Sources Sought/Market Intelligence: Fort Carson Equipment Concentration Site - Potential Use of Progressive Design Build using Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

Active

Contract Opportunity

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) / MARKET INTELLIGENCE NOTICE

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 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

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Louisville District, has a requirement for the design and construction of an Equipment Concentration Site (ECS) complex of facilities on Fort Carson. The scope of work consists of furnishing all necessary equipment, materials, labor, supervision, quality control, and supplies to deliver a fully functional Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) shop, General Purpose Warehouse (GPW), and Organizational Storage Building. Key features of the project may include:

• Vehicle maintenance shop required features including but not limited to concrete shop aprons, vehicle wash rack/platform, bi-level equipment loading ramps. Specialized Systems: special building foundations, extensive pavements, improved surfaces, and the related site clearing, and excavation costs associated with developing the 48-acre parcel of land.


• Administrative & Support: Adjoining maintenance shops, tool rooms, administrative offices, and personnel support spaces.


• Military Equipment Parking lot & Site Work: Construction of paving areas for heavy equipment, POVs, security fencing, and utility tie-ins.

Estimated Acquisition Magnitude: $75,000,000.00

Planned Acquisition Strategy: Progressive Design-Build (PDB) via Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

The Louisville District is conducting market intelligence to assess industry capability and interest in supporting this effort utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2808a, Facility Construction or Repair: Transactions Other Than Contracts and Grants. This authority is distinct from the Department of Defense protptype OT authorities commonly associated with 10 U.S.C. § 4021 and 4022. 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. The anticipated delivery method 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 the GMP is 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.

INFORMATION REQUESTED

1. Company Profile:

• Firm Name, Address, and Point of Contact (Name, Title).


• Phone Number, Email Address, and Unique Entity ID (UEI).


• Socioeconomic Status (Large, Small, 8(a), SDVOSB, etc.).

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

• Innovative Technologies: The authority for this OTA (10 U.S.C. § 2808a) is focused pecifically designed to bring the fast-paced, iterative, and flexible principles of Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which traditionally governs research and technology prototyping, into the physical infrastructure and military construction (MILCON) domain. 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.


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


• 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?


• What project characteristics make PDB-OTA particularly advantageous or disadvantageous for this requirement?

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

• Baseline Definition: What minimum level of detail (e.g., Statement of Need, conceptual site plans, target budget) does your firm require prior to entering Phase 1 (Design/Pre-construction) to feel confident in the project's viability?


• 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 to rapidly transition from a "blank page" to a mutually agreed-upon baseline?


• Describe your experience executing Progressive Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), or other highly collaborative delivery methods.


• How do you approach "open-book" pricing and transparency during Phase 1 (Pre-Construction) to build trust and ensure the Government is receiving fair market value?

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

• Phase 1 Off-Ramp Risk: If the Government and the contractor cannot reach an agreement on the GMP or final design (the "off-ramp"), what specific compensation structures (e.g., stipends, time-and-materials for design effort) would adequately compensate your firm for pre-construction efforts?


• Payment Milestones: Because an OTA allows for flexible payment structures, what milestone payment arrangement during Phase 1 (e.g., monthly progress, completion of design percentages, deliverable-based) best supports your firm's cash flow and resource allocation?


• Data Rights: Under an OTA, data rights and intellectual property can be negotiated. What data rights structure for the final design deliverables (if an off-ramp is taken) would provide a fair balance between the Government's need to construct the facility and your firm's proprietary design methods?


• In your experience with PDB, at what design milestone (e.g., 35%, 65%, 90%) is it most advantageous to lock in the GMP for a complex aviation facility, and why?


• How do you handle the procurement of long-lead items (e.g., switchgear, specialized fire pumps, large span steel) prior to establishing the final GMP?


• What level of cost growth would you typically expect between conceptual planning and GMP establishment?

5. Industrial Maintenance & Storage Facility Construction Expertise:

• Describe your specific experience with large-scale heavy tactical maintenance facilities, specialized systems like tactical vehicle wash platforms, and highly specialized fire suppression systems.


• What are the greatest supply chain, scheduling, or technical risks you foresee for a project of this type at Fort Carson, and how would the PDB delivery method help mitigate them?


• Are there specific trades, materials, equipment, or subcontractor resources in the Fort Carson/Colorado Springs market that are currently constrained?


• Would early contractor involvement through Progressive Design-Build materially improve the Government’s ability to manage these market risks? Why or why not?

6. Teaming & Subcontractor Integration:

• Under a PDB model, how and when do you plan to on-board your critical subcontractors (e.g., structural steel, MEP, fire protection)?


• Will you compete these subcontracts openly during Phase 1, or do you prefer bringing in established partners from day one?

7. Feedback on the Acquisition Strategy & Alternatives:

• Does the proposed PDB-OTA strategy incentivize your firm to participate? Why or why not?


• 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?


• Have current market conditions increased the value of collaborative delivery methods compared to traditional procurement methods? If so, how?

8. Bonding Capability:

• Phased Bonding Approach: Would a phased bonding structure—where the contractor is only required to bond the value of the Phase 1 effort initially, and construction bonds are deferred until the execution of Phase 2—effectively mitigate this risk?


• Surety Timelines: If construction bonds are deferred to 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?


• Funding Gap Mitigations: If funding for construction is delayed beyond an anticipated window (e.g., 90-180 days post-design completion), what mechanisms (e.g., formalized escalation clauses, right to off-ramp without penalty) would your firm require to maintain the agreement?


• Specify your maximum bonding (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Please email your responses in PDF format to Chris Brackett at Christopher.Brackett@usace.army.mil by 10 July 2026 at 1000 Eastern Time.

Attachments/Links