Award Watch: Construction Management Support Services (Alaska-wide + outlying areas)
Executive takeaway
This is an early market signal for a single-award task order contract providing non-personal construction management and quality assurance services supporting projects throughout Alaska, including remote installations and outlying areas (explicitly including Wake Island). The buyer is clearly drawing boundaries: this is not Brooks Act design work, and services must avoid anything “closely related to inherently governmental functions,” with no government supervision of contractor personnel.
If you can show disciplined QA processes (submittal/technical document review, compliance monitoring, field reporting, and data/file management) and can operate in Alaska’s dispersed project environment, this is worth engaging at the sources sought stage—especially since incomplete responses will be disregarded for acquisition planning purposes.
What the buyer is trying to do
The buyer is seeking construction management support focused on assessing and monitoring compliance with project requirements and ensuring documentation aligns with plans, specifications, schedules, and related (“ancillary”) documents. The work spans varied task orders, with locations provided per task order, and performance expected across Alaska’s full footprint, including remote sites and outlying areas.
This is positioned as a non-personal services requirement (contractor manages its own personnel) and explicitly framed as non-design (not under the Brooks Act).
What work is implied (bullets)
- Construction management support oriented to quality assurance (not design).
- Assessment and monitoring of compliance with plans, specifications, schedules, and ancillary documents.
- Quality assurance review of construction contractor submittals and deliverables (e.g., reports, plans, studies, technical documents) for compliance.
- Reporting findings to the Field COR.
- File and data management supporting task order execution.
- Execution across Alaska-wide locations, including remote sites and outlying areas (including Wake Island), with locations set per task order.
Who should bid / who should pass (bullets)
Who should bid
- Firms with a repeatable, auditable approach to QA compliance monitoring and submittal/document review against project requirements.
- Teams that can cover distributed Alaska locations (including remote travel/logistics) while maintaining consistent reporting and data management.
- Contractors comfortable operating under non-personal services constraints (clear independence; government does not direct contractor staff).
Who should pass
- Design-first A/E firms expecting Brooks Act-style scope (this requirement explicitly says it does not fall under the Brooks Act).
- Firms whose delivery model relies on the government supervising contractor staff day-to-day (inconsistent with the stated non-personal services structure).
- Teams that cannot reliably support remote/outlying locations or cannot sustain field reporting to a Field COR.
Response package checklist (bullets; if unknown say “verify in attachments”)
- Follow the sources sought instructions and provide all required information requested (buyer states incomplete responses will not be used for acquisition planning decisions).
- Capability narrative covering:
- Construction management and QA compliance monitoring approach.
- Process for QA review of submittals and technical documents against plans/specs/schedules/ancillary documents.
- Field reporting workflow for providing findings to the Field COR.
- File/data management approach.
- Alaska-wide coverage plan (remote sites/outlying areas, including Wake Island).
- Evidence of eligibility: confirm active registration in SAM (required to be eligible for award).
- Any forms/templates requested by the notice: verify in attachments.
- Submit by the stated sources sought deadline: 2:30 PM (AKDT) on 17 February 2026.
Pricing & strategy notes (how to research pricing; do not invent pricing numbers)
This is a sources sought/presolicitation stage; pricing detail may not be requested yet. Still, you can sharpen competitiveness now by building a rate-and-effort hypothesis based on the implied work:
- Map likely labor categories to the tasks described (QA review, compliance monitoring, field reporting, data/file management) and estimate level of effort by task order variability.
- Account for Alaska realities in your internal model: travel, remote mobilization, and the operational overhead of supporting multiple installations and outlying areas (without making assumptions in the response unless requested).
- Research likely competition by reviewing who typically performs Alaska-wide construction QA/CM support for similar buyers, then calibrate staffing mix accordingly (keep it general at sources sought unless the notice requests detailed staffing).
- Watch for the stated note that a solicitation will be issued on or about April 2026; pricing structure and evaluation approach should become clearer then.
Subcontracting / teaming ideas (bullets)
- Partner with Alaska-based firms for field presence and rapid response at remote installations (supporting travel/logistics and local familiarity).
- Add specialists for document control / data management if your core strength is field QA.
- Consider teaming for coverage of outlying areas when task orders require it (build a plan for surge travel and continuity of reporting).
Risks & watch-outs (bullets)
- Scope boundary risk: the buyer emphasizes non-design (not Brooks Act) and avoidance of inherently governmental functions—ensure your narrative clearly stays in QA/CM support and compliance monitoring.
- Non-personal services compliance: avoid language implying the government will supervise contractor personnel.
- Geographic execution risk: Alaska-wide coverage includes remote sites and outlying areas (including Wake Island); underestimating logistics can hurt credibility.
- Administrative risk: the buyer states responses missing any required information will not be used for acquisition planning—treat the checklist as pass/fail.
- Timeline watch-out: solicitation timing is stated as “on or about April 2026,” but dates can shift; monitor for updates.
Related opportunities
- AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER CONTRACT INSTALLATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
- UPS Maintenance
- DJ10--26-HW0008 KeySight (VA-26-00008431)
How to act on this
- Download and review the notice package and any attachments; identify exactly what information is required and build a compliance matrix.
- Draft a sources sought response that mirrors the buyer’s language: QA compliance monitoring, submittal/document review, Field COR reporting, and file/data management—explicitly non-design.
- Confirm SAM registration status and ensure your response is complete and submitted by the stated deadline.
- Track the planned solicitation release timeframe (“on or about April 2026”) and prepare reusable technical narratives for rapid turnaround.
If you want a second set of eyes on your sources sought package (compliance matrix, capability narrative, and risk wording around inherently governmental functions), Federal Bid Partners LLC can help you tighten the submission before it goes in.