Sources Sought/Market Intelligence Notice: Selfridge KC-46 Dual Bay Hangar Complex Use of Construction Management at Risk using Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

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 design and construction of Dual Bay (Fuel Cell and General Maintenance) Hangar for the KC-46 Pegasus aircraft at Selfridge ANG, MI. The scope of work consists of furnishing all necessary equipment, materials, labor, supervision, quality control, and supplies to deliver a fully functional maintenance hangar including required shops as indicated below: General Purpose Shop Corrosion Control Shop Fuel Cell Shop: Weapons System Maintenance Engine Shop Avionics Shop Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $188,700,000 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 35% 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 design is brought at near 65% 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 65% 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 or time-and-materials amount paid to the contractor strictly to fund their time spent helping the Architect Engineer (A/E) finalize the 65% 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 35% design. The Deliverable is anticipated to be a concise 5-10 page White Paper. Evaluation Criteria will likely include Corporate capability and experience with collaborative project delivery methods ( including CM@Risk, Progressive Design-Build (PDB) and/or Design-Build to Budget (DBtB)) under an OT framework; preconstruction approach (how the firm plans to collaborate with the Government's A/E to close the remaining 65% design gap, identify value-engineering opportunities, and mitigate supply-chain risks); proposed Target Fee (for construction) and Preconstruction Services Fee. 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. The OT is initially awarded and funded only for the Preconstruction Services Fee. Design Finalization (Bridging the 35% 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: 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. Innovative Technologies: The authority for this OTA (10 U.S.C. 2808a) is focused on prototyping with new or emergent construction technologies. 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. Q11. OTA Experience: Describe your firm's previous experience (if any) executing prototype projects under an OTA. Q12. 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? Q13. 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? Q14. What project characteristics make CM@Risk-OTA particularly advantageous or disadvantageous for this requirement? CM@Risk & Design-Assist Involvement: Q15. Design Entry Point Suitability (35% vs. 65% vs. 95% Entry): The Government is seeking industry feedback on the optimal design completion stage for onboarding the CM@Risk builder. In your experience, which design entry point 35% (bridging a 65% gap to construction-ready), 65% (bridging a 35% gap), or 95% (bridging a 5% gap) provides the best value for integrating meaningful constructability, value engineering, and long-lead supply chain mitigation? Q16. Design Maturity & Early-Builder Benefits: Given the scale of this hangar project ($188.7M), what are the primary benefits of bringing on a CM@Risk builder during the preconstruction phase (e.g., at 35% or 65% design), and how can the Government maximize those benefits? Q17. Collaborative Framework: What collaborative mechanisms do you…