Independent Commissioning Agent (Owner’s Advocate) Services for U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)/SOURCES SOUGHT (SS) NOTIFICATION INCLUDING INDUSTRY FEEDBACK 1. Title: Independent Commissioning Agent (Owner’s Advocate) Services for U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases 2. Contracting Office: Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity (DHACA), R&D Contracting Division 1 - Branch 4 3. Location: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 4. Summary: This RFI/SS is issued solely for information and planning purposes and shall not be construed as a solicitation, restrict the Government as to the ultimate acquisition approach, or serve as an obligation on the part of the USAMRDC. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are advised that the United States Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI/SS will be solely at the interested responder’s expense. Not responding to this RFI/SS does not preclude participation in any future Request for Proposal, if any is issued. No evaluation letters and/or results will be issued to Responders responding to this RFI/SS. The information resulting from this RFI/SS will determine interest and capabilities available in the marketplace; and will assist in developing acquisition strategy. 5. Background: The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), located at Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the premier lead medical research laboratory for the U.S. Department of War's biological defense research program. Since 1969, USAMRIID has provided leading edge medical capabilities to deter and defend against current and emerging biological threat agents. The Institute is the only laboratory in the Department of Defense equipped to safely study highly hazardous pathogens requiring maximum containment at Biosafety Level 4. USAMRIID has executed its mission from Building 1425. While historically significant, the legacy facility has surpassed its design lifespan. To sustain the DoD's biosafety integrity and research posture, the Department authorized the design and construction of a state-of-the-art replacement facility: Building 8100. Groundbreaking for the replacement complex took place in August 2009. In 2013, during the final construction execution and fit-out phases, Building 8100 experienced a fire that damaged critical mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure, Building Automation System controls, and associated laboratory boundary zones. Recovering from this event and achieving facility handover has become an acute operational hardship for the biodefense mission, delaying the transfer of ongoing medical research from the aging legacy facility. Note: Primary physical repair, mechanical completion, and prime construction execution are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Contractor shall not draft new architectural designs, stamp or seal engineering drawings, or execute physical facility redesigns. 6. Scope: The Government requires an independent, third-party technical Commissioning Agent (Owner's Advocate) to bridge the technical divide between USACE/prime construction execution and the stringent operational, biosafety, and regulatory compliance requirements of the end-user (USAMRDC Headquarters and USAMRIID). The Commissioning Agent will independently evaluate, witness, and verify critical facility systems and controls, and systematically advise the Government on executing a staggered/phased transition to achieve functional occupancy, biosafety accreditation, and facility registration. How to Respond: Please submit a Capability Statement that describes relevant experience, expertise, and capabilities based upon the size and scope of this requirement as outlined in the draft Statement of Objectives (SOO). Capability statements will be reviewed/evaluated for (1) Relevant experience based on the size and scope of the outlined requirement; (2) Company specific capabilities that match the work outlined in the draft SOO. The Government will utilize the capability statements and market data collected from this notice to determine whether the proposed acquisition can be set aside for small business concerns (including 8(a), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), or HUBZone programs) or if full and open competition is required under NAICS code 541330. The formal closing date for this RFI/SS and for the submission of all responses is NLT 9 November 2026 at 12:00PM ET. All responses shall be submitted electronically using PDF or MS Word formats to the POC, Elizabeth O’Hara at [email protected]. All responses received will be considered; however, a determination by the Government not to solicit the proposed requirement based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. The Government reserves the right to continue market research and may issue additional RFIs if deemed necessary. Each response should include the following information and must not be more than fifteen (15) pages in length: Business Information: Company name, mailing address, e-mail address, telephone, website address (if available), and the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of a point of contact having the authority and knowledge to clarify responses with Government representatives. Unique Entity ID number, CAGE Code, and company structure (Corporation, LLC, partnership, joint venture, etc.). Companies also must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM, at www.sam.gov) to be considered as potential sources. Any and all Government Contracts/IDIQs (e.g. Federal Supply Schedule, OASIS+, etc.) you currently hold (to include the vehicle and your contract number) that could be used to fulfill this requirement. Organization Conflict of Interest: Independent verification requires that the Commissioning Agent has no conflicting roles with the facility’s prime construction contractors. Do you or any proposed team members have an active role in the construction, controls, or installation for Building 8100? Please confirm your ability to certify organizational independence in accordance with FAR RFO 9.5. Technical Experience & Biocontainment Qualifications: Interested parties are requested to provide concise, direct responses to the following four (4) topic areas. General marketing literature is discouraged. BSL-3 and BSL-4 Containment Experience: Describe your firm’s specific experience serving as an independent Commissioning Agent or Owner’s Advocate on high- and maximum containment biological facilities (BSL-3, ABSL-3, BSL-4, ABSL-4). Highlight your experience with continuous negative pressure cascades, Bubble Tight Dampers (BTDs), APR doors, chemical suit shower skids and effluent decontamination systems. Regulatory Compliance Experience: Describe your firm’s past performance conducting comprehensive gap analyses, compiling Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) registration packages (Biosafety, Security, Incident Response, BSAT Movement Plans under 42 CFR Part 73), verifying Tier 1 physical security layouts (minimum three physical barriers), and managing a live tracking register in secure environments. Commissioning and Operational Systems Verification Experience: Describe your firm’s past technical experience performing 100% on-site witnessing and log analysis for critical containment failure-scenario testing (exhaust fan failure, emergency power transfers) to verify zero airflow reversals across BSL-3/4 boundaries, along with safety interlock witnessing (BTDs, APR doors, suit showers), effluent decontamination systems, and independent Commissioning Report critical reviews. Project Management Experience: Describe your firm’s experience serving as an independent "Owner’s Advocate" bridging the gap between prime construction contractors and medical research end-users, managing a staggered/phased transition plan without creating an Organizational Conflict of Interest. Industry Questions: To assist the Government in continuing to define this requirement and acquisition strategy, the following feedback from industry is requested: Phased Occupancy Isolation Strategy: From a commissioning perspective, what are the primary risks and recommended controls when executing a staggered occupancy plan (e.g., occupying administrative offices and BSL-1/2 suites while adjacent BSL-3/4 spaces are undergoing active failure testing)? Centralized RFI & Compliance Tracking Strategy: Are there any technical or operational limitations to your team developing and maintaining a live web-based tracking register accessible to the Government 24/7? Deliverable Review Timelines: Are the turnaround times of the deliverables feasible (e.g., reports due 10 days from witnessing testing)? Government Furnished Property/Information: What Government-Furnished Property and/or Information would you require on Day 1 to prevent delays? Industry Day/Pre-Solicitation Conference: The Government is contemplating hosting an Industry Day / Pre-Solicitation Conference prior to the release of the formal solicitation. Would attending an Industry Day be beneficial in preparing a comprehensive, competitive proposal? If so, would an on-site physical walkthrough be preferred; or a virtual technical briefing? What would be most valuable to cover during the event? If an Industry Day is not beneficial, what information in addition to the Statement of Objectives would you require in order to prepare a proposal? Source Selection Process: The Government is considering utilizing Oral Presentations (conducted in accordance with FAR RFO 15.105-1) as a primary technical evaluation methodology in lieu of, or in combination with, voluminous written technical proposals. Under this contemplated approach, key personnel (e.g., Lead Commissioning Engineer, Biosafety Regulatory Lead) would present the firm’s proposed technical approach directly to the Technical Evaluation Board, followed by structured Government Q&A. Would the use of Oral Presentations be viewed favorably by your firm, and would it streamline your proposal preparation process? What format or presentation structure would provide the best opportunity to demonstrate your team's expertise? What challenges or concerns, if any, would your firm anticipate regarding participation in oral presentations? Would your firm prefer oral presentations to be held on-site or virtually? Contract Type Feasibility: The Government is looking to award a Firm-Fixed-Price contract with Performance-Based Milestone Payments (FAR RFO 32.10). Payouts will be strictly tied to measurable events and transition milestones. Is this contract structure viable and realistic for an independent commissioning agent? If yes, what specific risk-allocation mechanisms or prerequisite assumptions should the Government incorporate into the milestone schedule? If not, what alternative contract pricing structure (e.g., FFP Level-of-Effort, T&M, or Cost-Reimbursement) would you propose, and why? Rough Order of Magnitude: To assist the Government in assessing budget feasibility, respondents are requested to submit a non-binding Rough Order of Magnitude pricing estimate. Respondents may include a brief narrative explaining key cost drivers, proposed labor categories, and any critical pricing assumptions or dependencies. To assist with the estimate, below are baseline parameters: Facility Parameter Sizing & Scope Baseline Total Facility Gross Square Footage: 835,000 GSF Administrative & Headquarters Spaces: Approx. 310,000 GSF (administrative offices, conference center, command suites) BSL-1 & BSL-2 Laboratory Spaces: Approx. 185,000 GSF (general research, diagnostic, and cell-culture laboratories) ABSL-2 Approx. 65,208 GSF (vivarium) BSL-3, ABSL-3, & ACL-3 Containment: Approx. 165,000 GSF (14 distinct laboratory, viv…