SAM #W912QR-CMRISK-NFARSTAXIWAY

Industry Feedback Sought for Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station Runway and Taxiway Extension Project (CM@Risk)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Louisville District, is seeking industry feedback for a major airfield construction project at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (NFARS), New York. - Government Buyer: - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District - Scope of Work: - Extension of Runway 10-28 and Taxiway A4 - Reconstruction of overrun/blast pad - Construction of a warmup pad for KC-135R aircraft - Modification of FAA approach lighting systems (MALSR) - Installation of new airfield electrical and lighting systems - Construction of a creek culvert - Erection of a jet blast deflector fence - Total new airfield pavement area: approximately 780,000 sq ft - Procurement Approach: - Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) delivery method - Utilizes Other Transaction Authority (OTA) under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a - Focus on innovative construction technologies and collaborative risk management - Notable Requirements: - Compliance with FAA safety and phasing plans - Environmental permits for wetlands and protected species (e.g., Devil Crayfish) - Addressing geotechnical challenges (shallow bedrock, high groundwater) - Strict security constraints - Mandatory participation in a USACE airfield pavement workshop - Industry Input Requested: - Technical capabilities - Innovative technologies - Risk management strategies - Acquisition strategy feedback - No specific OEMs, vendors, or part numbers are identified in the notice.

Description

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 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 project ($50M), 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 recommend the Government implement to rapidly close the design gap and transition to a validated GMP? Q18. CM@Risk Experience: Describe your experience executing Construction Management at Risk (CM@Risk) or other highly collaborative delivery methods, particularly where you served as an advisor before going "at-risk". Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Risk Allocation & Compensation: Q19. 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? Q20. 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 locking in the GMP? Q21. For airfield and taxiway projects where full paving mobilization is bound by concrete mix designs, test section approvals, and strict QA/QC testing protocols, what novel or standard early work packages (e.g., batch plant mobilization, subgrade prep, haul routes) and long-lead material procurements (e.g., airfield lighting, specialized aggregates) would your firm recommend authorizing immediately upon GMP establishment to optimize schedule performance while mix approvals are pending? Q22. Phase 1 Off-Ramp Risk: If the Government and the contractor cannot reach an agreement on the final GMP, what specific off-ramp conditions are critical to your firm? Q23. Risk allocation: Under a CM@Risk model where the Government retains the Designer of Record, how does your firm view the proposed risk allocation regarding constructability and design-defect claims? What risk-sharing or shared-contingency structures do you recommend to optimize pricing? Airfield Pavement & Environmental/Geotechnical Expertise: Q24. Technical Airfield Experience: Describe your specific experience with large-scale airfield pavement projects (minimum 500,000 SF) on active FAA-regulated or military airfields, including the management of onsite concrete/asphalt batch plants and compliance with FAA Construction Safety and Phasing Plans (CSPP). Q25. For each project example provided in response to Question 24, please clearly specify your firm’s specific role and level of responsibility (e.g., Prime Contractor, Joint Venture Managing Partner, Non-Managing JV Partner, Construction Manager, Subcontractor, or Specialized Trade Contractor). Please also indicate the percentage of the total contract value performed directly by your firm. Q26. Environmental & Geotechnical Risk Management: This project involves highly sensitive environmental conditions (wetlands, Cayuga Creek, Devil Crayfish) and challenging geotechnical constraints (variable bedrock as shallow as 3 feet, high groundwater). Describe your experience managing extensive subdrainage installation and bedrock excavation under high groundwater conditions. Q27. How would your firm mitigate risks associated with working in/near state and federal wetlands and protecting sensitive species (like the Devil Crayfish) without causing project delays? Q28. What is the greatest supply chain, scheduling, or technical risks you foresee for a project of this type at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, and how would this CM@Risk delivery method help mitigate them? Teaming & Subcontractor Integration: Q29. Subcontractor Onboarding: Under a CM@Risk model starting at a 35% design, how and when do you plan to on-board your critical subcontractors (e.g., electrical, paving, earthwork, structural steel)? Q30. Subcontract Competition: Will you compete with these subcontracts openly during Phase 1 to build the open-book GMP, or do you prefer bringing in established partners from day one? Feedback on the Acquisition Strategy & Alternatives: Q31. Strategy Incentives: Does the proposed CM@Risk-OTA strategy incentivize your firm to participate? Why or why not? Q32. Two-Phase Selection Process & Proposal Burden: Does the proposed two-phase selection framework (Phase 1: Concise 5-10 page White Paper; Phase 2: 90-minute Pitch Meeting/Oral Presentation) provide an efficient mechanism for your firm to demonstrate its qualifications and CM@Risk capabilities without creating an undue proposal cost burden? What specific submission requirements, page limits, or response timelines would encourage robust competition from top-tier firms? Q33. Alternative Approaches: Are there alternative acquisition strategies, phasing approaches, or commercial practices the Government has not considered that would yield a better airfield facility, faster delivery, or lower cost? Q34. Differentiating Evaluation Criteria: To differentiate high-performing CM@Risk collaborative builders from traditional low-bid general contractors, what evaluation criteria (e.g., past collaborative-delivery/CM@Risk performance, key personnel/superintendent experience, trade-partner/subcontractor open-book engagement strategy, or proposed General Conditions fees) should carry the greatest weight in the Government’s evaluation? Bonding Capability: Q35. Maximum Bonding: Specify your maximum bonding (Single and Aggregate) as a Sole Prime Contractor and/or as a Joint Venture. Q36. Phased Bonding Approach: Given the distinct phases of the CM@Risk OTA structure, would a phased bonding approach - where your firm is only required to bond the value of the Phase 1 preconstruction services initially, with full construction Performance and Payment bonds deferred until the bilateral execution of Phase 2 (GMP) - effectively mitigate risk and bonding capacity constraints for your firm? Please describe any alternative commercial security structures you recommend. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submission Requirement: The only authorized transmission method of responses is via filling out the survey form. No other transmission method will be accepted. Please limit your capability statement to the space provided within the form. The Market Intelligence Response Form can be accessed at https://forms.osi.apps.mil/r/xpuL4AqhEr or via the QR Code provided in the attachment. Please submit your responses by 25 September 2026 at 1000 Eastern Time. The questionnaire is the Government’s primary mechanism for obtaining detailed market intelligence and addresses industry capability, experience, technical capabilities, construction considerations, and recommended OTA and commercial practices. The Government welcomes candid industry feedback and recommendations regarding commercial practices, agreement terms, project phasing, risk sharing, governance, pricing approaches, and other considerations that could improve successful execution of this project under 10 U.S.C. § 2808a. Interested firms are encouraged to add themselves to the Interested Vendors List associated with this announcement on SAM.gov to receive future updates. Note: Do not submit proprietary trade secrets, protected technologies, or classified information in your response. All feedback received will be handled as public market research to shape the Government’s final acquisition approach.

View original listing