Market Intelligence Notice: Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station Taxiway A4 & Runway Extension Project - Use of Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) Utilizing Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / MARKET INTELLIGENCE NOTICE Place of Performance: Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (NFARS), New York 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: 237310 Highway, Street and Bridge 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 to extend Runway 10-28 and associated taxiways at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, New York. The scope of work consists of furnishing all necessary equipment, materials, labor, supervision, quality control, and supplies to deliver fully functional airfield improvements. The primary project elements include: a. Reconstructing the existing overrun/blast pad on Runway 28 end to full-strength airfield pavement. b. Extending Runway 10-28 and extending Taxiway A4 to connect the 914th ARW apron to the new Runway 28 end. c. Extending a 520-foot portion of Runway 6-24 and providing a warmup pad for two (2) KC-135R aircraft. The potential total area of new airfield pavement is approximately 780,000 sq ft. d. Modifying the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway End Identification Lights (MALSR) approach lighting, which requires active coordination with FAA construction representatives during removal and re-installation. e. Installing new airfield electrical and lighting systems, including runway edge lights, runway centerline lights, threshold lights, touchdown zone lights, airfield signage, and taxiway edge lights. f. Constructing a new creek culvert to allow the new taxiway to traverse the Cayuga Creek. g. Erecting a jet blast deflector fence on the Runway 28 end. Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $50,000,000.00 CRITICAL PROJECT CONSTRAINTS & CHALLENGES: Geotechnical Constraints: The project site features variable and shallow bedrock (as shallow as 3 feet below grade) and a high groundwater table that heavily complicates subdrainage and stormwater design. Sensitive Environmental Conditions: Work will occur near federal and state-regulated wetlands and Cayuga Creek. The site is a habitat for the Devil Crayfish, which is listed as a species of Greatest Conservation Needs. Multiple permits with State and Federal agencies will be required prior to construction. Operational Constraints: A significant portion of the work will occur within the active runway Controlled Movement Area (CMA). Work requires compliance with an FAA-approved Construction Safety and Phasing Plan (CSPP), temporary displaced threshold markings, modifications to NAVAIDS, and FAA flight checks. Security Constraints: Strict security constraints are in place, requiring Government escorts at all times during construction. Airfield Pavement Quality Control: Onsite batch plant space (approx. 6 acres) has been identified. Review and final approval of concrete and asphalt mix designs reside with the USACE Transportation Service Center (TSC). The TSC will provide a mandatory, weeklong airfield pavement workshop prior to the start of construction, which the contractor s key personnel must attend. Stakeholder Coordination: The contract requires active coordination with the airport operator (Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority - NFTA), USACE, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), FAA, and Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (NFARS). 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 Course of Action utilizes the 10 U.S.C. 2808a OT authority to execute a construction project where the design is at 35% 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 35% 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 35% 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 65% 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 (INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE) Interested parties are…