Sources Sought/Market Intelligence: Fort Carson Equipment Concentration Site - Potential Use of Construction Management at Risk using Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

lity to submit a proposal should a formal solicitation be issued in the future. (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: CM@Risk via Other Transaction Authority (OTA) The Louisville District previously issued this RFI exploring a Progressive Design-Build (PDB) using Other Transaction Authority strategy. Based on recent project developments, the Government has advanced the design to approximately 35% and intends to progress to full design. The Government is now updating this market intelligence to assess industry capability and interest in utilizing Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) utilizing an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement under the authority of 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/near 95% completion. The builder is hired during Phase 1 to act as an expert consultant, helping the Designer of Record (DOR) push the design from 95% to 100% using real-time market data and MII (MCACES 2nd Generation) cost comparisons. 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 Pricing Structure: Pre-Con Fee + Target Fee & GMP Preconstruction Services Fee: A small, fixed-price or time-and-materials amount paid to the contractor strictly to fund their time spent helping the A/E finalize the 95% 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 95% design. The Deliverable is anticipated to be a concise 5-to-10 page White Paper. Evaluation Criteria will likely include Corporate capability and CM@Risk past performance; preconstruction approach (how the firm plans to collaborate with the Government's A/E to close the remaining 5% 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 5% 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 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 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: 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. Barriers to Innovation: What commercial or Government-imposed barriers currently make it difficult to propose or implement innovative construction technologies? How could the flexibility of an OTA help overcome these barriers? 3. CM@Risk & Design-Assist Involvement: 95% Design Entry: The Government plans to bring the CM@Risk contractor on board when the design is at 95%. Based on your experience, is a 5% design gap sufficient to add meaningful constructability and value-engineering input, or are the most critical decisions already locked in?[MH1] Collaborative Framework: What collaborative mechanisms do you recommend the Government implement to rapidly close the 5% design gap and transition to a validated GMP? Describe your experience executing Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) or other highly collaborative delivery methods, particularly where you served as an advisor before going "at-risk". 4. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Risk Allocation & Compensation: Preconstruction Compensation: What specific compensation structures (e.g., fixed stipends, time-and-materials) would best compensate your firm for the pre-construction effort and design-assist phase? Open Book Pricing: How do you approach "open-book" pricing and transparency during Phase 1 to build trust and ensure the Government is receiving fair market value before lockin