Progressive Design Build (PDB) - Cyber Maintenance Hangar Modernization

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / MARKET RESEARCH NOTICE

Cyber Maintenance Hangar Modernization – Mansfield, OH

Notice: This is a Request for Information (RFI) for market research and 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: 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

1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Louisville District plans to issue a solicitation for either the new construction of an ICD-705 compliant endo-skeleton structure within an existing hangar OR new ICD-705 compliant prefabricated panelized facility to house Cyber Warfare Operations within an existing hangar. The project will provide cyber operations space within the existing bay. The awardee will construct all spaces to the appropriate security levels, install communications room to accommodate servers and equipment, provide all supporting electrical, mechanical, security, life safety, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, and communications supporting infrastructure, and provide emergency power systems and standby generator connection.

• High-Security Spaces (ICD 705): Renovation and construction of Special Access Program (SAP) spaces and Secure Compartmentalized Information Facilities (SCIFs) built to stringent ICD 705 standards along with potential deconstruction of existing Hangar Door to achieve and maintain ICD-705 compliant perimeter.
• Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $50,000,000 (Phase 2)
• Funding Source: Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

2. PLANNED ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The Government is considering utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for a prototype project 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 or delivery methodologies to achieve benefits such as enhanced mission resilience, improved installation support, or cost and schedule reduction.

The baseline delivery method under consideration is Progressive Design-Build (PDB).

• Phase 1 (Design & Pre-Construction): The Government and the OT Awardee will work collaboratively to advance the design, perform constructability reviews, conduct open-book cost estimating, and mitigate project risks.
• Phase 2 (Construction): Upon reaching an agreed-upon level of design (e.g., 60% to 90%), the Awardee will propose a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). If accepted, the Government will exercise Phase 2 for construction execution. If a GMP cannot be agreed upon, the Government retains an "off-ramp" to complete the design and construct the facility via alternative methods.

Alternative Under Consideration: The Government is also evaluating a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery method under the OTA framework, particularly in scenarios where the Government-appointed Architect-Engineer (A-E) / Designer of Record (DOR) is pre-selected and dictated to the constructor.

3. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Section 1: Company Profile

• Firm Name, Address, and Point of Contact (Name, Title, Phone, Email).
• Unique Entity ID (UEI).
• Socioeconomic Status (Other than Small, Small, 8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone, etc.).

Section 2: Other Transaction Authority (OTA) & Statutory Compliance

1. Innovative Technologies & Practices: 10 U.S.C. § 2808a focuses on prototyping with emergent construction technologies or innovative processes. Describe any innovative materials, sustainable building technologies, or modern construction processes (e.g., prefabrication, modular MEP systems, etc.) your firm could utilize to accelerate the schedule, reduce costs, and increase the building's life expectancy. Please provide a brief (no more than 1 page) description of your general approach to and the cost/pricing implications of the following: 1) new construction of an endo skeleton structure within an existing hangar to house Cyber Warfare Operations; and 2) providing new ICD-705 compliant “prefabricated trailers” to house Cyber Warfare Operations within an existing hangar. The information you provide regarding these various approaches will help the Government determine an appropriate path forward to successful execution of the project within funding limitations.  
2. OTA Experience: Describe your firm’s experience (if any) executing projects under an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA).
3. Overcoming Traditional Barriers: What commercial or Government-imposed barriers (e.g., traditional FAR-based procurement limitations) make it difficult to implement innovative methods on complex military renovations? How can the flexibility of an OTA help overcome these barriers?

Section 3: Progressive Design-Build (PDB) / Early Contractor Involvement

1. Information Baseline: What minimum level of detail (e.g., DD Form 1391, conceptual design, spatial programming documents) does your firm require prior to entering Phase 1 (Design & Pre-construction) to feel confident in the project's baseline viability and target budget?
2. Collaborative Framework: What collaborative mechanisms (such as joint design charrettes, target-value design workshops, or phased scoping approvals) do you recommend the Government implement in the first 30-90 days of Phase 1 to rapidly transition from a planning document to an agreed-upon technical baseline?
3. Open-Book Pricing: Describe your experience with and internal processes involved in "open-book" pricing and transparency during pre-construction. How will you assure the Government that subcontractor and material pricing represent fair market value?

Section 4: DESIGN PARTNER (A-E/DOR) TEAMING & DELIVERY METHOD ALTERNATIVES

The Government is seeking targeted feedback on the structuring of design teams and alternative delivery methods (PDB vs. CMAR) for this complex headquarters renovation.

1. Dictated A-E / Designer of Record (DOR):
   
   • If the Government dictates the A-E firm / DOR for this project (e.g., a pre-selected firm already familiar with the facility's design/planning documents), rather than allowing your firm to team with an A-E of your own choosing, would your firm still be interested in bidding as the Prime Contractor? Please explain your reasoning.
   • What major risks, operational friction, or coordination challenges do you foresee with a government-dictated A-E model? How would your firm mitigate those risks?
2. PDB vs. CMAR Strategy:
   • If the A-E/DOR is dictated by the Government, does this change your perspective on the viability of the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) w/ OTA strategy?
   • Would a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) w/ OTA strategy be a better, more appropriate fit for this project if the designer is pre-selected? Please contrast the advantages and disadvantages of PDB vs. CMAR under a government-dictated design team structure.

Section 5: Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Risk Allocation & Compensation

1. Off-Ramp Risk & Design Rights: If the Government and the contractor cannot reach an agreement on the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), and the decision is made to “off ramp”, what specific compensation structures (e.g., design fees, stipends, time-and-materials) would adequately compensate your firm for Phase 1 efforts? Who should retain ownership of the design deliverables in this scenario?
2. GMP Lock-In Milestone: In your experience with highly complex, secure administrative facilities such as this, at what design milestone (e.g., 35%, 65%, 95%) is it most advantageous to lock in the GMP, and why?
3. Long-Lead Procurement: How do you handle the procurement of critical, long-lead items (e.g. uninterrupted power supply (UPS), backup generators, customized HVAC chiller components, and high-security electrical switchgear) prior to establishing the final construction GMP?

Section 6: Renovation, Secure Spaces (ICD 705), and MEP/Communication Expertise

1. Secure Spaces (ICD 705): Describe your firm's specific experience in constructing and accrediting Special Access Program (SAP) spaces and SCIFs complying with ICD 705 / RF Shielding standards. What are the primary risk factors in delivering these facilities on time?
2. Complex MEP & Communications Infrastructure: Detail your experience in high-voltage electrical distribution, backup power generator facilities, and active telecommunications exchanges/switching facilities within an existing hangar.

Section 7: Subcontractor Integration and Site Access

1. Subcontractor Onboarding: Under a collaborative (PDB or CMAR) model, how and when do you plan to onboard critical specialty subcontractors (e.g., ICD 705 security, MEP, fire protection, foundations, RF shielding testing, commissioning, etc.)?
2. Competition: Will you compete these subcontracts openly during Phase 1 pre-construction, or do you prefer bringing in established, pre-selected trade partners from day one?
3. Site Access: Government escorts will be provided and are required during contract execution. It is anticipated that this will adversely affect production. Please acknowledge and provide detail of potential mitigation strategies to avoid schedule impacts.

Section 8: Bonding & Financial Capability

1. Phased Bonding Approach: Construction performance & payment bonds are anticipated to be deferred until the execution of Phase 2. As such, would this effectively mitigate bonding capacity risks for a project of this magnitude (~$50,000,000)?
2. Surety Timelines: If construction bonds are deferred until 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?
3. Funding Gap Mitigations: If funding or execution authority for Phase 2 construction is delayed (e.g., 90–180 days post-design completion due to O&M/fiscal year cycles), what contractual mechanisms (e.g., escalation clauses, right to off-ramp) would your firm require to maintain the agreement?
4. Bonding Limits: Specify your maximum bonding limits (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture.

4. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Interested firms are invited to submit their responses to this RFI no later than 11 September 2026 at 1600 ET.

Submissions should be sent via email to megan.r.murphy@usace.army.mil in PDF format, not exceeding 6 pages (excluding company brochures or standard profiles).

Please direct all questions regarding this market research notice to megan.r.murphy@usace.army.mil.