Market Intelligence - Richmond ARC - CM at Risk

***NOTICE*** Use the link provided under "Submission Instructions" to respond to the questions. Responses submitted any other way will not be accepted. 

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  construction of Army Reserve Center (ARC) at DSCR Richmond, VA. The scope of work consists of furnishing all necessary equipment, materials, labor, supervision, quality control, and supplies to deliver a fully functional 300 Member Army Reserve Center, including an Un-Heated Storage (UHS) Building.  ARC is estimated at 56,678 SF and the UHS is estimated at 1,217 SF.

Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $30,000,000 – $50,000,000

PLANNED ACQUISITION STRATEGIES 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) strategy utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a. 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.  

Currently, the Government has advanced the design to 65% and has the capability to progress to a full design. 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 Construction Firm is brought in during the design. Based on the current status of the Richmond ARC design effort, the Louisville District anticipates onboarding the CMAR at around  90% completion.

Phase 1 Preconstruction: The builder is hired during Phase 1 to act as an expert consultant, helping the Designer of Record (DOR) push the design from 90% to 100% using real-time market data and MII (MCACES 2nd Generation) cost comparisons.

Phase 2 Construction: Once the design hits 100% 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 small, fixed-price amount paid to the contractor strictly to fund their time spent helping the Architect Engineer (A/E) finalize the 90% design into a 100% design.

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 65% design. The Deliverable is anticipated to be a concise 10 page White Paper. Submission requirements will likely include Corporate capability and experience with collaborative project delivery methods including CM@Risk, Progressive Design Build, Early Contractor Involvement; preconstruction approach (how the firm plans to collaborate with the Government's A/E to close the remaining 10% design gap, identify value-engineering opportunities, and mitigate supply-chain risks); evidence of bonding capability.

• 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 A/E during the critical final design push and manage successful construction completion. The OT is initially awarded and funded only for the Preconstruction Services Fee.

• Design Finalization (Bridging the 10% Gap): 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. Responses shall be made using the link or QR code in the attachment:

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. OTA Experience: Describe your firm's previous experience (if any) executing projects under an OTA.

Q11. 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?

Q12. Custom Commercial Terms & Dispute Resolution: To optimize the flexibilities of the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) framework, what specific commercial terms (e.g., tailored dispute resolution/rapid escalation mechanisms, commercial milestone payment structures, or shared intellectual property rights for innovative methods) would your firm recommend the Government adopt to minimize risk and incentivize your participation?

Q13. What project characteristics make CM@Risk-OTA particularly advantageous or disadvantageous for this requirement?

CM@Risk & Design-Assist Involvement:

Q14. Design Entry Point Suitability: The Government is seeking industry feedback on the plan to onboard the CM@Risk builder around 90% design stage given the status of the existing design effort. Provide feedback on early entry at/around 90% vs. traditional D/B/B. 

Q15. Design Maturity & Early-Builder Benefits: Given the scale of this Army Reserve Center project, what are the primary benefits of bringing on a CM@Risk builder during the preconstruction phase (e.g., at 90% design), and how can the Government maximize those benefits? 

Q16. Collaborative Framework: What collaborative mechanisms do you recommend the Government implement to rapidly close the design gap and transition to a validated GMP?

Q17. 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".

Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Risk Allocation & Compensation:

Q18. Open Book Pricing: How do you approach "open-book" pricing and transparency during Phase 1 to build trust and ensure the Government is receiving fair market value before locking in the GMP?

Q19. Early Work Packages (EWPs) & Site Mobilization: A key benefit of onboarding a CM@Risk builder early is the ability to fast-track construction using Early Work Packages (EWPs) (e.g., early site prep, utility relocations, mass grading, foundation packages) before the 100% design and full GMP are finalized. Under what design maturity conditions would your firm recommend executing early packages, and how would you manage active construction while final design is being completed by a separate Designer of Record?

Q20. Long-Lead Items: How do you handle the procurement of long-lead items (e.g., switchgear, specialized fire pumps, large span steel) if they must be ordered prior to the finalization of the 100% design and GMP?

Q21. Risk allocation: Under a CM@Risk model where the Government retains the Designer of Record, how does your firm view the proposed risk allocation regarding constructability and design-defect claims? What risk-sharing or shared-contingency structures do you recommend to optimize pricing? What specific government actions or commitments during Phase 1 (e.g. rapid RFI turnarounds, dedicated access to the DOR) are most critical to helping your team successfully mitigate constructability risks before the GMP is set?

Industrial Maintenance & Specialized Facility Construction Expertise:

Q22. Describe your firm’s specific experience with large-scale commercial office buildings, integrated IT infrastructure, and highly specialized fire suppression systems.

Q23. What is the greatest supply chain, scheduling, or technical risks you foresee for a project of this type at Richmond, VA, and how would this CM@Risk delivery method help mitigate them?

Teaming & Subcontractor Integration:

Q24. Under a CM@Risk model starting at a 90% design, how and when do you plan to on board your critical subcontractors (e.g., structural steel, MEP, fire protection)?

Q25. Will you compete with these subcontracts openly during Phase 1 to build the open-book GMP, or do you prefer bringing in established partners from day one?

Q26. What models have you used or would you recommend for sharing risk and reward with key subcontractors under a GMP model to incentivize performance?

Q27. Given the ongoing construction demands in the Richmond, VA area, describe your approach to maximizing local and regional subcontractor participation. What strategies will you employ to attract and retain high-quality trade partners?

Feedback on the Acquisition Strategy & Alternatives:

Q28. Does the proposed CM@Risk-OTA strategy incentivize your firm to participate? Why or why not?

Q29. 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?

Q30. 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?

Bonding Capability:

Q31. Project Bonding Capacity: Specify your maximum bonding (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Submission Requirement: The only authorized transmission method of responses is via filling out the survey form. No other transmission method will be accepted. Please limit your capability statement to the space provided within the form. The Market Intelligence Response Form can be accessed at:

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/U5ifrFVD5s  or via the QR Code provided in the attachment. 

Please submit your responses by 2 October 2026 at 1400 Eastern Time.

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.