this solicitation if a stipend was offered for proposals developed for the Phase 2 solicitation?
14. The government has developed a Revit model of the existing facility and is considering providing this as a reference during solicitation. Is this preferred? What other documentation of existing conditions would the design-build contractor request?
15. Would you recommend an advance industry review of the solicitation before the RFP is issued? If so, what duration for that review would you recommend?

Design Process Questions:

1. The scope of work encompasses three main elements: powerhouse extension and site work, turbine-generator, and balance of plant equipment. How would you structure the post-award design + review process and/or divide scope among design packages to enable fast-tracking of the critical path?
2. Where design will address scope that is not prescribed by code, the government anticipates providing baseline specs that may in some cases be editable by the contractor’s designer. What experience can you share on the best way to clearly establish contractually required scope from draft spec language intended to be modified to fit the contractor’s proposed design?

Powerhouse Extension and Site Work Questions:

1. Would site development of the unused skeleton bays adjacent the project site seem likely to be advantageous to cost or schedule of the overall project?
2. What major temporary features would you anticipate the need to incorporate in your development plan for the construction site and support areas? (ex. batch plant, workforce camp, warehousing, fabrication facilities)
3. The existing U3 500kV lines are 90’ to 100’ from the top of the parking lot (green). They are being relocated prior to or as part of this contract as shown below (red). The new lowest location will be the take off lines which are approximately 142’ from the parking lot surface. What activities are expected to require significant line outages (greater than 1 day). What is an approximate duration of the requested outage?
4. What method of delivery would you anticipate employing to deliver the necessary quantities of concrete and other materials into the constrained construction site (ex. tram, cableway, truck & pump, temporary bridge or other structures, crane, turntable, etc.). What can the government’s design do to preserve the maximum flexibility you would prefer during construction?

                            SEE ATTACHMENT A 

Turbine - Generator Questions: 

1. Are there certain design package submittals that would need to be completed earlier than other portions of the turbine-generator design to allow site construction to begin as early as possible?
2. Does your team have experience fabricating ~200 inch Francis turbine runners; please provide a reference list including pertinent data?  Does your team have experience designing and manufacturing 300 MW generators; please provide a reference list including pertinent data?  How would your team integrate the turbine and generator designs?
3. What techniques would be utilized to keep turbine/generator design to be optimized for costs?
4. Would transportation of a single piece turbine runner to site be possible?
5. Describe your experience over-pressure testing a spiral case for a 615.5 ft max head and the interaction with the embedding process.
6. USACE understands there may be a reluctance from larger turbine-generator manufacturers to participate in this solicitation or others with the Corps. From a construction contractor perspective, can you describe how USACE could shape this design-build solicitation to encourage broader turbine-generator OEM interest and facilitate partnering efforts between the design-build contractor and the turbine-generator OEM? 

Balance of Plant Questions: 

1. Describe your construction experience doing work in operating power generation facilities.  In general, it is the government’s assumption that almost all construction work will occur while Dworshak is operational.  This includes the overhead 500 KV lines which may limit crane access.  Is the contractor comfortable implementing this project with only a few limited short duration outages?
2. The balance of plant equipment includes installation of isolated phase bus, medium voltage circuit breakers, unit substations, switchboards and interconnecting controls.  Describe your experience installing similar equipment in operating power plants. 
3. Mechanical piping and electrical conduit around existing generators is concrete embedded.   Does the contractor have any concerns about this type of construction if required to adhere to a similar standard on the new generator.
4. The Dworshak site is relatively remote, approximately 1 ½ hours from larger regional communities (Lewiston, Id. Moscow, Id.).   Does the contractor have experience managing large workforces at remote locations.  Is this an issue?
5. The scope of the project involves installing a large 500kV 3-phase GSU transformer sized to the new turbine-generator unit. While the transformer supply would be contracted separately by the government, some amount of transportation and relocation may fall to the installation performed under this contract. This is more likely if site footprint constraints necessitate delivery to an off-site location and/or storage prior to installation. What extent of transportation study or analysis would you want to be performed as part of the government’s design? What timing and permitting issues should the Government anticipate?

Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

Submission Instructions for PLA:  Submit PLA responses in writing by the notice closing date (April 28,2026) and email to leanne.r.walling@usace.army.mil

Please answer all questions if you do not have a response for some questions please indicate with “N/A”

PLA questions:

1) Do you have knowledge that a PLA has been used in the local area on projects of this kind?  If so, please provide supporting documentation. 

 2) Are you aware of skilled labor shortages in the area for those crafts that will be needed to complete the referenced project?  If so, please elaborate and provide supporting documentation where possible. 

 3) Are you aware of time sensitive issues/scheduling requirements that would affect the rate at which the referenced project should be completed?  If so, please elaborate and provide supporting documentation where possible. 

 4) Identify specific reasons why or how you believe a PLA would advance the Federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement. 

 5) Identify specific reasons why you do not believe a PLA would advance the Federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement. 

 6) Identify any additional information you believe the Government should take into consideration regarding the use of a PLA on the referenced project. 

 7) Does your company intend to bid/propose on this project if a PLA requirement is included in the solicitation? Does your company intend to bid/propose on this project if a PLA requirement is not included in the solicitation? 

 8) What are the likely cost impacts, if any, to your bid/proposal price if a PLA requirement is included in the solicitation?  Please provide as much detail as possible regarding any anticipated cost impacts (positive or negative) of the inclusion of a PLA requirement, including any information you can provide about the magnitude of the anticipated impact.  

 (ii) The information gathered in this exercise should include the following information on projects completed in the last 2-5 years (or other timeframe, as appropriate): 

 1) Project Name and Location 

 2) Detailed Project Description 

 3) Initial Cost Estimate vs. Actual Final Cost 

 4) Was the project completed on time? 

 5) Number of craft trades present on the project 

 6) Was a PLA used? 

 7) Were there any challenges experienced during the project?