DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service
***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail***
95332419E0001 Amendment 5
DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in Côte d'Ivoire
Synopsis
Amendment 5
The purpose of Amendment 5 is (1) to issue updated Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 20190131, (2) to respond to last set of questions received before the deadline, (3) to remove the requirement for the LOE Percentage by Deliverables, (4) to clarify MCC's evaluation for cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods, and (5) to extend the SF-330 submission deadline to 5:00pm ET on 14 February 2019 (Thursday).
Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5"
Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow. Any changes to the previous version of the ToR are noted as Track Changes.
The following Amendment 5 Q&As and attached ToRs represent the most recent information and supplant any conflicting information from previous Amendments/versions.
Questions and Answers (Q&As):
1. Synopsis Evaluation Factor 3: Will concrete or gravel cement pavements be considered as similar to rolled compacted concrete in your analysis?
Response: Experience in cement treated base courses produced using a pug mill will be considered as similar.
2. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: Article 1.2.7.4 refers to an Annex I-16 which is not present in the file. Can you specify the content of this Annex?
Response: This Annex I-16 refers to the Annex of the Compact, which is available on line at the following link: https://assets.mcc.gov/content/uploads/compact-cote-divoire.pdf
3. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: The table on page 12 indicates the key elements that will be provided to the A&E by the agencies and their respective ministries: all available as-built files on project roads and all utilities, any existing traffic Models and studies, all available data including traffic counts, geotechnical characteristics, underground utilities...
Apart from the WSP's VGE integrated model, are there any other models that will be made available to the A&E?
Can you confirm that all existing elements related to the mentioned fields will be provided to the A&E by April 2019?
Response: The existing elements noted in the table are expected to be provided by April 2019, however note that some or all of the as-built files may not exist, especially with regards to the utilities.
In order to minimize uncertainties and therefore claims during construction, the exact positioning of all underground utilities with non-destructive and destructive methods (trenches to confirm) during the design is required.
4. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: Apart from the MCLU/DGUF data, the table on page 11 does not mention any GIS data. Can you confirm that we will not have any other GIS database other than the one mentioned?
Response: Please see section 4.5.1 ArcGIS Platform for more information on what is being provided. MCC is not aware of the availability of any other readily available platform for the city of Abidjan.
5. ToR page 21 sec. 3.1.2.1.2: The A&E shall provide a justification for the selection of the modelling tool, including a preliminary cost estimate of data collection campaign and modelling tasks. Afterwards, the detailed methodology definition and detailed data collection will be presented to MCC, MCA-Côte d'Ivoire and local authorities for validation.
We understand that the whole traffic data collection campaign and modelling tasks will only be defined and estimated at that time, according to the analyses that will have been carried out on the available data and models.
Can you confirm that we fully understand the terms of reference and that it is not necessary to estimate levels of effort for these tasks?
Response: The A&E shall estimate and provide a detailed methodology by which it intends to collect and model the required data to be able to perform all of the activities required under Phase I.
During the Phase II, the selected A&E will be asked to include the costs associated with Section 3.1.2.1.1 Data Collection. Section 3.1.2.1.2 Modelling Tool Justification provides for any additional justified modifications that would not have been foreseen during the bidding process.
The ToR has been adjusted accordingly.
6. ToR page 23 sec. 3.1.2.2.4: The A&E shall ensure that the initial traffic (deviation) management model can accept any changes on the network with an almost real-time result.
Can you specify your expectations in terms of calculation time to satisfy this requirement for an almost real-time result?
Response: In order to achieve this task, it is expected that the A&E shall make use of a traffic model that can provide the dynamic re-distribution effect of any change in the network. For instance, if two lanes of a four-lane major artery in the vicinity of VGE are blocked, how would that effect the traffic flow on VGE?
7. ToR pages 30 sec. 3.1.5.4: Can you confirm that all the necessary elements will be provided for the A&E to perform the assessment of the existing Vridi bridge: calculation note, execution plans (including reinforcement and formwork plans), detailed inspection reports, history of interventions on the structure (reinforcement, resurfacing of pavements, etc.)?
Response: As built drawings, detailed inspection reports and history of interventions on the structure are not available.
8. ToR pages 46-57 sec. 4: The deliverable timeline is based on a 2 week review period by MCC, MCA-CI and CTCTR. How is the global timeline updated if the review organizations do not meet this 2 week deadline?
Response: The effect of a delay will be reviewed on a case by case basis and based on the A&E workplan. An equitable adjustment will be contemplated to the updated work plan.
9. ToR page 62 sec. 5.2.1: For the pavement engineer, will the experiences with concrete or gravel cement pavements be considered as similar to rolled compacted concrete experiences?
Response: Experience with conventional concrete pavements or pugmill-produced cement treated base shall be considered equivalent to RCC experience.
10. Provisions and Clauses: As part of the contract, can we be required to prove that we comply with the rules of US embargoes on our equipment and/or for our suppliers?
Response: Yes, MCC may ask to prove such compliance.
FAR 52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases prohibits contractors and subcontractors from acquiring supplies or services from entities subject to US economic sanctions. As required by FAR 52.203-13 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, firms must establish appropriate internal controls to facility timely discover of any improper business conduct, including compliance to US economic sanctions. MCC may request the contractor to prove compliance and contractor must do so in timely manner.
11. Provisions and Clauses: We understand the contract will be composed of the clauses referred to in the document "Provisions and Clauses" and that we will find these clauses at www.acquisition.gov/
browse/index/far. But could you please indicate us if there will be additional clauses or other contract template not sent yet?
Response: MCC believes the "Provisions and Clauses" document lists all the applicable provisions and clauses.
12. Provisions and Clauses: We would like to introduce limitation of liability clause to the contract amount in aggregate. Could you please amend the particular conditions in this way?
Response: We will consider any special terms and conditions as long as it does not violate US law or other applicable contract clauses. The Bidder's terms and conditions must be proposed in Section H. Additional Information, unless it discloses any price/cost information. If so, it shall be proposed during the Phase II.
13. Provisions and Clauses: Could you please specify what are the insurances required?
Response: MCC does not require any specific insurance. However, the contractor should carry professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, a common general liability insurance, and any other insurance applicable by law.
14. The pavement engineer should have at least 3 projects with rolled compacted concrete placement whereas the technology suggested for the project include high modulus asphalts (HMA) and rolled compacted concrete (RCC). Would other relevant experience also be considered for the pavement engineer, for instance high modulus asphalt concrete placement?
Response: High Modulus Asphalt Concrete is considered the same as high modulus asphalts.
15. Regarding the multimodal traffic demand and simulation model, we would like to know if the stakeholders/ the MCC have already identified the followings:
a. Recent household surveys,
b. Traffic counting, demand surveys and their respective dates,
c. Traffic models: area/ zoning, simulation period (peak hours only, full day, etc.), software(s) that were used and forecast periods.
If so, would it be then possible to circulate a list of the recent surveys and existing traffic modelling studies?
Response: The BNETD (Bureau National D'Études Techniques et de Développement), a government owned corporation, has performed household surveys and traffic counts, and has calibrated EMME version 2. Through an agreement to be signed by MCA-CI and the BNETD, the latter is committing to provide all data and some basic support at no cost, to the A&E. However note that this agreement has not been finalized.
16. Amendment 2 Q&A No. 7: In the Synopsis Section 1. Background, what does it mean by "The estimated cost range for the construction project is to exceed $10,000,000"?
A: This is simply a prescribed set of ranges per FAR 36.204.
What does it mean by "To exceed $10,000,000" is not a range or set of ranges. Can MCC provide a range estimate or are we to refer to the answer to Question 30 - "the estimated contract value for this A-E service is between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000"?
Response: FAR 36.204 suggests "the estimated price should be described in terms of one of the following price ranges" with "(h) More than $10,000,000" being the highest threshold.
A narrower estimate for this project is US$10 to $15 million.
17. Amendment 2 Q&A 15: Where in the SF-330 should firms incorporate the Commitment Letters?
A: You may include all the Commitment Letters as a separate attachment to the SF-330 Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for this Contract. As a reminder, there is no page limit for Commitment Letters.
Amendment 2 Q&A 16: Does MCC want a confirmation of the A-E firm's commitment to this project from an authorized officer of the firm?
A: Yes. The Cover Letter shall include a statement from an executive of the proposing firm confirming their commitment to actualizing the proposed and negotiated plans, including the team members. Firms may simply include a statement in the signed Cover Letter, "Firm ABC confirms the commitment of carrying out our proposed and any negotiated technical plans, including mobilizing and maintaining the proposed team members."
Given that employees of a company have no legal authority to commit their time [such a commitment is legally binding only if it comes from a duly authorized officer of the firm] may we assume commitment letters from a firm's employees are no longer required so long as the firm provides a commitment for the proposed employees in the cover letter?
Response: Individuals working as consultants or subcontractor (anyone not an employee of the prime firm) must submit a signed commitment letter. Otherwise, firms are permitted to submit a signed blanket statement confirming the commitment and the availability of proposed employees of the firm. (If all the proposed personnel are employees of the prime firm, individually signed commitment letters are not required.) The resumes of the proposed personnel must clearly indicate that their current employer. If MCC is unable to identify whether or not a proposed team member is a current employee of the prime firm from her/his resume, MCC will assume the team member is not an employee of the prime firm.
18. Amendment 2 Q&A 26. Page 7 of ToR, asks for the LoEs less administrative effort. There may be uneven comparison by removing the administrative effort.
A: We have changed this requirement to propose the Total Estimated LoE Percentage per Deliverable. Refer to the Attachment c. LoEs by Deliverable. We are no longer seeking a total number of hours per deliverable. The sum of all the LoE percentages (including the Base Period and Option Period 1) must equal 100% and shall reflect the total hours, including both technical and administrative hours, in the calculation.
Changing the requirement for presenting actual LOE labor hours to percentages is, to a degree, a distinction without a difference. In order to compute percentages, the proposing firm would first need to calculate actual LOE hours, from which it could then derive percentage effort. In either case, the question arises as to whether it is proper to evaluate LOE labor in an SF 330 procurement which is intended to solicit Q&E and a management structure/approach, not to evaluate proposed level of effort?
Response: MCC believes that without the firm's hourly rates or specific LOE hours, MCC cannot infer or deduce a firm's price/cost from the LOE percentages. However, to ease the submission requirement, MCC is removing the LOE Percentage by Deliverables spreadsheet for this time.
19. Amendment 2 Q&A 28. Are firms permitted to propose cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods?
A: Yes. Firms may propose innovative cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods that can improve the Government's requirement in Section H. Additional Information. However, this synopsis phase is strictly a technical evaluation phase and SF-330 does not allow any cost information. Therefore, firms must take care not to submit any specific cost detail. General explanations of the methods are permitted but any numbers associated to cost or even inferences that can be made to any specific cost numbers are prohibited. MCC will not advise the firms whether or not their language would be permissible before the submission due date. Firms should consult the permissible language with their legal counsel.
The provided guidance specifically includes: "General explanations of the methods that are permitted but any numbers associated to cost or even inferences that can be made to any specific cost numbers are prohibited." How are firms going to provide detailed percentage level of effort, by labor category, by deliverable, without violating the prohibition that no information provided may facilitate inferences as to cost?
Response: Bidders are asked to provide technical explanation of cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods without disclosing pricing/cost information. During Phase I, MCC will evaluate the innovation and applicability of these methods, not the extent of cost savings, as part of Qualification Factor 2. However, this is not a required qualification. Innovative and applicable cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods will be given a greater consideration; but choosing not to present this information will not negatively affect the Bidder's evaluation rating for Factor 2.
As noted in MCC's response to Question no 18 above, LOE Percentage by Deliverables is no longer requested.
20. Amendment 2 Q&A 31. During the contract performance, it may be necessary for the contractor to access various areas of the project. What would happen if there are any accessibility issue?
A: If the said issue arises from the fault of the Government, we will absolutely consider modifying the contract for reasonable equitable adjustments. If the issue/delay could have been resolved or avoided by the contractor, any additional costs incurred would be assumed by the contractor.
Why is this issue being addressed in the context of an SF 330 technical submission? Issues such as accessibility should be addressed during cost negotiations with the selected firm. In any event, such issues would be properly addressed via negotiation of costing assumptions. Is it truly MCC's intent that such issues would be addressed via formal equitable adjustments to the contract?
Response: MCC is simply responding to a hypothetical question posed by an interested firm. MCC is not requesting firms to address the cost implication of such scenario in the SF-330 submission.
FAR 52.243-1 Changes-Fixed Price Alternate III paragraph (b) states that the Contracting Office shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, in case of an increase or decrease in the cost of performance. Accordingly, if the cost of performance is increased by Government-caused delay, MCC will consider negotiating an equitable adjustment.
21. Amendment 2 Q&A 34. Regarding the key-experts and their presence on site, should we consider a minimum share of their man-days to be spent in Ivory Coast?
A: The firm shall propose how they anticipate staffing and maintaining the appropriate level of in country presence to complete the assignment.
How does a firm "propose how they anticipate staffing and maintaining the appropriate level of in country presence to complete the assignment" without specifying LOE labor hours, or LOE percentages which is prohibited?
Response: The A&E shall outline their approach to staffing the project in country and at home office, including key and non-key personnel throughout the requirement including associated logistics and arrangements.
22. TOR 1.2.6 Stakeholder Engagement, most specifically:
For the design phase, the A&E shall anticipate, at a minimum, the following:
1. A stakeholder set of approximately fifty (50) entities (excluding individuals and households affected by the Project who are part of the Resettlement Action Plan);
2. The review/validation of a minimum of seventy-five (75) products and/or deliverables;
3. The delivery of one hundred fifty (150) working sessions or workshops involving venue rental, including meals and coffee breaks for a minimum of thirty (30) participants; and,
4. A communications and invitation package for each workshop including printed material.
As part of the stakeholder engagement program, the A&E shall i) provide logistical support, ii) meet individually with stakeholders during preparation and/or as follow-up to the workshops, iii) publish and print materials including sketches, technical drawings or electronic media, iv) organize venues and send necessary invitations, v) prepare materials and present at the workshops, and vi) provide for any follow-up that is required. Further, the A&E shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials for all Stakeholder Engagement activities that are conducted under their contract scope.
2.1 Objectives of the Consultancy
The A&E services are comprised of one eight (8) month Base Period (Phase I), with a ten (10) month Option Period 1 (Phase II), both under a full fixed price basis.
The details outlined in 1.2.6, especially those bolded, suggest a significant number of unknowns and variables yet Section 2.1 dictates the work shall be performed on a fixed prices basis.
Under general contracting principles, fixed price contracts should not be used where there are contingencies and unknowns that render costing not suitable to fixed price contracting. Such would appear to be the case here. In order to protect itself from the inherent risk of fixed price bidding, the contractor would need to propose an inordinate number of labor hours and/or a slew of contingency assumptions. Further, the contactor would not be allowed a proposed MOD unless it could demonstrate there was a scope change. This might be problematic for the contractor since there may not be evidence of a scope change, rather the issue would be that the scope itself is full of contingencies and unknowns.
Would MCC consider changing to a T&M contract?
Response: No.
23. TOR 3.2.2 Social Safeguarding
This includes Stakeholder Engagement, ESIA preparation, and Resettlement Planning.
The Social Safeguarding component of the A&E's work will be very difficult to cost on a fix priced basis. The challenge is that much of the critical information for scoping these efforts (e.g. project designs, number and status of people to be resettled, and outputs from stakeholder meetings) will not be available at the time of bidding because these efforts are part of the project itself. The following two questions identify the challenge in more detail.
23(a). TOR 3.2.2.1 Preparation of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
Per the TORs, "The A&E shall prepare an ESIA, Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and an environmental and social monitoring program for each of the road segments"
The dimensions of the ESIAs, will depend on studies and design work which will not have been completed at the time that the A&E is required to propose a cost for preparation of the ESIAs.
Lacking 3.1.5.5 Social Inclusion Analysis, 3.1.5.7 Conceptual Design; and 3.2.1.4 Preliminary Design Documents which will be completed as part of the ATP, the costing will be unreliable. This creates a significant financial risk for the A&E. How does MCC propose that this risk be mitigated?
Response: The A&E shall have to assess an estimate for these activities. We have supplied minimum requirements as we currently understand them. We also encourage Bidders to narrow risks further through direct observation using remote sensing. As in all instances where information is incomplete (in this case potentially due to not having final designs prior to scoping the ESIA, or full stakeholder mapping), the Bidder will have to make certain assumptions which should be stated transparently at the outset so that it is possible to understand what the proposal includes and what it does not include. These assumptions shall be presented to MCC for consideration.
23(b). 3.2.2.2 Involuntary Resettlement
This item identifies that the A&E will Prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and a Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP). The dimensions of the Resettlement Plan (especially the number of Potentially Affected People involved) can't be reliably estimated prior to completion of the Stakeholder Mapping exercise (part of the Inception Report) and the conceptual and engineering designs that are part of the project. According to the TOR's, Potentially Affected People (PAP) estimates provided: "are not based on any field work, i.e., no PAP census or interviews with PAPs or other stakeholders have been conducted. The estimates were also developed prior to the forced eviction of truckers from the port zone that occurred in November 2017."
Yet the A&E will be required to propose a cost for developing the individual project RAPs as well as LRPs before this requisite information is available. PAP estimates provided in the bid documents are likely to change significantly.
Costing will be difficult without the stakeholder mapping and the design work. This will in turn create a significant financial risk for the A&E.
Again, how does MCC propose that this risk be mitigated?
Response: The A&E shall have to assess an estimate for this activity. RAP implementation is however not part of this contract. We have supplied minimum requirements as we currently understand them. We also encourage Bidders to narrow risks further through direct observation using remote sensing. As in all instances where information is incomplete, the Bidder will have to make certain assumptions which should be stated transparently at the outset so that it is possible to understand what the proposal includes and what it does not include.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
[End of Amendment 5]
Amendment 4
The purpose of Amendment 4 is (1) to issue updated Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 20190102 and (2) to clarify the submission deadline.
Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4."
This version of the ToR updates the Section 1.2.6 Stakeholder Engagement to include a minimum level of anticipated stakeholder engagement work. The changes are highlighted in yellow and noted in Track Changes.
Due to the US Federal Government lapse in FY2019 Appropriations, MCC will shut down starting 3 January 2019 and thus the submission deadline may be affected. MCC's intent is for the submissions to be due by 5:00PM ET on 4 February 2019 (Monday); however if MCC is unable to timely address the questions (due by 1:00PM ET on 4 January 2019), then MCC may consider extending the submission deadline.
With a few exceptions, MCC will not be allowed to work during the furlough period (or also called "shutdown"). MCC will not be able to make amendments to this Synopsis until the US Federal Government reopens. Please check this Synopsis on FBO.gov after the US Federal Government reopens. If MCC decides to extend the submission deadline, MCC will make an amendment before the submission deadline or within 5 business days from the reopening date, whichever is later. Unless this Synopsis is amended, interested offerors shall assume that the questions and the submission deadlines remain unchanged.
The interested offerors are responsible for staying updated on the current US Government furlough/shutdown status and submit your SF-330 timely. Please check the US news and https://www.opm.gov/ regarding furlough/shutdown information.
Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
[End of Amendment 4]
Amendment 3
The purpose of Amendment 3 is (1) to extend the Submission Due Date to 5:00pm ET on 4 February 2019 (Friday), (2) to answer several questions posed by interested bidders, and (3) to issue updated Attachment a.1 Terms of Reference (ToR) 20181227 (Microsoft Word) [Official]. This Amendment 3 revises the answers to Amendment 2 Questions 1 and 2. Please note the information in this Amendment 3, including the Attachments, supplants any conflicting information you may found in previous versions of this Synopsis. Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow. Any changes to revised version of the ToR are noted in the Track Changes.
We have made some changes to the ToR, including the removal of one task (formerly 3.1.4.2) and its associated deliverable (Deliverable 14). We also added language regarding the bachelor's degrees for engineering positions at the senior level, namely that the degrees shall come from accredited engineering institutions. We provided the names of the accreditation institutions with links for verification in the US, Canada, France and international agreements (Washington Accords and CTI).
Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, and 3 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, and 3."
Questions and Answers (Q&As):
1. Requirements for the Pavement Engineer (s) (P. 58 of the ToR): "S/he shall have a Masters' degree in Civil Engineering with specialty in concrete pavements and high modulus asphalts." To our knowledge, this specialty is acquired rather after years of practice. Would you consider lowering the education requirement?
A: Section 5 paragraph 7 allows for the substitution of years of experience for a Master's degree.
2. TOR 5.2.1 page 57: Can PM/TL's two projects over $175 million count toward the requirement that s/he must have led at least three projects over the past 10 years? In other words, is three total projects acceptable, or is MCC looking for five total projects for the PM/TL?
A: The two (2) urban infrastructure projects valued at over $175 million can be counted as part of the three (3) projects over the last ten (10) years.
3. Can MCC provide a copy of WSP's VGE integrated model?
A: MCC would require a legal approval to release this model, which may significantly delay this procurement. We also don't believe this is critical for bidders to prepare their submission. Therefore, this will not be shared with the interested bidders. However, it will be made available to the awardee after the award.
4. Does a cost loaded implementation plan with WBS need to be provided for the purposes of this qualifications-based submittal?
A: No. this will need to be provided with the financials as part of the second phase of the procurement.
5. Who will have primary responsibility for developing the Stakeholder Engagement Plan - the ESOC or the A&E? (There seems to be conflicting references to SEP preparation on pages 9 and 16 of the TOR.)
A: The A&E has total responsibility for planning and conducting all Stakeholder Engagement for all activities that are conducted under their contract scope. The ESOC has responsibility for the Project-wide Stakeholder Engagement Plan as required under the IFC PS and MCC, of which the Stakeholder Engagement program of the A&E is a part. The ESOC will need to capture and document what the A&E does in the larger Project-wide Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the A&E will need to share information and collaborate with the ESOC on its approach and results. Note on page 17 of the ToR, it states, "The A&E shall provide a preliminary stakeholder engagement plan including stakeholder mapping for completing the requirement." Therefore, this is consistent and correct.
6. Who will have primary responsibility for developing the Training course - the ESOC or the A&E? (There seems to be conflicting references on pages 9 and 13 of the TOR.)
A: The two training courses and objectives are different. Additional clarification is provided in revised ToR with this Amendment. Each consultant is responsible for their own course content development.
7. Who shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials?
A: The A&E shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials for all Stakeholder Engagement activities that are conducted under their contract scope. Page 10 of the ToR has been modified to reflect this.
8. One of the requirements for the key personnel is to have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and/or construction engineering. In some non-US countries, the degree is not called bachelor and not always civil, construction. Could the wording be modified to Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or similar?
A: Yes, this has been adjusted. Note that MCC reserves the exclusive right to evaluate what constitutes similar; as such the firm shall provide supporting evidence to help inform the MCC appropriately.
9. Can the A/E proposed different dates for the deliverables as long as the Base and Option Period do not go beyond the timeframe proposed by MCC? Also, can the A/E include additional deliverables not listed in the ToR?
A: Yes, the A&E is encouraged to propose different dates for deliverables. The A/E may propose additional deliverables, however the MCC reserves the right to accept or decline the proposal.
10. General Review and Approval Question. Please specify that the NTE Due dates provided in the schedules of the RFP are for DRAFT deliverables, which will begin the review "clock" ticking, and NOT for Final deliverables having undergone the 4-week pre-submission review process.
A: The dates provided are for approval of the deliverables. See Question No. 9 above. The A&E may modify the deliverables schedule as long as they fit in the period of performance provided.
11. It is stated that the A/E must possess an average of at least $100 million USD in total annual revenue over the last five years. Please clarify if the $100 million refers to revenue from design and/or from construction. Some design firms do not provide construction services.
A: This refers to annual revenue generated by the prime contractor's architecture and/or engineering design work.
12. TOR Page 44. 4.2 Deliverables. The RFP specifies that the official language of all deliverables is in French; however, also references translation requirements. Later, MCC requests that Monthly Reports be provided in both French & English. Please clarify language requirements for all primary deliverables as French only. (Only Deliverables 1 and 2 specifically note the French language requirement.)
A: Section 4.4.2.1 Base Period Deliverables notes that all deliverables are in French unless otherwise noted. This clarification has been extended to Section 4.4.2.2 Option Period 1 Deliverables.
13. TOR Page 44, 4.3 Review of Work. Please consider changing the deliverable review and time schedule to a set time frame, such as "Total deliverable review and finalization will be no more than 28 calendar days, which begins at the time the draft final is delivered to the MCC, MCA and appropriate organizations for review. Review organization have 14 calendar days to provide comments for inclusion or discussion, at which time the A&E has 14 days to include, discuss and revise the draft to Final. If reviewing organizations do not meet the 14-day deadline, the A&E is not obliged to include them. The A&E is responsible to keep record of and time stamp all received comments. This system does not preclude the A&E from eliciting informal feedback and comments during the drafting process."
A: This change has been provided in the ToR.
14. TOR Page 45. 4.3.1. and 4.3.2 CTCTR Monthly Progress & Design Review Meetings. MCC requires that the CTCTR meetings include videoconferencing. Please confirm that publicly available systems, such as Skype or Zoom can be used for this purpose.
A: Publicly available systems are permissible as long as they provide a high quality videoconferencing environment with proper audio and video quality for all participants.
15. TOR Page 46. Monthly reports. In this section of the RFP, MCC request that the monthly report must include a detailed time sheet for all personnel documenting in and out of country time. However, MCC has defined the contract terms as Firm Fixed Price, or FFP. Under FFP contracts, detailed time and costs are not required to be reviewed, presented or approved. Please clarify this requirement under the standard terms of a FFP contract structure.
A: This monthly report is to allow quality management by MCC. This is not to confirm the cost or invoice; this is to ensure that the contractor is providing a quality work as they proposed and negotiated.
16. TOR Page 44-47. Inception Report. The RFP states the draft Inception Report is due two weeks prior to the kick off meeting but the Abidjan Kick Off, and the final report is due within two weeks of the kick off meeting. Yet, the RFP states the Inception Report is Due at Week 10. The dates do not seem to coincide appropriately.
A: As noted in the Deliverables Timeline 4.4.2.1.10 Base Period Deliverable Timeline and 4.4.2.2.6 Option Period 1 Deliverable Timeline, the deliverable timelines are indicative and will be proposed and finalized by the A&E.
17. TOR Page 18. Task 3.1.2.1.1 Data Collection. Traffic counting data is not detailed in this task. Data is supposed to be collected for traffic counts, OD, safety assessment, injuries and fatalities, truck parking needs and land availability. Only OD survey is detailed. Other types of data seem to be rather requested in further tasks.
A: As noted in Section 3.1.2 Multimodal traffic demand and simulation model for the Project Zone of Influence, the objectives of the task are to perform data collection to develop a Traffic Demand and Simulation Model and develop a multimodal traffic demand and simulation model for trip generation, trip assignment, modal distribution and trip assignment. The A&E shall develop a methodology to accomplish this task accordingly.
18. TOR Page 27. 3.1.5.1 Conceptual Design. Traffic Assessment asks to perform a specific detailed traffic counts (during AM and PM peak periods, while it is not specified in Data Collection. Does this traffic count different from the one asked in Task 3.1.2.1.1 Data collection?
A: The A&E must propose, justify, and implement a data collection plan as part of the mandate. MCC believes traffic counts are necessary.
19. Data Collection. Can you confirm the Data collection for deliverable 4 includes only the road sections from figure 2 (excluding Boul de la Paix and Yopougon)?
A: The Project Zone of Influence is detailed under section 1.2.2 Project Zone of Influence. Figure 2 is provided as a partial reference material for the Project Zone of Influence.
20. Traffic Counting. Does the MCC expect the A/E to complete the traffic counting only with Deliverable 8-Conceptual Design at week 32?
A: Data collection results and simulations (to account for various network development scenarios or deviation plans) are required for the conceptual designs. The data collection may be performed earlier if needed.
21. Due Date. When is the Preliminary ESIA and Resettlement Report due and what is the required content?
A: The A&E shall include relevant ESIA and Resettlement information in the Preliminary Design Documents as outlined under Section 3.2.1.4. Deliverables found under section 4.4.2.2.1 Deliverable 9 note preliminary ESIA and resettlement risks and results shall be included.
22. Deliverable. Can you clarify the requirements in terms of Preliminary ESIA and resettlement in Deliverable 8 and Deliverable 9? From the deliverable descriptions (section 3.1.5.7 and section 4.4.2.2.1.1), both deliverables 8 and 9 should include the preliminary ESIA and resettlement assessment. Please provide details of what is expected.
A: Section 3.1.5.7 Conceptual Design is modified to summary ESIA and resettlement assessments, while 3.2.1 Preliminary designs and its deliverables under Section 4.4.2.2.1 Deliverable 9 note preliminary ESIA and resettlement risks and results shall be included. The Conceptual Design ESIA elements are meant to highlight the major aspects that may influence the overall design selection; the preliminary design is a more completed version of the selected conceptual design with more refined resettlement, environmental and social risks and measures identified.
23. Preliminary Estimates and types of PAP. What was the methodology used to estimate the preliminary number and type of PAP? What were the criteria used to distinguish permanently and temporarily displaced PAP?
A: It should be emphasized that the estimates of the number of PAPS are indicative only and NOT definitive. The presence of PAPs and the estimate of number of PAPS was assessed through counts made using satellite imagery coupled with windshield survey and intermittent on the ground counts. The difference between permanently displaced and temporarily displaced PAPS is that permanently displaced PAPs will not be able to resume their activities in their original location post-project completion.
24. Overlap ESOC-A&E. Could you clarify the responsibility of the A&E vs the ESOC:
a) The ESOC should develop training courses for the MCA and CTCTR, 6 courses X 16 h, all of them have the same topic as the 36h-classes provided by the A&E. Can you clarify the differences between both training programs?
A: The ESOC courses are generalized courses meant to provide a general awareness and understanding of each of the selected topics in anticipation of the A&E modules, which are meant to be more specialized and focused on providing the CTCTR with sufficient understanding to participate in the engineering design phase and to deliver the road projects during the Compact period as noted in paragraph 1 of 3.1.4.1 Training for the CTCTR.
b) Who, between the A&E and ESOC, is responsible to coordinate the engagement and effort of INP-HB and ENSEA?
A: The ESOC is responsible for engaging with the INP-HB and ENSEA for their six (6) modules, while the A&E is responsible for coordination with INP-HB and ENSEA, with support from MCA-CI, for its ten (10) modules.
c) What is the effort expected from INP-HB and ENSEA for those training programs? Should the A&E plan a budget for local professors in addition to international trainers?
A: The INP-HB and ENSEA have separate budgets from the A&E. Note that the A&E is expected to provide the training itself and not through professors from either institution. Note that professors from both institutions may be present during the modules.
[End of Amendment 3]
Amendment 2
The purpose of Amendment 2 is (1) to issue the details of the Synopsis Conference held on 27 November 2018, (2) to extend the Questions Due Date to 1:00pm ET on 4 January 2019 (Friday), and (3) to issue updated attachments. For the overview of the Conference, refer to the Synopsis Attachment f. Synopsis Conference Presentation. The highlights/questions from the synopsis are listed below in a form of questions and answers (Q&As).
This Amendment also includes the following attachments: Unofficial Terms of Reference in French 20181218, Updated LoEs by Deliverables, and Unofficial Synopsis Conference Presentation. The Unofficial Terms of Reference in French and the Unofficial Synopsis Conference Presentation are for reference purpose only. If there are any discrepancies among the documents, the information from the Official Terms of Reference and the Synopsis supplant the unofficial documents.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1 and 2 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1 and 2."
List of Synopsis Conference attendees:
a. Atkins Acuity
b. CP&Y
c. Egis Group
d. ERM Group
e. exp Global
f. IMC Worldwide
g. Ingérop
h. Jacobs Engineering Group
i. Louis Berger Group
j. Monkey Forest Consulting
k. Mott MacDonald
l. Rendel Limited
m. SETEC
n. Tetra Tech
Conference Questions and Answers (Q&As):
1. Would MCC consider extending the questions due date until the first week of January? Some of our international offices are closed until the first week.
A: Yes. The questions are now due by 1:00PM ET on 4 January 2019 (Friday).
2. Would MCC consider extending the SF-330 submission due date?
A: Yes. The submissions are now due by 5:00p ET on 4 February 2019 (Monday).
3. Would MCC consider cost plus incentive fee type contract?
A: No.
4. Will MCC provide a Microsoft Word version of the SF-330 template?
A: No. The SF-330 is managed and distributed by US GSA and they only have a PDF version available. After the Synopsis was posted, the CS realized that the Attachments E. SF-330 Part I and Part II Templates were corrupt. We will attempt to re-upload in this Amendment 2. However in case the upload fails again, MCC encourages the interested firms to download the templates directly from the GSA website:
https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms?search_keyword=sf-330
5. How will MCC share any revised Synopsis Attachments?
A: MCC may update the Synopsis Attachments as needed and upload it as an Amendment on FBO.gov under this announcement 95332419E0001. Firms are required to reference and use the most up-to-date Attachments from the latest amendment for their submissions. Please periodically check the FBO announcement at the following link for any revised Attachments:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/MCC/MCCMCC/MCCMCC01/95332419E0001/listing.html
6. How should firms confirm that the submission is valid for one year?
A: Firms may simply note "The submission is valid for one year" in the Cover Letter.
7. In the Synopsis Section 1. Background, what does it mean by "The estimated cost range for the construction project is to exceed $10,000,000"?
A: This is simply a prescribed set of ranges per FAR 36.204.
8. Is an SF-330 Part II required for each office where key personnel reside?
A: Yes. SF-330 Part II is required for each office that will be involved in this project.
(The complete SF-330 template has a set of instructions on how to complete the form. On page 4 of Instructions, it says to submit SF-330 Part II for the firm and each of its "branch office seeking work if the firm has branch offices.")
9. How soon does MCC expect to receive the top firm's cost proposal once the firms ranking is established?
A: Once the solicitation (RFP) is issued to the top firm, we will expect to receive the cost proposal in two weeks.
10. What is the expected award date?
A: MCC hopes to make the award in March of 2019.
11. Who does the MCC expect to be present at the presentation/interview?
A: The Team Lead must be present either in person or virtually (if virtually, she/he must have a reliable connection to communicate with MCC clearly). Ideally, MCC would like all the Key Personnel members to be present, but this is not required.
12. General Format. Please confirm that use of 11x17" paper for charts, graphics, and matrices is approved, and will only count as a single page within the allotted page count.
A: Yes. Up to five 11x17" with 1" margins pages will be permitted in Section H Additional Information for charts, graphics, matrices, or any other visual representations. These pages shall not include extensive written descriptions of your technical approach (as a general rule of thumb, if these pages reserved for visuals include paragraphs of information, we will disregard them during our evaluation). Each 11x17" page will count as one page towards the 30-page limit.
13. Are resumes only required for the six key personnel or do we need to include resumes for all personnel listed on the organizational chart?
A: The resumes must be submitted for both key and non-key personnel that are listed on the organizational chart.
14. Format of CV. In the RFP Public meeting, MCC specified offerors do not have to follow the Section E resume template; rather, should ensure that the required information is included in the CVs provided. Please confirm this to be correct. Also, please confirm there is no page limit, nor limit on number of CVs included in Section E.
A: That is correct. As long as the required information is included, Section E resume template is not required for submission. If Section E template is not used, the resumes shall be compiled and submitted as a separate electronic file, collective of all relevant resumes, on 8.5x11" paper with 1" margin. There is no page limit to resumes.
15. Where in the SF-330 should firms incorporate the Commitment Letters?
A: You may include all the Commitment Letters as a separate attachment to the SF-330 Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for this Contract. As a reminder, there is no page limit for Commitment Letters.
16. Does MCC want a confirmation of the A-E firm's commitment to this project from an authorized officer of the firm?
A: Yes. The Cover Letter shall include a statement from an executive of the proposing firm confirming their commitment to actualizing the proposed and negotiated plans, including the team members. Firms may simply include a statement in the signed Cover Letter, "Firm ABC confirms the commitment of carrying out our proposed and any negotiated technical plans, including mobilizing and maintaining the proposed team members."
An attempt by the contractor to alter the technical plans after award may not be considered favorably by MCC and may result in a termination for default.
17. Would MCC consider limiting the number of projects under SF-330 Section F. Example Projects which Best Illustrate Proposed Team's Qualifications for This Contract? How should firms reflect the multiple projects?
A: Yes. The total number of projects in Section F shall not exceed 10 projects. Firms must complete a copy of SF-330 Section F for each project proposed, i.e. if proposing 5 projects, the firm must complete the Section F five times, one for each project.
18. Can firms provide past performance references of the subcontractors?
A: Yes. MCC expects at least three (3) past performance references of the prime firm. The firm may choose to submit additional past performance references of its subcontractors if they have performed similar projects, in size and scope, in the past.
19. The Qualification Factor 4 asks for at least 3 past performance references in a format that differs from SF-330 Section F. Will MCC clarify this?
A: The Qualification Factor 4 has been revised to require at least 3 but no more than 10 past performance references to match the requires of SF-330 Section F (refer to Question no. 4 above). Firms must submit at least 3 references for the prime contractor. Firms may submit 1 or 2 references for each of its subcontractors and the total number of subcontractor references may not exceed 7 references.
The Qualification Factor 4 has been revised to reconcile SF-330 Section F.
20. Would MCC consider limiting the SF-330 Section G. Key Personnel Participation in Example Projects to the proposed Key Personnel only?
A: Yes. The Section G may comprise of example projects participated by the proposed Key Personnel only.
21. Section G. Section G states Key Personnel be included only in the matrix. Will MCC allow Key and other Core Technical Experts be included to illustrate experience level more appropriately?
A: The minimum requirement is to complete Section G of the proposed Key Personnel. However, firms are permitted to include other Core Technical Experts (no junior-level staff) in Section G to illustrate a more complete picture of its proposed team's professional qualifications. Doing so may result in a higher rating for the Evaluation Factor 1 Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.
22. Can firms re-phrase the Team's roles as stated in the ToR?
A: No. As noted under 5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions, "A restatement of the ToR will be deemed unacceptable and may result in a low evaluation rating."
23. How much of the contract would be performed before/after the Entry-into-Force (EIF)?
A: The EIF is the point in time when a Compact or Threshold Program Agreement comes into full legal force and effect and its term begins. MCC estimates the EIF may take place in middle of 2019, but there is no certainty as of now so we cannot estimated this performance split.
24. What is MCC's expectations on the team mobilization plan?
A: The team mobilization plan shall demonstrate the proposed teams mobilization and timing to complete the assignment per the proposed workplan and overall approach and methodology. Firms shall consider, among other items, how the proposed team will be initially mobilized to Abidjan to begin the assignment in earnest.
25. Subcontracting Plan. In an SF 330, a proper Subcontracting Plan is generally not included, due to the costing content required therein. Will MCC consider dropping this requirement for the SF 330 submission, until prior to negotiations at which time all costs, etc can be revealed?
A: MCC is not seeking a formal Subcontracting Plan with the cost information. MCC wishes to verify that the prime contract has a management plan on (1) how it will oversee the subcontractor's performance and (2) what its plans are in case of subpar performance.
26. Page 7 of ToR, asks for the LoEs less administrative effort. There may be uneven comparison by removing the administrative effort.
A: We have changed this requirement to propose the Total Estimated LoE Percentage per Deliverable. Refer to the Attachment c. LoEs by Deliverable. We are no longer seeking a total number of hours per deliverable. The sum of all the LoE percentages (including the Base Period and Option Period 1) must equal 100% and shall reflect the total hours, including both technical and administrative hours, in the calculation.
27. Is there a detailed contract deliverables review and approval process?
A: Yes, it can be found in the ToR Section 4. Deliverables and Documentation Requirements.
28. Are firms permitted to propose cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods?
A: Yes. Firms may propose innovative cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods that can improve the Government's requirement in Section H. Additional Information. However, this synopsis phase is strictly a technical evaluation phase and SF-330 does not allow any cost information. Therefore, firms must take care not to submit any specific cost detail. General explanations of the methods are permitted but any numbers associated to cost or even inferences that can be made to any specific cost numbers are prohibited. MCC will not advise the firms whether or not their language would be permissible before the submission due date. Firms should consult the permissible language with their legal counsel.
29. Would MCC consider giving a range for the expected number of team members? Firms could propose a very effective technical approach but it could be very expensive.
A: No. We want the interested firms to determine the most effective and efficient team structure.
30. Would MCC consider providing a range of the estimated contract value? Providing some parameter would assist firms to better prepare the submission.
A: Periodically, MCC updates our Business Forecast on our website. According to our Forecast, the estimated contract value for this A-E service is between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000 (https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/eport-business-forecast-fy-2018-mid-year).
This is a pure estimate and does not bound interested firms to prepare a technical approach within this range. This information is strictly for referential purpose and not a strict requirement. MCC expects the firms to submit the best, realistic, and fair and reasonable technical submissions based on their own assessment of MCC's requirement.
31. During the contract performance, it may be necessary for the contractor to access various areas of the project. What would happen if there are any accessibility issue?
A: If the said issue arises from the fault of the Government, we will absolutely consider modifying the contract for reasonable equitable adjustments. If the issue/delay could have been resolved or avoided by the contractor, any additional costs incurred would be assumed by the contractor.
32. Has there been any further determination on the site of the truck parking?
A: The World Bank is currently conducting a study. The site detail has not yet been established.
33. Regarding the Key personnel, the terms indicate the team leader should have led and manage two similar projects valued at 175 million USD each, which is fairly high threshold for projects dealing with urban networks requalification in developing countries; would any other relevant projects be considered in the evaluation of the team leaders if projects credentials are below that threshold, while still being significant for developing countries (for example: projects within the range of 75-80 million USD)?
A: No. But to clarify, the projects do not have to be from developing countries. The US$175 million is for any construction projects at such value. This is to ensure a team lead who have handled similar projects in size and scope as MCC's project.
34. Regarding the key-experts and their presence on site, should we consider a minimum share of their man-days to be spent in Ivory Coast?
A: The firm shall propose how they anticipate staffing and maintaining the appropriate level of in country presence to complete the assignment.
35. Some project activities might imply generating and selecting some preferred options regarding these projects, and the consultant's level of effort might vary depending on the option(s) that will be selected (for example: Option period 1, activity 2 : "To prepare preliminary designs for the four road projects"); it is our understanding that these variance in the level of efforts would be discussed at a future stage of the selection process, once the preferred technical proposal has been selected; can you confirm this?
A: Yes. MCC is open to negotiating points such as this with the highest rated firm(s) during the solicitation phase.
36. In relation with Attachment c. Level of efforts by deliverables: it is our understanding that the total LOE estimation presented in that table will actually correspond to the total level of efforts of all activities specific to the deliverables; can you confirm our understanding? How would you recommend that LOE related to common tasks (such as project management, etc.) be considered?
A: LOE shall be presented for each deliverable as a percentage of the sum total of LOE for the Base and Option Period 1, including both direct and indirect (administrative) hours.
37. Levels of Effort (LOEs): we understand that the total man-hours of personnel should be provided by deliverable; do we also include support staff (administrative) and surveys team (traffic counts, technical and socio-environmental investigations...)?
A: Please note the required LoEs by Deliverables spreadsheet now requires the percentage of total LoEs, instead of number of hours. The percentages are to be the absolute total, including support staff.
38. The terms indicate the training sessions should be meant for groups of 30 to 50 attendees. Such a big group size may impact negatively the quality of the interaction and learning. Would it be possible to reconsider the size of the groups and to reduce them to 15 to 20 attendees or to expand the number of training sessions (i.e. more or less to double them) for that purpose?
A: MCC agrees the training would be more effective with smaller group size. MCC agrees that the class size shall not exceed 40 participants. MCC will evaluate the firms' approach on how they will implement the training sessions.
39. The proposal evaluation factors and criteria are very clear; in addition, how will the relative importance of each factor or criteria be assessed and evaluated, to produce the overall evaluation and ranking of the proposal?
A: MCC will use adjectival rating system per Synopsis Section 7. Evaluation Criteria. We will not use a numeric system to rank the important of the evaluation factors. Those firms that rate more highly on the more important factors, e.g. Professional Qualification, Methodology and Workplan, and Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, would be more favorable to MCC than those firms that rate more highly on the less important factors, e.g. Past Performance and Knowledge of the Locality.
40. Regarding the synopsis, English seems to be the working language. But based on ToR deliverables must be in French. Would you please confirm the submission could also be submitted in French?
A: The SF-330 submission must be in English.
41. Regarding the applicable standards for the conceptual and preliminary design, we understood from the terms of reference, that the A&E was expected to provide a list of relevant standards (for instance North American and European, cf page 16 and 30). However we found the sentence "Final Designs are per US Standards" confusing. Could you please clarify whether or not the A&E is expected to propose the most relevant standards, North American, European or local standards?
A: The final design standards are defined by level of completeness of the design per U.S. design standards.
42. The Evaluation Factor 3 requires the following, "An average of at least $100 million USD in total annual revenue over the last five (5) years, totaling at least $500 million USD over the five (5) year period (reference date of issue of the solicitation)." This restricts the competition to very large firms. Please confirm that the $500 million USD is the revenue of A-E/Construction services by the Prime Contractor only and whether or not MCC would consider easing this requirement.
A: This value is for the prime contractor only and MCC is not consider easing this requirement, which will help us ensure sufficient experience in similar size and scope as MCC's requirement.
[End of Amendment 2]
Amendment 1
The purpose of Amendment 1 is to issue the updated ToR. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
[End of Amendment 1]
1. Background
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a United States government-owned corporation created under Title VI of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 and is responsible for the stewardship of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). MCC works with developing countries to promote sustainable economic growth to reduce poverty. Eligible countries develop specific investment programs in furtherance of the goal of economic development to be funded by MCC over a five-year period and implemented by the country partner.
The Compact with the Government of Côte d'Ivoire (GoCI), signed on 07 November 2017 will be implemented by the Millennium Challenge Account Cote d'Ivoire (MCA-CI). The Compact contains two projects:
• The Skills for Employability and Productivity Project, and
• The Abidjan Transport Project.
This requirement refers to the Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) only. The objective of the ATP is to reduce vehicle operating costs and travel times along targeted road segments, while improving overall pedestrian and vehicle mobility and safety.
The estimated cost range for the construction project is to exceed $10,000,000.
2. Purpose
The purpose of this synopsis 95332419E0001 is to select a highly qualified architecture-engineering firm (A-E firm) to provide architectural and engineering (A-E) service to MCC Transport and Vertical Structure (TVS) Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The awardee shall develop and implement the ATP Compact Program in Côte d'Ivoire, which is to help improve the movement of goods and people in and around Abidjan.
This synopsis is procured in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6 Architect-Engineer Contracting under the NAICS Code 541330 Engineering Services and PSC C1LB Architect and Engineering- Construction: Highways, Roads, Streets, Bridges, and Railways.
This requirement is full and open to all professional A-E firms (professionally licensed in the US or in their respective home country).
3. Contract Information
The Government anticipates awarding one firm-fixed price (FFP) and time-and-materials (T&M) hybrid contract.
This is a design-bid-build contract for the A-E service. The A-E firm selected for this service will not be eligible for the construction contract.
Anticipated Period of Performance:
The contract will include a Base Period of 8 months, an Option Period 1 of 10 months, and an Option Period 2 of 12 months. While the Contract will be awarded for the Base and Option Periods, the exercise of the option periods is at the sole discretion of MCC.
Base: 11 March 2019 - 10 November 2019
Option Period 1: 11 November 2019 - 10 September 2020
Option Period 2: 11 September 2020 - 10 October 2021
Anticipated Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Information
ITEM NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UN
