IFPC/M-SHORAD Instructional Facility

The U.S. Army requires a new instructional facility at Fort Sill to serve as a cornerstone for the modernization and enhancement of its air defense capabilities. Its core mission is to provide soldiers with the critical skills and doctrinal knowledge necessary to operate and maintain two of the Army's newest and most advanced air defense weapon systems: the Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) and the Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD). This facility represents a vital investment in the readiness and lethality of the force, directly supporting the strategic initiative to field one Divisional Air Defense Battalion per Division. It will provide a state-of-the-art environment for hands-on, realistic training that transforms recruits into proficient operators and maintainers. The soldiers trained here will depart Fort Sill prepared to deploy globally, equipped with the skills to ensure the Army's dominance of the airspace and the protection of its ground forces and assets against modern aerial threats. In alignment with Department of War acquisition reform initiatives, the Government is actively leveraging modernized authorities that expand our capability to select alternate, highly collaborative project delivery methods and utilize non-traditional contracting vehicles beyond standard FAR-based constraints. We are seeking critical industry feedback to determine the optimal delivery method (such as Progressive Design-Build, Design-Build to Budget, or Construction Manager at Risk) and procurement pathway to accelerate construction, optimize lifecycle costs, and field this mission-critical capability rapidly. Interested firms are requested to complete the attached market research questionnaire and return it directly to Shay Hill at julie.s.hill@usace.army.mil and Daniel Foyil at daniel.a.foyil@usace.army.mil. Update: 11 AUG 2026 - The Market Intelligence Survey has been updated and is now available in a fillable PDF form. Update: 3 SEP 2026 - Since the initial notice, technical requirements for the IFPC/M-SHORAD General Instructional Facility have progressed to approximately 35% design completion - establishing firmer baselines for site layout, spatial geometry, and core building systems. Because this milestone significantly alters the baseline of project risk and definition, we are expanding our market intelligence to gain a better understanding of how this increased design maturity influences our industry partners' perspective on alternative delivery strategies specifically Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) and Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk). In addition to the market intelligence survey, Tulsa District is seeking industry's insight and response to the following three questions: Question 1: Re-evaluating Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) at 35% Design Maturity Given that the project has reached 35% design completion, which provides a more defined basis for spatial layout, site geometry, and major building systems, does your firm now consider Design-Build to Budget (DBtB) a more viable delivery method? Specifically, is this level of definition sufficient for your team to competitively propose innovative scope and quality solutions that meet the Government's fixed budget? What key undefined elements (e.g., final simulator utility demands, SCIF accreditation details) would still present significant risk, and how would an OTA framework help mitigate them? Question 2: Re-evaluating Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) with a Mature Design The initial survey raised concerns about the Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) model, particularly regarding the prime contractor's inability to self-perform critical trades. With a 35% design now available, if the Government were to retain the Designer of Record but engage a CM under an OTA, how would this change your firm s interest? What is your primary concern: (a) assuming liability for a design you did not create, or (b) the contractual separation that limits your ability to control project execution through self-performance and direct subcontractor management? Question 3: Identifying the Tipping Point for Price Certainty You previously indicated a design completion of approximately 65% would be needed to provide a reliable Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). With a 35% design package as the starting point, what are the top 2-3 specific technical deliverables (e.g., fully specified long-lead electrical gear, signed-off user requirements for all simulator bays, final force protection and AT/FP requirements) that would allow your team to close the gap from 35% to a firm GMP in the most efficient manner? Would a two-step OTA process, where the selected firm first validates the 35% design and then advances it to GMP, be your preferred approach?