DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail***
95332419E0001 Amendment 4
DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in Côte d'Ivoire
Synopsis

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 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
0001 Base: Deliverables 1 to 8 | 8 months (Award + 32 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Base NTE Lot _______________ _______________
1001 OP 1: Deliverables 9 to 14 | Award + 10 months (Award + 72 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Option 1 NTE Lot _______________ _______________
2001 OP 2: Technical Design Support | 12 months
T & M
Contract Period: Option 2 TBD Lot _______________ _______________
GRAND TOTAL NTE _______________

In accordance with clause MCC 52-232-72 Limitation of Funds-Incrementally Funded Contracts, funds in the amount of $X.XX have been allotted to this contract. MCC contemplates that the total available funds now obligated will cover the work to be performed through 10 October 2021. The contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

4. Scope of Project / Terms of Reference (ToR)

Refer to the Synopsis Attachment Terms of Reference (ToR) for the complete detail, including objectives, scopes, deliverables, and staffing.

5. Submission Instructions and Evaluation Procedures

5.a. Submission and Evaluation Overview

In accordance with FAR 36.6, the submission and evaluation procedures will be split into two phases: (1) the submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications and (2) the submission, evaluation, and negotiation of the highest qualified bidder's price proposal.

Phase 1: Synopsis: The submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications
Step 1: The bidders must submit completed SF-330 Part I and Part II to verify its qualifications.
Step 2: The MCC Evaluation Board will evaluate all responsive SF-330s and select, at a minimum, three most highly qualified A-E firms.
Step 3: MCC will invite those selected firms for an oral presentation / interview.
Step 4: The MCC Evaluation Board will rank the top three most qualified firms and make a recommendation to the designated selection authority.
Step 5: The selection authority will make the final determination on the ranking of the top three most qualified firms.

Phase 2: Solicitation: The submission, evaluation, and negotiation of cost/price proposal
Step 1: MCC will issue a solicitation in the form of Request for Proposal (RFP) to the top highest qualified A-E firm.
Step 2: The A-E firm will submit a complete cost/price proposal to MCC.
Step 3: MCC will evaluate the cost/price proposal and determine whether or not it is fair and reasonable.
Step 4: MCC may enter into a technical and/or cost/price negotiation with the firm.
Step 5: Once agreeable terms are reached, MCC will move forward with the award. If MCC and the firm cannot reach an agreement within a time specified by the contracting officer, MCC will terminate the negotiation and invite the second most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If MCC and the second qualified firm cannot reach an agreement, MCC will invite the third most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If an agreement is not reached with the third most qualified firm, the synopsis and solicitation will be cancelled and may be re-competed.

5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions

The bidders must submit the following:
1. Cover Page, at a minimum including:
a. The solicitation number and title;
b. The bidding firm's official name;
c. The bidding firm's DUNS number;
d. Main point-of-contact who has signatory and negotiation authority with name, phone number, and email; and
e. Statement that the bid submission is valid for 1 year.
2. Completed SF-330 Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications (Section A through H); and
3. Completed SF-330 Part II General Qualifications.

The Cover Page is limited to 2 pages; the SF-330 Part I has no page limit, however the Section H Additional Information is limited to 30 pages; and the SF-330 Part II has no page limit. (SF-330 Part I Section E Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract is not considered in the page limits provided.)

The Phase I Qualifications submission must not include any price/cost information as it will not be reviewed during our Phase I Qualifications evaluation.

The firms must provide all the necessary materials, equipment, personnel, etc. to satisfy the requirement. There is a possibility, however, that the MCA may offer an office space for limited number of contractor personnel. This will be separately negotiated before or after the award.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate in English the firm's qualifications and the understanding of the technical requirements for further consideration. Clarity and completeness are of the utmost importance. Therefore, the submissions, including all illustrative and graphical representations, must be presented in a practical, clear, and concise manner.

The narrative must provide the Government with a reasonable assurance that the firm has the necessary qualifications to fully satisfy the Government's requirements. A restatement of the ToR will be deemed unacceptable and may result in a low evaluation rating.

The Government recommends completing and signing the SF-330s electronically, rather than handwriting then scanning. If any part of the submission is not clearly readable, i.e. a document is not legible or comprehensible, the Government may either disregard the information in our evaluation or deem the submission unresponsive without an opportunity for re-submission.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Government's requirement, as well as convey the A-E firm's capability for transforming its understanding into successful performance.

5.c. Standard Form 330 (SF-330) and Required Submissions Documents

The SF-330 Parts I and II are standard documents used for the A-E firms to present their qualifications to the Government. Both parts and all its sections must be submitted electronically for award consideration. Only the SF-330 Part I Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team and Section H Additional Information may be submitted as Microsoft Word (.docx) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) documents (to allow graphical representations and to conveniently present additional information) as long as it does not exceed the page limits noted in 5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions.

If a Word/Excel document is used, the font must be Calibri or Times New Roman size 11 or larger and page size must be 8.5x11" with 1" margin all around. The first page of Section H must be completed as the original SF-330 PDF document with the appropriate signature and the remaining pages may be presented in Word/Excel. All supplemental documents should clearly show sequential page numbers and the corresponding section title, e.g. "Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team" or "Section H Additional Information." All other sections must be completed within the SF-330 PDF. The firm may complete multiple copies of the PDFs for SF-330 Part I Sections A through H and Part II to ensure sufficient documentation of its qualifications.

In the synopsis phase, MCC will evaluate the following:

5.d. Submission Information

Firms are responsible for submitting electronic submissions, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government Official by the date and time specified below:
Date: Monday, 4 February 2019*
Time: 5:00 PM Eastern Time*
Location: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Attn: Andrew Lee, Contract Specialist
mailto:leeae@mcc.gov

* Or as amended depending on the US Federal Government furlough.

All questions regarding this synopsis must be emailed to Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 1:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, 4 January 2019. To assure timely and proper handling, the email question must state "95332419E0001 DCO TVS ATP A-E Service" in the subject line.

The Government will not answer any question or request received after the time specified above. Questions or requests for clarification that result in specific information necessary to respond to the synopsis will be provided to all firms. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to the firm's questions and requests, but will consider them and incorporate the responses and any changes to an amendment to the synopsis.

5.e. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types

Due to current cybersecurity threats, MCC currently blocks attachments containing extensions that run programs. These include any files that contain or are executables, macros, and other extensions that present a threat. As such firms must not use any of these file extensions and remove all macros from Microsoft Office documents (Word, Excel) or their submission will be blocked, preventing receipt of the submission by MCC and potentially being precluded from award consideration.

The following are examples of file types that are blocked, however this list is not exhaustive or fully-inclusive as additional, similar file types may be blocked in the future:

.vbs (Microsoft Visual Basic script file)
.vbe (VBScript encoded script file)
.scr (script)
.reg (registration file)
.jar (java file extension)
.exe (executable)
.docm (Word with macros)
.xlsm (Excel with macros)
.pptm (PowerPoint with macros)
.app (executable)
.ani (animation files)
.ace (data compression archive file format used by WinAce)
.ico (image file format)
.js (java script)
.zip (compression file)

6. Qualification Factors

Qualification Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

Firms must submit resumes of its proposed team (both key and non-key personnel). Firms may choose to complete SF-330 Part I Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract or submit Word documents as a part of SF-330 Part I Section H. Additional Information. The resumes must be chronological with the most recent information listed first. The resumes must contain, at a minimum, (1) name, (2) role in this contract, (3) years of experience, for both total years and the years at the submitting firm, (4) education, including the name of schools attended, the duration of enrollment, and the degree/certificate obtained, (5) current proposal registration, including title and location of registration, and (6) relevant employment experiences that are directly related to the requirement, including the name of company or agency, the period of employment, the title and job description of the individual, and the level of responsibility. The resumes may and should contain details of any design awards the proposed team members had won.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

Firms must also submit at least three (3) references with full contact information for each of the proposed key personnel. The references shall all be directly relevant to the requirement and demonstrate individual past performance relative to the requirement:

1. Project Manager/Team Leader;
2. Traffic Demand Modeler;
3. Pavement Engineer(s);
4. Environmental Specialist;
5. Resettlement Specialist; and
6. Stakeholder Engagement Specialist.

The firm shall demonstrate how it proposes to organize, mobilize, and deploy its proposed project team to perform the tasks described under the requirement while maintaining appropriate stakeholder engagement to ensure that the objectives of the assignment are met, including keeping the major stakeholders involved on a routine basis;

The firm shall demonstrate how the Project Manager/Team Leader's experience demonstrates her/his ability to integrate and manage a large multi-disciplinary team, effectively communicate with project stakeholders and perform quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to satisfy the Government's requirements.

The firm shall demonstrate how the proposed team is adapted to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire and past experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials.

Firms must submit a signed commitment letter from each of its Key Personnel team member. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, firms must submit the following information to further demonstrate their qualifications:

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

a. Provide summary workplan with critical path clearly identified including all milestones, proposed design reviews workshops and CTCTR Monthly Progress Meetings;

b. Provide summary of the WBS (one page);

c. Provide a proposed deliverables schedule (firms shall provide their optimal delivery schedule for the base period and for option period 1); and,

d. Provide summary Level of Effort (LoE) including all sub-contractors for each of the deliverables [to be completed in the Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)].

The firms must complete the Synopsis Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables. The firms shall enter a total estimated level of effort (LoE) percentage, including both key and non-key personnel and all administrative effort, for each deliverable. The attachment shall not be altered without a written approval by the MCC contracting officer and/or contract specialist.

This completed Excel attachment is counted as a part of the SF-330 Section H. Additional Information and it counts as one (1) page towards the page limit.

2. Methodology

The methodology section shall indicate the role of the relevant team members and demonstrate the firm's understanding of specific aspects of the requirement.

Note that cutting and pasting and/or repeating from the terms of reference may result in a less than satisfactory evaluation.

(1) Traffic Demand and Simulation Modelling:
a. Detail the traffic demand and simulation modelling aspect of the assignment including the team and its role, the selection of the proposed traffic modelling software, calibration and simulations, data collection, and major challenges foreseen by the firm.

(2) Geometric Reconfiguration and Structural Rehabilitation Design:
a. Detail the geometric redesign and configuration and structural rehabilitation design methodology of the project roads; and

b. Detail the approach for the use of recovered materials, pollution prevention, and waste reduction to the maximum extent practicable in developing the design, e.g. pavement recycling approach.

(3) Technical Training and Coursework:
a. Detail the technical training and coursework aspect of the requirement including the team and assignments, the proposed training curriculum development and delivery approach with major challenges foreseen by the firm.

b. Detail an approach for delivery of the technical assistance for the Abidjan Road and Safety Prioritization.

(4) Mitigating Port Congestion:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's approach to study and provide recommendations to alleviate congestion in and around the port, as well as identifying opportunities for private investment.

(5) Integration of Environmental, Resettlement, and Social Tasks with the Engineering Process:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's proposed team and how the firm proposes to integrate the environmental, social and resettlement tasks of the requirement into the engineering process.

(6) Maintaining and Integrating Community Welfare and Needs:
a. Provide a methodology detailing how the firm proposes to:

i. Maintain host community welfare and safety during construction, including construction site efficiencies, coordination and communication with drivers, pedestrians and local business owners;

ii. Work with the community to develop measures to reduce impacts to the local populations from congestion and inconvenience caused by construction; and,

iii. Develop an urban architecture plan and streetscape for the proposed road segments that reflects community needs. The firm shall provide at least two (2) architectural transport/streetscape renderings (before and after architectural presentations) from the proposed team and brief description of how the participatory process was used and how this will be adapted to the requirement.

3. Subcontracting Plan

The firms must submit its subcontracting plan to describe its relationship and the roles of any and all subcontractors.

The SF-330 Part II General Qualifications and a signed commitment letter must be completed for each subcontractor proposed. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

1. Firms relevant urban transport engineering experience including:

a. Firms role on the project and financial amount under direct management by the firm over the last ten (10) years including the total value of the resulting construction contract(s) over the last ten (10) years;

b. Indicate the average annual daily traffic and lane-kilometers on each project including city size for each over the last ten (10) years.

2. Firm's geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design experience, including pavement recycling and rolled compacted concrete (or similar), relevant to the project over the last ten (10) years;

3. Firm's urban traffic demand modelling and simulation experience and relevance to the project over the last ten (10) years;

4. Firms specialized experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials;

5. Firm's capability, including financial resources, to demonstrate the technical bench (i.e. backstopping, additional technical support if needed, replacement of personnel, etc.) and financial capability to satisfy the requirement. (Please do not detail any specific cost/price quote/proposal.)

6. Additional relevant supporting information.

Qualification Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with any government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The firms must submit at least three (3) and no more than ten (10) past performance references. At least 3 references must be 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.

All past performance references must be in similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement which can speak to the following (the firm shall indicate each of the elements below in the past performance template provided):

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment;

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or
d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

[Past performance reference format removed. Firms must submit past performance references as SF-330 Section F Example Projects which Best Illustrate Proposed Team's Qualifications for This Contract. Firms must complete one copy of Section F for each reference they propose. This will not count towards the Section H page limit.]

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance references to the scope of this synopsis. Those past performance ratings that are not closely relevant to this requirement will receive a "Neutral" rating.

Firms shall ensure that all contact information is up to date and correct.

Note that Government evaluators may utilize various OCONUS, Federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Government evaluators reserve the right to contact any of the provided references to solicit additional information or clarification regarding the firm's past performance. The Contracting Officer and/or technical evaluators may research on any OCONUS, Federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance that is known to the Contracting Officer, but not included as a reference on the submitted qualifications package. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge may be utilized by the technical evaluation team members as long as there's sufficient supporting documentation.

Qualification Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit their understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The firms must detail the potential challenges and solutions to those challenges and shall propose other possible challenges they foresee by working on this project.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Award evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

7.a. Basis for Qualification

The Government intends to award one hybrid firm-fixed price (FFP) and time-and-materials (T & M) contract with base period and two option periods to the firm that is determined to be a highly qualified and is fair and reasonable to the Government. For each evaluation factor, with an exception to the Evaluation Factor 5 Past Performance, the Government will perform a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, including their significance, and assign one of following adjectival ratings:

Technical Evaluation Ratings
Outstanding (O) The qualification exceeds the Government's expectations. The Government expects that the firm should result in outstanding effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. The submission contains several significant advantages and no more than a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be very low.
Satisfactory (S) The qualification meets the Government's expectations. The Government expects satisfactory performance under the contract. The submission contains many advantages and only a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be low.
Marginal (M) The qualification marginally satisfies the Government's expectations. The firm demonstrates a shallow understanding of the work to be accomplished. The submission contains several disadvantages and only a few advantages. The performance risk is deemed to be moderate to high.
Unsatisfactory (U) The qualification fails to meet the Government's expectations. The submission is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, and/or so incorrect as to be unsatisfactory. The submission contains significant disadvantages that are unacceptable. The performance risk is deemed to be very high.

MCC will use the following adjectival risk ratings to evaluate the firms' relevant Past Performance References:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Low Risk The relevant Past Performance References have only positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better using the CPARS standards) of the firm.
Moderate Risk The relevant Past Performance References have generally positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better) with possibly some negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
High Risk The relevant Past Performance References have mostly negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
Neutral Offerors without relevant Past Performance References will be assigned "Neutral" rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Offeror.

7.b. Evaluation Factors

All submissions will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors listed below in descending order starting with the most important factor:

Evaluation Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

The firm must demonstrate:

a. The comprehensiveness of the team structure (including key and non-key personnel proposed by the A & E) to complete the requirement;

b. The technical capability and qualifications of the proposed key personnel and non-key personnel to meet the requirement including references for key personnel; (additional non-key personnel proposed by the firm will not be evaluated individually but as a whole, however resumes shall be provided);

c. The proposed team (key and non-key personnel) mobilization, deployment, and approach to maintain satisfactory stakeholder engagement throughout the requirement including the role of the Project Manager/Team Leader;

d. The proposed teams approach to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; and,

e. The proposed team member's relevant urban transport engineering experience with special consideration of energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials.

Evaluation Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

The Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed workplan, WBS with LOEs, and methodology to meet the objectives outlined under the terms of reference.

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

The Government will evaluate:

a. Comprehensiveness of the proposed workplan and WBS;

b. Integration of the environmental and social tasks into the engineering tasks throughout the requirement and understanding of the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire;

c. The firm's estimated level of effort for each deliverable to ensure the appropriate understanding of the Government's requirements and the realistic expectations by the firm; and,

d. The firms proposed deliverables schedule.

2. Methodology

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the proposed methodology, specifically:

a. Urban traffic demand and simulation modelling approach relevant to this assignment;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design (road recycling and rolled compacted concrete) approach relevant to this assignment;

c. Technical training and coursework delivery relevant to this requirement;

d. Approach to mitigate port congestion relevant to this requirement;

e. Integration of environmental and social tasks into the engineering process throughout the requirement; and

f. Addressing community welfare and needs throughout the requirement.

3. Subcontractor Plan

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan to ensure that it has comprehensive and methodical plans on how the firm will work with and manage its subcontractors.

Evaluation Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

The firms must possess:

1. A minimum of ten (10) years of comparable related experience in direct management of urban transport engineering in highly congested, urban environments in cities over 1 million people on at least five (5) transport projects (about 100 lane kilometers per year) with at least 50,000 vehicles/day;

2. At least three (3) previous experiences in the reuse of recovered materials in transport projects (i.e. pavement recycling) and at least two (2) previous experiences in rolled compacted concrete (or similar);

3. A minimum of five (5) years demonstrated experience in urban traffic demand modeling and simulation relevant to the assignment;

4. 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); and,

5. A sufficient technical resource bench to satisfy the requirement.

The Government will evaluate the firm's specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. The Government will evaluate the firm's availability of resources, ability to timely deploy resources, ensure appropriate level of quality assurance and control, and ability to successfully deliver the project as required.

Evaluation Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The Government will evaluate the performance under existing and prior contracts, including references with full contact information for:

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or

d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relative to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the firm's qualifications and past performance.

Evaluation Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

The firms must demonstrate a clear understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, including unique challenges and solutions.

8. Synopsis Conference

MCC will hold a Synopsis Conference to detail the Government's requirement, what we expect in the submission, and to answer any preliminary questions from the interested firms. The conference details are as follows:

Location: MCC Headquarter
1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Date: Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Time: 2:00 PM Eastern Time

MCC will also host a teleconference of the event for those wishing to join us remotely. Those interested in attending the conference in person or via teleconference must email Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 12:00pm ET on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 to allow sufficient time for the invitation. The email should contain a list of names, titles, and email addresses of those that wish to attend.

The highlights of the conference will be issued via an amendment to the synopsis.

[This Conference was held and is addressed in Synopsis Amendment 2. MCC will not hold another Synopsis Conference.]

9. Administrative Information

MCC may host a pre-submission conference to discuss the Government's requirements. A separate notice will be posted on FBO.gov under this synopsis for additional information.

After the close of the synopsis, the Government will notify those nonresponsive firms of their exclusion from further consideration if any part of the submission is missing or incomplete.

Once the MCC Evaluation Board selects at least three highly qualified firms, MCC will invite those firms for an oral presentation in person or via teleconference. Oral presentations are a crucial part of the evaluation. Those firms that cannot accommodate an oral presentation will not be considered for award.

Once the selection authority makes the final determination, those unsuccessful firms will be notified of their exclusion from further consideration. The solicitation will be first issued only to the most qualified firm. The second and third most qualified firms will be notified as such.

The firm may be invited in person or via teleconference for a technical and/or cost/price negotiation to reach an agreement.

The Government is not liable for any cost incurred by the firms for the preparation of the submission documents or for the in-person or teleconference meetings.

After the contract has been awarded, the contract information will be posted on FBO.gov and the firms will not be separately notified.

The Government hopes to award this A-E contract around March of 2019.

10. Attachments

a. 1. Terms of Reference (ToR) 20180102 (Microsoft Word) [Official]
2. Terms of Reference in French 20181224 (Microsoft Word) [Unofficial; for reference only]
b. Provisions and Clauses 20181119 (Microsoft Word)
c. Revised Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables 20181224 (Microsoft Excel)
d. Commitment Letter Template 20181119 (Microsoft Word)
e. SF-330 Part I and Part II Templates 20181119 (Adobe PDF)
f. Synopsis Conference Presentation 20181224 (Microsoft PowerPoint) [Unofficial; for reference only]

[End of Document]

.

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail***
95332419E0001 Amendment 2
DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in Côte d'Ivoire
Synopsis

Amendment 1

The purpose of Amendment 1 is to issue the updated ToR. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

[End of Amendment 1]

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 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]

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 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
0001 Base: Deliverables 1 to 8 | 8 months (Award + 32 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Base NTE Lot _______________ _______________
1001 OP 1: Deliverables 9 to 14 | Award + 10 months (Award + 72 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Option 1 NTE Lot _______________ _______________
2001 OP 2: Technical Design Support | 12 months
T & M
Contract Period: Option 2 TBD Lot _______________ _______________
GRAND TOTAL NTE _______________

In accordance with clause MCC 52-232-72 Limitation of Funds-Incrementally Funded Contracts, funds in the amount of $X.XX have been allotted to this contract. MCC contemplates that the total available funds now obligated will cover the work to be performed through 10 October 2021. The contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

4. Scope of Project / Terms of Reference (ToR)

Refer to the Synopsis Attachment Terms of Reference (ToR) for the complete detail, including objectives, scopes, deliverables, and staffing.

5. Submission Instructions and Evaluation Procedures

5.a. Submission and Evaluation Overview

In accordance with FAR 36.6, the submission and evaluation procedures will be split into two phases: (1) the submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications and (2) the submission, evaluation, and negotiation of the highest qualified bidder's price proposal.

Phase 1: Synopsis: The submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications
Step 1: The bidders must submit completed SF-330 Part I and Part II to verify its qualifications.
Step 2: The MCC Evaluation Board will evaluate all responsive SF-330s and select, at a minimum, three most highly qualified A-E firms.
Step 3: MCC will invite those selected firms for an oral presentation / interview.
Step 4: The MCC Evaluation Board will rank the top three most qualified firms and make a recommendation to the designated selection authority.
Step 5: The selection authority will make the final determination on the ranking of the top three most qualified firms.

Phase 2: Solicitation: The submission, evaluation, and negotiation of cost/price proposal
Step 1: MCC will issue a solicitation in the form of Request for Proposal (RFP) to the top highest qualified A-E firm.
Step 2: The A-E firm will submit a complete cost/price proposal to MCC.
Step 3: MCC will evaluate the cost/price proposal and determine whether or not it is fair and reasonable.
Step 4: MCC may enter into a technical and/or cost/price negotiation with the firm.
Step 5: Once agreeable terms are reached, MCC will move forward with the award. If MCC and the firm cannot reach an agreement within a time specified by the contracting officer, MCC will terminate the negotiation and invite the second most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If MCC and the second qualified firm cannot reach an agreement, MCC will invite the third most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If an agreement is not reached with the third most qualified firm, the synopsis and solicitation will be cancelled and may be re-competed.

5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions

The bidders must submit the following:
1. Cover Page, at a minimum including:
a. The solicitation number and title;
b. The bidding firm's official name;
c. The bidding firm's DUNS number;
d. Main point-of-contact who has signatory and negotiation authority with name, phone number, and email; and
e. Statement that the bid submission is valid for 1 year.
2. Completed SF-330 Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications (Section A through H); and
3. Completed SF-330 Part II General Qualifications.

The Cover Page is limited to 2 pages; the SF-330 Part I has no page limit, however the Section H Additional Information is limited to 30 pages; and the SF-330 Part II has no page limit. (SF-330 Part I Section E Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract is not considered in the page limits provided.)

The Phase I Qualifications submission must not include any price/cost information as it will not be reviewed during our Phase I Qualifications evaluation.

The firms must provide all the necessary materials, equipment, personnel, etc. to satisfy the requirement. There is a possibility, however, that the MCA may offer an office space for limited number of contractor personnel. This will be separately negotiated before or after the award.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate in English the firm's qualifications and the understanding of the technical requirements for further consideration. Clarity and completeness are of the utmost importance. Therefore, the submissions, including all illustrative and graphical representations, must be presented in a practical, clear, and concise manner.

The narrative must provide the Government with a reasonable assurance that the firm has the necessary qualifications to fully satisfy the Government's requirements. A restatement of the ToR will be deemed unacceptable and may result in a low evaluation rating.

The Government recommends completing and signing the SF-330s electronically, rather than handwriting then scanning. If any part of the submission is not clearly readable, i.e. a document is not legible or comprehensible, the Government may either disregard the information in our evaluation or deem the submission unresponsive without an opportunity for re-submission.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Government's requirement, as well as convey the A-E firm's capability for transforming its understanding into successful performance.

5.c. Standard Form 330 (SF-330) and Required Submissions Documents

The SF-330 Parts I and II are standard documents used for the A-E firms to present their qualifications to the Government. Both parts and all its sections must be submitted electronically for award consideration. Only the SF-330 Part I Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team and Section H Additional Information may be submitted as Microsoft Word (.docx) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) documents (to allow graphical representations and to conveniently present additional information) as long as it does not exceed the page limits noted in 5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions.

If a Word/Excel document is used, the font must be Calibri or Times New Roman size 11 or larger and page size must be 8.5x11" with 1" margin all around. The first page of Section H must be completed as the original SF-330 PDF document with the appropriate signature and the remaining pages may be presented in Word/Excel. All supplemental documents should clearly show sequential page numbers and the corresponding section title, e.g. "Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team" or "Section H Additional Information." All other sections must be completed within the SF-330 PDF. The firm may complete multiple copies of the PDFs for SF-330 Part I Sections A through H and Part II to ensure sufficient documentation of its qualifications.

In the synopsis phase, MCC will evaluate the following:

5.d. Submission Information

Firms are responsible for submitting electronic submissions, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government Official by the date and time specified below:
Date: Monday, 4 February 2019
Time: 5:00 PM Eastern Time
Location: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Attn: Andrew Lee, Contract Specialist
mailto:leeae@mcc.gov

All questions regarding this synopsis must be emailed to Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 1:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, 4 January 2019. To assure timely and proper handling, the email question must state "95332419E0001 DCO TVS ATP A-E Service" in the subject line.

The Government will not answer any question or request received after the time specified above. Questions or requests for clarification that result in specific information necessary to respond to the synopsis will be provided to all firms. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to the firm's questions and requests, but will consider them and incorporate the responses and any changes to an amendment to the synopsis.

5.e. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types

Due to current cybersecurity threats, MCC currently blocks attachments containing extensions that run programs. These include any files that contain or are executables, macros, and other extensions that present a threat. As such firms must not use any of these file extensions and remove all macros from Microsoft Office documents (Word, Excel) or their submission will be blocked, preventing receipt of the submission by MCC and potentially being precluded from award consideration.

The following are examples of file types that are blocked, however this list is not exhaustive or fully-inclusive as additional, similar file types may be blocked in the future:

.vbs (Microsoft Visual Basic script file)
.vbe (VBScript encoded script file)
.scr (script)
.reg (registration file)
.jar (java file extension)
.exe (executable)
.docm (Word with macros)
.xlsm (Excel with macros)
.pptm (PowerPoint with macros)
.app (executable)
.ani (animation files)
.ace (data compression archive file format used by WinAce)
.ico (image file format)
.js (java script)
.zip (compression file)

6. Qualification Factors

Qualification Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

Firms must submit resumes of its proposed team (both key and non-key personnel). Firms may choose to complete SF-330 Part I Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract or submit Word documents as a part of SF-330 Part I Section H. Additional Information. The resumes must be chronological with the most recent information listed first. The resumes must contain, at a minimum, (1) name, (2) role in this contract, (3) years of experience, for both total years and the years at the submitting firm, (4) education, including the name of schools attended, the duration of enrollment, and the degree/certificate obtained, (5) current proposal registration, including title and location of registration, and (6) relevant employment experiences that are directly related to the requirement, including the name of company or agency, the period of employment, the title and job description of the individual, and the level of responsibility. The resumes may and should contain details of any design awards the proposed team members had won.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

Firms must also submit at least three (3) references with full contact information for each of the proposed key personnel. The references shall all be directly relevant to the requirement and demonstrate individual past performance relative to the requirement:

1. Project Manager/Team Leader;
2. Traffic Demand Modeler;
3. Pavement Engineer(s);
4. Environmental Specialist;
5. Resettlement Specialist; and
6. Stakeholder Engagement Specialist.

The firm shall demonstrate how it proposes to organize, mobilize, and deploy its proposed project team to perform the tasks described under the requirement while maintaining appropriate stakeholder engagement to ensure that the objectives of the assignment are met, including keeping the major stakeholders involved on a routine basis;

The firm shall demonstrate how the Project Manager/Team Leader's experience demonstrates her/his ability to integrate and manage a large multi-disciplinary team, effectively communicate with project stakeholders and perform quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to satisfy the Government's requirements.

The firm shall demonstrate how the proposed team is adapted to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire and past experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials.

Firms must submit a signed commitment letter from each of its Key Personnel team member. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, firms must submit the following information to further demonstrate their qualifications:

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

a. Provide summary workplan with critical path clearly identified including all milestones, proposed design reviews workshops and CTCTR Monthly Progress Meetings;

b. Provide summary of the WBS (one page);

c. Provide a proposed deliverables schedule (firms shall provide their optimal delivery schedule for the base period and for option period 1); and,

d. Provide summary Level of Effort (LoE) including all sub-contractors for each of the deliverables [to be completed in the Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)].

The firms must complete the Synopsis Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables. The firms shall enter a total estimated level of effort (LoE) percentage, including both key and non-key personnel and all administrative effort, for each deliverable. The attachment shall not be altered without a written approval by the MCC contracting officer and/or contract specialist.

This completed Excel attachment is counted as a part of the SF-330 Section H. Additional Information and it counts as one (1) page towards the page limit.

2. Methodology

The methodology section shall indicate the role of the relevant team members and demonstrate the firm's understanding of specific aspects of the requirement.

Note that cutting and pasting and/or repeating from the terms of reference may result in a less than satisfactory evaluation.

(1) Traffic Demand and Simulation Modelling:
a. Detail the traffic demand and simulation modelling aspect of the assignment including the team and its role, the selection of the proposed traffic modelling software, calibration and simulations, data collection, and major challenges foreseen by the firm.

(2) Geometric Reconfiguration and Structural Rehabilitation Design:
a. Detail the geometric redesign and configuration and structural rehabilitation design methodology of the project roads; and

b. Detail the approach for the use of recovered materials, pollution prevention, and waste reduction to the maximum extent practicable in developing the design, e.g. pavement recycling approach.

(3) Technical Training and Coursework:
a. Detail the technical training and coursework aspect of the requirement including the team and assignments, the proposed training curriculum development and delivery approach with major challenges foreseen by the firm.

b. Detail an approach for delivery of the technical assistance for the Abidjan Road and Safety Prioritization.

(4) Mitigating Port Congestion:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's approach to study and provide recommendations to alleviate congestion in and around the port, as well as identifying opportunities for private investment.

(5) Integration of Environmental, Resettlement, and Social Tasks with the Engineering Process:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's proposed team and how the firm proposes to integrate the environmental, social and resettlement tasks of the requirement into the engineering process.

(6) Maintaining and Integrating Community Welfare and Needs:
a. Provide a methodology detailing how the firm proposes to:

i. Maintain host community welfare and safety during construction, including construction site efficiencies, coordination and communication with drivers, pedestrians and local business owners;

ii. Work with the community to develop measures to reduce impacts to the local populations from congestion and inconvenience caused by construction; and,

iii. Develop an urban architecture plan and streetscape for the proposed road segments that reflects community needs. The firm shall provide at least two (2) architectural transport/streetscape renderings (before and after architectural presentations) from the proposed team and brief description of how the participatory process was used and how this will be adapted to the requirement.

3. Subcontracting Plan

The firms must submit its subcontracting plan to describe its relationship and the roles of any and all subcontractors.

The SF-330 Part II General Qualifications and a signed commitment letter must be completed for each subcontractor proposed. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

1. Firms relevant urban transport engineering experience including:

a. Firms role on the project and financial amount under direct management by the firm over the last ten (10) years including the total value of the resulting construction contract(s) over the last ten (10) years;

b. Indicate the average annual daily traffic and lane-kilometers on each project including city size for each over the last ten (10) years.

2. Firm's geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design experience, including pavement recycling and rolled compacted concrete (or similar), relevant to the project over the last ten (10) years;

3. Firm's urban traffic demand modelling and simulation experience and relevance to the project over the last ten (10) years;

4. Firms specialized experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials;

5. Firm's capability, including financial resources, to demonstrate the technical bench (i.e. backstopping, additional technical support if needed, replacement of personnel, etc.) and financial capability to satisfy the requirement. (Please do not detail any specific cost/price quote/proposal.)

6. Additional relevant supporting information.

Qualification Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with any government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The firms must submit at least three (3) and no more than ten (10) past performance references. At least 3 references must be 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.

All past performance references must be in similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement which can speak to the following (the firm shall indicate each of the elements below in the past performance template provided):

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment;

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or
d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

[Past performance reference format removed. Firms must submit past performance references as SF-330 Section F Example Projects which Best Illustrate Proposed Team's Qualifications for This Contract. Firms must complete one copy of Section F for each reference they propose. This will not count towards the Section H page limit.]

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance references to the scope of this synopsis. Those past performance ratings that are not closely relevant to this requirement will receive a "Neutral" rating.

Firms shall ensure that all contact information is up to date and correct.

Note that Government evaluators may utilize various OCONUS, Federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Government evaluators reserve the right to contact any of the provided references to solicit additional information or clarification regarding the firm's past performance. The Contracting Officer and/or technical evaluators may research on any OCONUS, Federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance that is known to the Contracting Officer, but not included as a reference on the submitted qualifications package. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge may be utilized by the technical evaluation team members as long as there's sufficient supporting documentation.

Qualification Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit their understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The firms must detail the potential challenges and solutions to those challenges and shall propose other possible challenges they foresee by working on this project.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Award evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

7.a. Basis for Qualification

The Government intends to award one hybrid firm-fixed price (FFP) and time-and-materials (T & M) contract with base period and two option periods to the firm that is determined to be a highly qualified and is fair and reasonable to the Government. For each evaluation factor, with an exception to the Evaluation Factor 5 Past Performance, the Government will perform a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, including their significance, and assign one of following adjectival ratings:

Technical Evaluation Ratings
Outstanding (O) The qualification exceeds the Government's expectations. The Government expects that the firm should result in outstanding effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. The submission contains several significant advantages and no more than a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be very low.
Satisfactory (S) The qualification meets the Government's expectations. The Government expects satisfactory performance under the contract. The submission contains many advantages and only a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be low.
Marginal (M) The qualification marginally satisfies the Government's expectations. The firm demonstrates a shallow understanding of the work to be accomplished. The submission contains several disadvantages and only a few advantages. The performance risk is deemed to be moderate to high.
Unsatisfactory (U) The qualification fails to meet the Government's expectations. The submission is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, and/or so incorrect as to be unsatisfactory. The submission contains significant disadvantages that are unacceptable. The performance risk is deemed to be very high.

MCC will use the following adjectival risk ratings to evaluate the firms' relevant Past Performance References:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Low Risk The relevant Past Performance References have only positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better using the CPARS standards) of the firm.
Moderate Risk The relevant Past Performance References have generally positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better) with possibly some negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
High Risk The relevant Past Performance References have mostly negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
Neutral Offerors without relevant Past Performance References will be assigned "Neutral" rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Offeror.

7.b. Evaluation Factors

All submissions will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors listed below in descending order starting with the most important factor:

Evaluation Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

The firm must demonstrate:

a. The comprehensiveness of the team structure (including key and non-key personnel proposed by the A & E) to complete the requirement;

b. The technical capability and qualifications of the proposed key personnel and non-key personnel to meet the requirement including references for key personnel; (additional non-key personnel proposed by the firm will not be evaluated individually but as a whole, however resumes shall be provided);

c. The proposed team (key and non-key personnel) mobilization, deployment, and approach to maintain satisfactory stakeholder engagement throughout the requirement including the role of the Project Manager/Team Leader;

d. The proposed teams approach to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; and,

e. The proposed team member's relevant urban transport engineering experience with special consideration of energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials.

Evaluation Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

The Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed workplan, WBS with LOEs, and methodology to meet the objectives outlined under the terms of reference.

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

The Government will evaluate:

a. Comprehensiveness of the proposed workplan and WBS;

b. Integration of the environmental and social tasks into the engineering tasks throughout the requirement and understanding of the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire;

c. The firm's estimated level of effort for each deliverable to ensure the appropriate understanding of the Government's requirements and the realistic expectations by the firm; and,

d. The firms proposed deliverables schedule.

2. Methodology

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the proposed methodology, specifically:

a. Urban traffic demand and simulation modelling approach relevant to this assignment;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design (road recycling and rolled compacted concrete) approach relevant to this assignment;

c. Technical training and coursework delivery relevant to this requirement;

d. Approach to mitigate port congestion relevant to this requirement;

e. Integration of environmental and social tasks into the engineering process throughout the requirement; and

f. Addressing community welfare and needs throughout the requirement.

3. Subcontractor Plan

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan to ensure that it has comprehensive and methodical plans on how the firm will work with and manage its subcontractors.

Evaluation Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

The firms must possess:

1. A minimum of ten (10) years of comparable related experience in direct management of urban transport engineering in highly congested, urban environments in cities over 1 million people on at least five (5) transport projects (about 100 lane kilometers per year) with at least 50,000 vehicles/day;

2. At least three (3) previous experiences in the reuse of recovered materials in transport projects (i.e. pavement recycling) and at least two (2) previous experiences in rolled compacted concrete (or similar);

3. A minimum of five (5) years demonstrated experience in urban traffic demand modeling and simulation relevant to the assignment;

4. 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); and,

5. A sufficient technical resource bench to satisfy the requirement.

The Government will evaluate the firm's specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. The Government will evaluate the firm's availability of resources, ability to timely deploy resources, ensure appropriate level of quality assurance and control, and ability to successfully deliver the project as required.

Evaluation Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The Government will evaluate the performance under existing and prior contracts, including references with full contact information for:

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or

d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relative to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the firm's qualifications and past performance.

Evaluation Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

The firms must demonstrate a clear understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, including unique challenges and solutions.

8. Synopsis Conference

MCC will hold a Synopsis Conference to detail the Government's requirement, what we expect in the submission, and to answer any preliminary questions from the interested firms. The conference details are as follows:

Location: MCC Headquarter
1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Date: Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Time: 2:00 PM Eastern Time

MCC will also host a teleconference of the event for those wishing to join us remotely. Those interested in attending the conference in person or via teleconference must email Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 12:00pm ET on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 to allow sufficient time for the invitation. The email should contain a list of names, titles, and email addresses of those that wish to attend.

The highlights of the conference will be issued via an amendment to the synopsis.

[This Conference was held and is addressed in Synopsis Amendment 2. MCC will not hold another Synopsis Conference.]

9. Administrative Information

MCC may host a pre-submission conference to discuss the Government's requirements. A separate notice will be posted on FBO.gov under this synopsis for additional information.

After the close of the synopsis, the Government will notify those nonresponsive firms of their exclusion from further consideration if any part of the submission is missing or incomplete.

Once the MCC Evaluation Board selects at least three highly qualified firms, MCC will invite those firms for an oral presentation in person or via teleconference. Oral presentations are a crucial part of the evaluation. Those firms that cannot accommodate an oral presentation will not be considered for award.

Once the selection authority makes the final determination, those unsuccessful firms will be notified of their exclusion from further consideration. The solicitation will be first issued only to the most qualified firm. The second and third most qualified firms will be notified as such.

The firm may be invited in person or via teleconference for a technical and/or cost/price negotiation to reach an agreement.

The Government is not liable for any cost incurred by the firms for the preparation of the submission documents or for the in-person or teleconference meetings.

After the contract has been awarded, the contract information will be posted on FBO.gov and the firms will not be separately notified.

The Government hopes to award this A-E contract around March of 2019.

10. Attachments

a. 1. Terms of Reference (ToR) 20181227 (Microsoft Word) [Official]
2. Terms of Reference in French 20181224 (Microsoft Word) [Unofficial; for reference only]
b. Provisions and Clauses 20181119 (Microsoft Word)
c. Revised Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables 20181224 (Microsoft Excel)
d. Commitment Letter Template 20181119 (Microsoft Word)
e. SF-330 Part I and Part II Templates 20181119 (Adobe PDF)
f. Synopsis Conference Presentation 20181224 (Microsoft PowerPoint) [Unofficial; for reference only]

[End of Document]

.

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail***
95332419E0001 Amendment 2
DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in Côte d'Ivoire
Synopsis

Amendment 1

The purpose of Amendment 1 is to issue the updated ToR. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

[End of Amendment 1]

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). Any changes to the original synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow.

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 2:00PM ET on 4 January 2019 (Friday).

2. Would MCC consider extending the SF-330 submission due date?
A: No. MCC believes we have provided sufficient amount of time to prepare the SF-330 for submission.

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]

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 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
0001 Base: Deliverables 1 to 8 | 8 months (Award + 32 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Base NTE Lot _______________ _______________
1001 OP 1: Deliverables 9 to 14 | Award + 10 months (Award + 72 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Option 1 NTE Lot _______________ _______________
2001 OP 2: Technical Design Support | 12 months
T & M
Contract Period: Option 2 TBD Lot _______________ _______________
GRAND TOTAL NTE _______________

In accordance with clause MCC 52-232-72 Limitation of Funds-Incrementally Funded Contracts, funds in the amount of $X.XX have been allotted to this contract. MCC contemplates that the total available funds now obligated will cover the work to be performed through 10 October 2021. The contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

4. Scope of Project / Terms of Reference (ToR)

Refer to the Synopsis Attachment Terms of Reference (ToR) for the complete detail, including objectives, scopes, deliverables, and staffing.

5. Submission Instructions and Evaluation Procedures

5.a. Submission and Evaluation Overview

In accordance with FAR 36.6, the submission and evaluation procedures will be split into two phases: (1) the submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications and (2) the submission, evaluation, and negotiation of the highest qualified bidder's price proposal.

Phase 1: Synopsis: The submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications
Step 1: The bidders must submit completed SF-330 Part I and Part II to verify its qualifications.
Step 2: The MCC Evaluation Board will evaluate all responsive SF-330s and select, at a minimum, three most highly qualified A-E firms.
Step 3: MCC will invite those selected firms for an oral presentation / interview.
Step 4: The MCC Evaluation Board will rank the top three most qualified firms and make a recommendation to the designated selection authority.
Step 5: The selection authority will make the final determination on the ranking of the top three most qualified firms.

Phase 2: Solicitation: The submission, evaluation, and negotiation of cost/price proposal
Step 1: MCC will issue a solicitation in the form of Request for Proposal (RFP) to the top highest qualified A-E firm.
Step 2: The A-E firm will submit a complete cost/price proposal to MCC.
Step 3: MCC will evaluate the cost/price proposal and determine whether or not it is fair and reasonable.
Step 4: MCC may enter into a technical and/or cost/price negotiation with the firm.
Step 5: Once agreeable terms are reached, MCC will move forward with the award. If MCC and the firm cannot reach an agreement within a time specified by the contracting officer, MCC will terminate the negotiation and invite the second most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If MCC and the second qualified firm cannot reach an agreement, MCC will invite the third most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If an agreement is not reached with the third most qualified firm, the synopsis and solicitation will be cancelled and may be re-competed.

5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions

The bidders must submit the following:
1. Cover Page, at a minimum including:
a. The solicitation number and title;
b. The bidding firm's official name;
c. The bidding firm's DUNS number;
d. Main point-of-contact who has signatory and negotiation authority with name, phone number, and email; and
e. Statement that the bid submission is valid for 1 year.
2. Completed SF-330 Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications (Section A through H); and
3. Completed SF-330 Part II General Qualifications.

The Cover Page is limited to 2 pages; the SF-330 Part I has no page limit, however the Section H Additional Information is limited to 30 pages; and the SF-330 Part II has no page limit. (SF-330 Part I Section E Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract is not considered in the page limits provided.)

The Phase I Qualifications submission must not include any price/cost information as it will not be reviewed during our Phase I Qualifications evaluation.

The firms must provide all the necessary materials, equipment, personnel, etc. to satisfy the requirement. There is a possibility, however, that the MCA may offer an office space for limited number of contractor personnel. This will be separately negotiated before or after the award.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate in English the firm's qualifications and the understanding of the technical requirements for further consideration. Clarity and completeness are of the utmost importance. Therefore, the submissions, including all illustrative and graphical representations, must be presented in a practical, clear, and concise manner.

The narrative must provide the Government with a reasonable assurance that the firm has the necessary qualifications to fully satisfy the Government's requirements. A restatement of the ToR will be deemed unacceptable and may result in a low evaluation rating.

The Government recommends completing and signing the SF-330s electronically, rather than handwriting then scanning. If any part of the submission is not clearly readable, i.e. a document is not legible or comprehensible, the Government may either disregard the information in our evaluation or deem the submission unresponsive without an opportunity for re-submission.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Government's requirement, as well as convey the A-E firm's capability for transforming its understanding into successful performance.

5.c. Standard Form 330 (SF-330) and Required Submissions Documents

The SF-330 Parts I and II are standard documents used for the A-E firms to present their qualifications to the Government. Both parts and all its sections must be submitted electronically for award consideration. Only the SF-330 Part I Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team and Section H Additional Information may be submitted as Microsoft Word (.docx) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) documents (to allow graphical representations and to conveniently present additional information) as long as it does not exceed the page limits noted in 5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions.

If a Word/Excel document is used, the font must be Calibri or Times New Roman size 11 or larger and page size must be 8.5x11" with 1" margin all around. The first page of Section H must be completed as the original SF-330 PDF document with the appropriate signature and the remaining pages may be presented in Word/Excel. All supplemental documents should clearly show sequential page numbers and the corresponding section title, e.g. "Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team" or "Section H Additional Information." All other sections must be completed within the SF-330 PDF. The firm may complete multiple copies of the PDFs for SF-330 Part I Sections A through H and Part II to ensure sufficient documentation of its qualifications.

In the synopsis phase, MCC will evaluate the following:

5.d. Submission Information

Firms are responsible for submitting electronic submissions, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government Official by the date and time specified below:
Date: Monday, 28 January 2019
Time: 5:00 PM Eastern Time
Location: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Attn: Andrew Lee, Contract Specialist
mailto:leeae@mcc.gov

All questions regarding this synopsis must be emailed to Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 1:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, 4 January 2019. To assure timely and proper handling, the email question must state "95332419E0001 DCO TVS ATP A-E Service" in the subject line.

The Government will not answer any question or request received after the time specified above. Questions or requests for clarification that result in specific information necessary to respond to the synopsis will be provided to all firms. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to the firm's questions and requests, but will consider them and incorporate the responses and any changes to an amendment to the synopsis.

5.e. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types

Due to current cybersecurity threats, MCC currently blocks attachments containing extensions that run programs. These include any files that contain or are executables, macros, and other extensions that present a threat. As such firms must not use any of these file extensions and remove all macros from Microsoft Office documents (Word, Excel) or their submission will be blocked, preventing receipt of the submission by MCC and potentially being precluded from award consideration.

The following are examples of file types that are blocked, however this list is not exhaustive or fully-inclusive as additional, similar file types may be blocked in the future:

.vbs (Microsoft Visual Basic script file)
.vbe (VBScript encoded script file)
.scr (script)
.reg (registration file)
.jar (java file extension)
.exe (executable)
.docm (Word with macros)
.xlsm (Excel with macros)
.pptm (PowerPoint with macros)
.app (executable)
.ani (animation files)
.ace (data compression archive file format used by WinAce)
.ico (image file format)
.js (java script)
.zip (compression file)

6. Qualification Factors

Qualification Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

Firms must submit resumes of its proposed team (both key and non-key personnel). Firms may choose to complete SF-330 Part I Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract or submit Word documents as a part of SF-330 Part I Section H. Additional Information. The resumes must be chronological with the most recent information listed first. The resumes must contain, at a minimum, (1) name, (2) role in this contract, (3) years of experience, for both total years and the years at the submitting firm, (4) education, including the name of schools attended, the duration of enrollment, and the degree/certificate obtained, (5) current proposal registration, including title and location of registration, and (6) relevant employment experiences that are directly related to the requirement, including the name of company or agency, the period of employment, the title and job description of the individual, and the level of responsibility. The resumes may and should contain details of any design awards the proposed team members had won.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

Firms must also submit at least three (3) references with full contact information for each of the proposed key personnel. The references shall all be directly relevant to the requirement and demonstrate individual past performance relative to the requirement:

1. Project Manager/Team Leader;
2. Traffic Demand Modeler;
3. Pavement Engineer(s);
4. Environmental Specialist;
5. Resettlement Specialist; and
6. Stakeholder Engagement Specialist.

The firm shall demonstrate how it proposes to organize, mobilize, and deploy its proposed project team to perform the tasks described under the requirement while maintaining appropriate stakeholder engagement to ensure that the objectives of the assignment are met, including keeping the major stakeholders involved on a routine basis;

The firm shall demonstrate how the Project Manager/Team Leader's experience demonstrates her/his ability to integrate and manage a large multi-disciplinary team, effectively communicate with project stakeholders and perform quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to satisfy the Government's requirements.

The firm shall demonstrate how the proposed team is adapted to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire and past experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials.

Firms must submit a signed commitment letter from each of its Key Personnel team member. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, firms must submit the following information to further demonstrate their qualifications:

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

a. Provide summary workplan with critical path clearly identified including all milestones, proposed design reviews workshops and CTCTR Monthly Progress Meetings;

b. Provide summary of the WBS (one page);

c. Provide a proposed deliverables schedule (firms shall provide their optimal delivery schedule for the base period and for option period 1); and,

d. Provide summary Level of Effort (LoE) including all sub-contractors for each of the deliverables [to be completed in the Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)].

The firms must complete the Synopsis Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables. The firms shall enter a total estimated level of effort (LoE) percentage, including both key and non-key personnel and all administrative effort, for each deliverable. The attachment shall not be altered without a written approval by the MCC contracting officer and/or contract specialist.

This completed Excel attachment is counted as a part of the SF-330 Section H. Additional Information and it counts as one (1) page towards the page limit.

2. Methodology

The methodology section shall indicate the role of the relevant team members and demonstrate the firm's understanding of specific aspects of the requirement.

Note that cutting and pasting and/or repeating from the terms of reference may result in a less than satisfactory evaluation.

(1) Traffic Demand and Simulation Modelling:
a. Detail the traffic demand and simulation modelling aspect of the assignment including the team and its role, the selection of the proposed traffic modelling software, calibration and simulations, data collection, and major challenges foreseen by the firm.

(2) Geometric Reconfiguration and Structural Rehabilitation Design:
a. Detail the geometric redesign and configuration and structural rehabilitation design methodology of the project roads; and

b. Detail the approach for the use of recovered materials, pollution prevention, and waste reduction to the maximum extent practicable in developing the design, e.g. pavement recycling approach.

(3) Technical Training and Coursework:
a. Detail the technical training and coursework aspect of the requirement including the team and assignments, the proposed training curriculum development and delivery approach with major challenges foreseen by the firm.

b. Detail an approach for delivery of the technical assistance for the Abidjan Road and Safety Prioritization.

(4) Mitigating Port Congestion:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's approach to study and provide recommendations to alleviate congestion in and around the port, as well as identifying opportunities for private investment.

(5) Integration of Environmental, Resettlement, and Social Tasks with the Engineering Process:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's proposed team and how the firm proposes to integrate the environmental, social and resettlement tasks of the requirement into the engineering process.

(6) Maintaining and Integrating Community Welfare and Needs:
a. Provide a methodology detailing how the firm proposes to:

i. Maintain host community welfare and safety during construction, including construction site efficiencies, coordination and communication with drivers, pedestrians and local business owners;

ii. Work with the community to develop measures to reduce impacts to the local populations from congestion and inconvenience caused by construction; and,

iii. Develop an urban architecture plan and streetscape for the proposed road segments that reflects community needs. The firm shall provide at least two (2) architectural transport/streetscape renderings (before and after architectural presentations) from the proposed team and brief description of how the participatory process was used and how this will be adapted to the requirement.

3. Subcontracting Plan

The firms must submit its subcontracting plan to describe its relationship and the roles of any and all subcontractors.

The SF-330 Part II General Qualifications and a signed commitment letter must be completed for each subcontractor proposed. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

1. Firms relevant urban transport engineering experience including:

a. Firms role on the project and financial amount under direct management by the firm over the last ten (10) years including the total value of the resulting construction contract(s) over the last ten (10) years;

b. Indicate the average annual daily traffic and lane-kilometers on each project including city size for each over the last ten (10) years.

2. Firm's geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design experience, including pavement recycling and rolled compacted concrete (or similar), relevant to the project over the last ten (10) years;

3. Firm's urban traffic demand modelling and simulation experience and relevance to the project over the last ten (10) years;

4. Firms specialized experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials;

5. Firm's capability, including financial resources, to demonstrate the technical bench (i.e. backstopping, additional technical support if needed, replacement of personnel, etc.) and financial capability to satisfy the requirement. (Please do not detail any specific cost/price quote/proposal.)

6. Additional relevant supporting information.

Qualification Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with any government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The firms must submit at least three (3) and no more than ten (10) past performance references. At least 3 references must be 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.

All past performance references must be in similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement which can speak to the following (the firm shall indicate each of the elements below in the past performance template provided):

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment;

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or
d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

[Past performance reference format removed. Firms must submit past performance references as SF-330 Section F Example Projects which Best Illustrate Proposed Team's Qualifications for This Contract. Firms must complete one copy of Section F for each reference they propose. This will not count towards the Section H page limit.]

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance references to the scope of this synopsis. Those past performance ratings that are not closely relevant to this requirement will receive a "Neutral" rating.

Firms shall ensure that all contact information is up to date and correct.

Note that Government evaluators may utilize various OCONUS, Federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Government evaluators reserve the right to contact any of the provided references to solicit additional information or clarification regarding the firm's past performance. The Contracting Officer and/or technical evaluators may research on any OCONUS, Federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance that is known to the Contracting Officer, but not included as a reference on the submitted qualifications package. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge may be utilized by the technical evaluation team members as long as there's sufficient supporting documentation.

Qualification Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit their understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The firms must detail the potential challenges and solutions to those challenges and shall propose other possible challenges they foresee by working on this project.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Award evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

7.a. Basis for Qualification

The Government intends to award one hybrid firm-fixed price (FFP) and time-and-materials (T & M) contract with base period and two option periods to the firm that is determined to be a highly qualified and is fair and reasonable to the Government. For each evaluation factor, with an exception to the Evaluation Factor 5 Past Performance, the Government will perform a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, including their significance, and assign one of following adjectival ratings:

Technical Evaluation Ratings
Outstanding (O) The qualification exceeds the Government's expectations. The Government expects that the firm should result in outstanding effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. The submission contains several significant advantages and no more than a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be very low.
Satisfactory (S) The qualification meets the Government's expectations. The Government expects satisfactory performance under the contract. The submission contains many advantages and only a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be low.
Marginal (M) The qualification marginally satisfies the Government's expectations. The firm demonstrates a shallow understanding of the work to be accomplished. The submission contains several disadvantages and only a few advantages. The performance risk is deemed to be moderate to high.
Unsatisfactory (U) The qualification fails to meet the Government's expectations. The submission is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, and/or so incorrect as to be unsatisfactory. The submission contains significant disadvantages that are unacceptable. The performance risk is deemed to be very high.

MCC will use the following adjectival risk ratings to evaluate the firms' relevant Past Performance References:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Low Risk The relevant Past Performance References have only positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better using the CPARS standards) of the firm.
Moderate Risk The relevant Past Performance References have generally positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better) with possibly some negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
High Risk The relevant Past Performance References have mostly negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
Neutral Offerors without relevant Past Performance References will be assigned "Neutral" rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Offeror.

7.b. Evaluation Factors

All submissions will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors listed below in descending order starting with the most important factor:

Evaluation Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

The firm must demonstrate:

a. The comprehensiveness of the team structure (including key and non-key personnel proposed by the A & E) to complete the requirement;

b. The technical capability and qualifications of the proposed key personnel and non-key personnel to meet the requirement including references for key personnel; (additional non-key personnel proposed by the firm will not be evaluated individually but as a whole, however resumes shall be provided);

c. The proposed team (key and non-key personnel) mobilization, deployment, and approach to maintain satisfactory stakeholder engagement throughout the requirement including the role of the Project Manager/Team Leader;

d. The proposed teams approach to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; and,

e. The proposed team member's relevant urban transport engineering experience with special consideration of energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials.

Evaluation Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

The Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed workplan, WBS with LOEs, and methodology to meet the objectives outlined under the terms of reference.

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

The Government will evaluate:

a. Comprehensiveness of the proposed workplan and WBS;

b. Integration of the environmental and social tasks into the engineering tasks throughout the requirement and understanding of the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire;

c. The firm's estimated level of effort for each deliverable to ensure the appropriate understanding of the Government's requirements and the realistic expectations by the firm; and,

d. The firms proposed deliverables schedule.

2. Methodology

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the proposed methodology, specifically:

a. Urban traffic demand and simulation modelling approach relevant to this assignment;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design (road recycling and rolled compacted concrete) approach relevant to this assignment;

c. Technical training and coursework delivery relevant to this requirement;

d. Approach to mitigate port congestion relevant to this requirement;

e. Integration of environmental and social tasks into the engineering process throughout the requirement; and

f. Addressing community welfare and needs throughout the requirement.

3. Subcontractor Plan

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan to ensure that it has comprehensive and methodical plans on how the firm will work with and manage its subcontractors.

Evaluation Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

The firms must possess:

1. A minimum of ten (10) years of comparable related experience in direct management of urban transport engineering in highly congested, urban environments in cities over 1 million people on at least five (5) transport projects (about 100 lane kilometers per year) with at least 50,000 vehicles/day;

2. At least three (3) previous experiences in the reuse of recovered materials in transport projects (i.e. pavement recycling) and at least two (2) previous experiences in rolled compacted concrete (or similar);

3. A minimum of five (5) years demonstrated experience in urban traffic demand modeling and simulation relevant to the assignment;

4. 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); and,

5. A sufficient technical resource bench to satisfy the requirement.

The Government will evaluate the firm's specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. The Government will evaluate the firm's availability of resources, ability to timely deploy resources, ensure appropriate level of quality assurance and control, and ability to successfully deliver the project as required.

Evaluation Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The Government will evaluate the performance under existing and prior contracts, including references with full contact information for:

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or

d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relative to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the firm's qualifications and past performance.

Evaluation Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

The firms must demonstrate a clear understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, including unique challenges and solutions.

8. Synopsis Conference

MCC will hold a Synopsis Conference to detail the Government's requirement, what we expect in the submission, and to answer any preliminary questions from the interested firms. The conference details are as follows:

Location: MCC Headquarter
1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Date: Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Time: 2:00 PM Eastern Time

MCC will also host a teleconference of the event for those wishing to join us remotely. Those interested in attending the conference in person or via teleconference must email Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 12:00pm ET on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 to allow sufficient time for the invitation. The email should contain a list of names, titles, and email addresses of those that wish to attend.

The highlights of the conference will be issued via an amendment to the synopsis.

[This Conference was held and is addressed in Synopsis Amendment 2. MCC will not hold another Synopsis Conference.]

9. Administrative Information

MCC may host a pre-submission conference to discuss the Government's requirements. A separate notice will be posted on FBO.gov under this synopsis for additional information.

After the close of the synopsis, the Government will notify those nonresponsive firms of their exclusion from further consideration if any part of the submission is missing or incomplete.

Once the MCC Evaluation Board selects at least three highly qualified firms, MCC will invite those firms for an oral presentation in person or via teleconference. Oral presentations are a crucial part of the evaluation. Those firms that cannot accommodate an oral presentation will not be considered for award.

Once the selection authority makes the final determination, those unsuccessful firms will be notified of their exclusion from further consideration. The solicitation will be first issued only to the most qualified firm. The second and third most qualified firms will be notified as such.

The firm may be invited in person or via teleconference for a technical and/or cost/price negotiation to reach an agreement.

The Government is not liable for any cost incurred by the firms for the preparation of the submission documents or for the in-person or teleconference meetings.

After the contract has been awarded, the contract information will be posted on FBO.gov and the firms will not be separately notified.

The Government hopes to award this A-E contract around March of 2019.

10. Attachments

a. 1. Terms of Reference (ToR) (Microsoft Word) [Official]
2. Terms of Reference in French 20181218 (Microsoft Word) [Unofficial; for reference only]
b. Provisions and Clauses (Microsoft Word)
c. Revised Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)
d. Commitment Letter Template (Microsoft Word)
e. SF-330 Part I and Part II Templates (Adobe PDF)
f. Synopsis Conference Presentation (Microsoft PowerPoint) [Unofficial; for reference only]

[End of Document]

.

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail***
95332419E0001
DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in Côte d'Ivoire
Synopsis

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 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
0001 Base: Deliverables 1 to 8 | 8 months (Award + 32 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Base NTE Lot _______________ _______________
1001 OP 1: Deliverables 9 to 14 | Award + 10 months (Award + 72 Weeks)
FFP
Contract Period: Option 1 NTE Lot _______________ _______________
2001 OP 2: Technical Design Support | 12 months
T & M
Contract Period: Option 2 TBD Lot _______________ _______________
GRAND TOTAL NTE _______________

In accordance with clause MCC 52-232-72 Limitation of Funds-Incrementally Funded Contracts, funds in the amount of $X.XX have been allotted to this contract. MCC contemplates that the total available funds now obligated will cover the work to be performed through 10 October 2021. The contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

4. Scope of Project / Terms of Reference (ToR)

Refer to the Synopsis Attachment Terms of Reference (ToR) for the complete detail, including objectives, scopes, deliverables, and staffing.

5. Submission Instructions and Evaluation Procedures

5.a. Submission and Evaluation Overview

In accordance with FAR 36.6, the submission and evaluation procedures will be split into two phases: (1) the submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications and (2) the submission, evaluation, and negotiation of the highest qualified bidder's price proposal.

Phase 1: Synopsis: The submission and evaluation of the bidders' qualifications
Step 1: The bidders must submit completed SF-330 Part I and Part II to verify its qualifications.
Step 2: The MCC Evaluation Board will evaluate all responsive SF-330s and select, at a minimum, three most highly qualified A-E firms.
Step 3: MCC will invite those selected firms for an oral presentation / interview.
Step 4: The MCC Evaluation Board will rank the top three most qualified firms and make a recommendation to the designated selection authority.
Step 5: The selection authority will make the final determination on the ranking of the top three most qualified firms.

Phase 2: Solicitation: The submission, evaluation, and negotiation of cost/price proposal
Step 1: MCC will issue a solicitation in the form of Request for Proposal (RFP) to the top highest qualified A-E firm.
Step 2: The A-E firm will submit a complete cost/price proposal to MCC.
Step 3: MCC will evaluate the cost/price proposal and determine whether or not it is fair and reasonable.
Step 4: MCC may enter into a technical and/or cost/price negotiation with the firm.
Step 5: Once agreeable terms are reached, MCC will move forward with the award. If MCC and the firm cannot reach an agreement within a time specified by the contracting officer, MCC will terminate the negotiation and invite the second most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If MCC and the second qualified firm cannot reach an agreement, MCC will invite the third most qualified firm to submit a proposal. If an agreement is not reached with the third most qualified firm, the synopsis and solicitation will be cancelled and may be re-competed.

5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions

The bidders must submit the following:
1. Cover Page, at a minimum including:
a. The solicitation number and title;
b. The bidding firm's official name;
c. The bidding firm's DUNS number;
d. Main point-of-contact who has signatory and negotiation authority with name, phone number, and email; and
e. Statement that the bid submission is valid for 1 year.
2. Completed SF-330 Part I Contract-Specific Qualifications (Section A through H); and
3. Completed SF-330 Part II General Qualifications.

The Cover Page is limited to 2 pages; the SF-330 Part I has no page limit, however the Section H Additional Information is limited to 30 pages; and the SF-330 Part II has no page limit. (SF-330 Part I Section E Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract is not considered in the page limits provided.)

The Phase I Qualifications submission must not include any price/cost information as it will not be reviewed during our Phase I Qualifications evaluation.

The firms must provide all the necessary materials, equipment, personnel, etc. to satisfy the requirement. There is a possibility, however, that the MCA may offer an office space for limited number of contractor personnel. This will be separately negotiated before or after the award.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate in English the firm's qualifications and the understanding of the technical requirements for further consideration. Clarity and completeness are of the utmost importance. Therefore, the submissions, including all illustrative and graphical representations, must be presented in a practical, clear, and concise manner.

The narrative must provide the Government with a reasonable assurance that the firm has the necessary qualifications to fully satisfy the Government's requirements. A restatement of the ToR will be deemed unacceptable and may result in a low evaluation rating.

The Government recommends completing and signing the SF-330s electronically, rather than handwriting then scanning. If any part of the submission is not clearly readable, i.e. a document is not legible or comprehensible, the Government may either disregard the information in our evaluation or deem the submission unresponsive without an opportunity for re-submission.

The submissions must clearly demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Government's requirement, as well as convey the A-E firm's capability for transforming its understanding into successful performance.

5.c. Standard Form 330 (SF-330) and Required Submissions Documents

The SF-330 Parts I and II are standard documents used for the A-E firms to present their qualifications to the Government. Both parts and all its sections must be submitted electronically for award consideration. Only the SF-330 Part I Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team and Section H Additional Information may be submitted as Microsoft Word (.docx) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) documents (to allow graphical representations and to conveniently present additional information) as long as it does not exceed the page limits noted in 5.b. Submission Requirements and Instructions.

If a Word/Excel document is used, the font must be Calibri or Times New Roman size 11 or larger and page size must be 8.5x11" with 1" margin all around. The first page of Section H must be completed as the original SF-330 PDF document with the appropriate signature and the remaining pages may be presented in Word/Excel. All supplemental documents should clearly show sequential page numbers and the corresponding section title, e.g. "Section D Organizational Chart of Proposed Team" or "Section H Additional Information." All other sections must be completed within the SF-330 PDF. The firm may complete multiple copies of the PDFs for SF-330 Part I Sections A through H and Part II to ensure sufficient documentation of its qualifications.

In the synopsis phase, MCC will evaluate the following:

5.d. Submission Information

Firms are responsible for submitting electronic submissions, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government Official by the date and time specified below:
Date: Monday, 28 January 2019
Time: 5:00 PM Eastern Time
Location: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Attn: Andrew Lee, Contract Specialist
mailto:leeae@mcc.gov

All questions regarding this synopsis must be emailed to Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 2:00 PM Eastern Time on Thursday, 20 December 2018. To assure timely and proper handling, the email question must state "95332419E0001 DCO TVS ATP A-E Service" in the subject line.

The Government will not answer any question or request received after the time specified above. Questions or requests for clarification that result in specific information necessary to respond to the synopsis will be provided to all firms. Therefore, questions/comments shall not be marked with a restrictive legend and shall not include proprietary information. The Government is not obligated to provide responses to the firm's questions and requests, but will consider them and incorporate the responses and any changes to an amendment to the synopsis.

5.e. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types

Due to current cybersecurity threats, MCC currently blocks attachments containing extensions that run programs. These include any files that contain or are executables, macros, and other extensions that present a threat. As such firms must not use any of these file extensions and remove all macros from Microsoft Office documents (Word, Excel) or their submission will be blocked, preventing receipt of the submission by MCC and potentially being precluded from award consideration.

The following are examples of file types that are blocked, however this list is not exhaustive or fully-inclusive as additional, similar file types may be blocked in the future:

.vbs (Microsoft Visual Basic script file)
.vbe (VBScript encoded script file)
.scr (script)
.reg (registration file)
.jar (java file extension)
.exe (executable)
.docm (Word with macros)
.xlsm (Excel with macros)
.pptm (PowerPoint with macros)
.app (executable)
.ani (animation files)
.ace (data compression archive file format used by WinAce)
.ico (image file format)
.js (java script)
.zip (compression file)

6. Qualification Factors

Qualification Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

Firms must submit resumes of its proposed team (both key and non-key personnel). Firms may choose to complete SF-330 Part I Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract or submit Word documents as a part of SF-330 Part I Section H. Additional Information. The resumes must be chronological with the most recent information listed first. The resumes must contain, at a minimum, (1) name, (2) role in this contract, (3) years of experience, for both total years and the years at the submitting firm, (4) education, including the name of schools attended, the duration of enrollment, and the degree/certificate obtained, (5) current proposal registration, including title and location of registration, and (6) relevant employment experiences that are directly related to the requirement, including the name of company or agency, the period of employment, the title and job description of the individual, and the level of responsibility. The resumes may and should contain details of any design awards the proposed team members had won.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

Firms must also submit at least three (3) references with full contact information for each of the proposed key personnel. The references shall all be directly relevant to the requirement and demonstrate individual past performance relative to the requirement:

1. Project Manager/Team Leader;
2. Traffic Demand Modeler;
3. Pavement Engineer(s);
4. Environmental Specialist;
5. Resettlement Specialist; and
6. Stakeholder Engagement Specialist.

The firm shall demonstrate how it proposes to organize, mobilize, and deploy its proposed project team to perform the tasks described under the requirement while maintaining appropriate stakeholder engagement to ensure that the objectives of the assignment are met, including keeping the major stakeholders involved on a routine basis;

The firm shall demonstrate how the Project Manager/Team Leader's experience demonstrates her/his ability to integrate and manage a large multi-disciplinary team, effectively communicate with project stakeholders and perform quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to satisfy the Government's requirements.

The firm shall demonstrate how the proposed team is adapted to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire and past experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials.

Firms must submit a signed commitment letter from each of its Key Personnel team member. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, firms must submit the following information to further demonstrate their qualifications:

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

a. Provide summary workplan with critical path clearly identified including all milestones, proposed design reviews workshops and CTCTR Monthly Progress Meetings;

b. Provide summary of the WBS (one page);

c. Provide a proposed deliverables schedule (firms shall provide their optimal delivery schedule for the base period and for option period 1); and,

d. Provide summary Level of Effort (LoE) including all sub-contractors for each of the deliverables [to be completed in the Attachment Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)].

The firms must complete the Synopsis Attachment Levels of Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables. The firms shall enter a total estimated level of effort (LoE) in hours, including both key and non-key personnel less any administrative effort, for each deliverable. The attachment shall not be altered without a written approval by the MCC contracting officer and/or contract specialist.

This completed Excel attachment is counted as a part of the SF-330 Section H. Additional Information and it counts as one (1) page towards the page limit.

2. Methodology

The methodology section shall indicate the role of the relevant team members and demonstrate the firm's understanding of specific aspects of the requirement.

Note that cutting and pasting and/or repeating from the terms of reference may result in a less than satisfactory evaluation.

(1) Traffic Demand and Simulation Modelling:
a. Detail the traffic demand and simulation modelling aspect of the assignment including the team and its role, the selection of the proposed traffic modelling software, calibration and simulations, data collection, and major challenges foreseen by the firm.

(2) Geometric Reconfiguration and Structural Rehabilitation Design:
a. Detail the geometric redesign and configuration and structural rehabilitation design methodology of the project roads; and

b. Detail the approach for the use of recovered materials, pollution prevention, and waste reduction to the maximum extent practicable in developing the design, e.g. pavement recycling approach.

(3) Technical Training and Coursework:
a. Detail the technical training and coursework aspect of the requirement including the team and assignments, the proposed training curriculum development and delivery approach with major challenges foreseen by the firm.

b. Detail an approach for delivery of the technical assistance for the Abidjan Road and Safety Prioritization.

(4) Mitigating Port Congestion:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's approach to study and provide recommendations to alleviate congestion in and around the port, as well as identifying opportunities for private investment.

(5) Integration of Environmental, Resettlement, and Social Tasks with the Engineering Process:
a. Provide a methodology detailing the firm's proposed team and how the firm proposes to integrate the environmental, social and resettlement tasks of the requirement into the engineering process.

(6) Maintaining and Integrating Community Welfare and Needs:
a. Provide a methodology detailing how the firm proposes to:

i. Maintain host community welfare and safety during construction, including construction site efficiencies, coordination and communication with drivers, pedestrians and local business owners;

ii. Work with the community to develop measures to reduce impacts to the local populations from congestion and inconvenience caused by construction; and,

iii. Develop an urban architecture plan and streetscape for the proposed road segments that reflects community needs. The firm shall provide at least two (2) architectural transport/streetscape renderings (before and after architectural presentations) from the proposed team and brief description of how the participatory process was used and how this will be adapted to the requirement.

3. Subcontracting Plan

The firms must submit its subcontracting plan to describe its relationship and the roles of any and all subcontractors.

The SF-330 Part II General Qualifications and a signed commitment letter must be completed for each subcontractor proposed. A template of the commitment letter is separately attached to this synopsis. The commitment letters are submitted separately to the SF-330 and there is no page limit to the commitment letters.

Qualification Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit a summary of the following:

1. Firms relevant urban transport engineering experience including:

a. Firms role on the project and financial amount under direct management by the firm over the last ten (10) years including the total value of the resulting construction contract(s) over the last ten (10) years;

b. Indicate the average annual daily traffic and lane-kilometers on each project including city size for each over the last ten (10) years.

2. Firm's geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design experience, including pavement recycling and rolled compacted concrete (or similar), relevant to the project over the last ten (10) years;

3. Firm's urban traffic demand modelling and simulation experience and relevance to the project over the last ten (10) years;

4. Firms specialized experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials;

5. Firm's capability, including financial resources, to demonstrate the technical bench (i.e. backstopping, additional technical support if needed, replacement of personnel, etc.) and financial capability to satisfy the requirement. (Please do not detail any specific cost/price quote/proposal.)

6. Additional relevant supporting information.

Qualification Factor 4: Past performance on contracts with any government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The firms must submit at least three (3) past performance references with full contact information that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement which can speak to the following (the firm shall indicate each of the elements below in the past performance template provided):

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment;

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or
d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

All references must be for work performed as a prime contract or subcontractor within the past ten (10) years (no references for work performed prior to 2008).

The firms should include the following matrix for each past performance reference:
Contract/Task/Call Order Number: Period of Performance (Base and Options):

Total Contract/Task/Call Order Value:

Percentage of Total under firm's direct management:
Brief Project Description (Major Bullet Points):

Relevance to 95332419E0001 (Provide relevance for all that apply with supporting details):

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment;

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or

d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

Role of the Firm:
Technical PoC Name:
Email:
Telephone:

Contract PoC Name:
Email:
Telephone:

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance references to the scope of this synopsis. Those past performance ratings that are not closely relevant to this requirement will receive a "Neutral" rating.

Firms shall ensure that all contact information is up to date and correct.

Note that Government evaluators may utilize various OCONUS, Federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Government evaluators reserve the right to contact any of the provided references to solicit additional information or clarification regarding the firm's past performance. The Contracting Officer and/or technical evaluators may research on any OCONUS, Federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance that is known to the Contracting Officer, but not included as a reference on the submitted qualifications package. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge may be utilized by the technical evaluation team members as long as there's sufficient supporting documentation.

Qualification Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

In SF-330 Section H. Additional Information, the firms must submit their understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The firms must detail the potential challenges and solutions to those challenges and shall propose other possible challenges they foresee by working on this project.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Award evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

7.a. Basis for Qualification

The Government intends to award one hybrid firm-fixed price (FFP) and time-and-materials (T & M) contract with base period and two option periods to the firm that is determined to be a highly qualified and is fair and reasonable to the Government. For each evaluation factor, with an exception to the Evaluation Factor 5 Past Performance, the Government will perform a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, including their significance, and assign one of following adjectival ratings:

Technical Evaluation Ratings
Outstanding (O) The qualification exceeds the Government's expectations. The Government expects that the firm should result in outstanding effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. The submission contains several significant advantages and no more than a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be very low.
Satisfactory (S) The qualification meets the Government's expectations. The Government expects satisfactory performance under the contract. The submission contains many advantages and only a few minor disadvantages. The performance risk is deemed to be low.
Marginal (M) The qualification marginally satisfies the Government's expectations. The firm demonstrates a shallow understanding of the work to be accomplished. The submission contains several disadvantages and only a few advantages. The performance risk is deemed to be moderate to high.
Unsatisfactory (U) The qualification fails to meet the Government's expectations. The submission is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, and/or so incorrect as to be unsatisfactory. The submission contains significant disadvantages that are unacceptable. The performance risk is deemed to be very high.

MCC will use the following adjectival risk ratings to evaluate the firms' relevant Past Performance References:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Low Risk The relevant Past Performance References have only positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better using the CPARS standards) of the firm.
Moderate Risk The relevant Past Performance References have generally positive reviews ("Satisfactory" or better) with possibly some negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
High Risk The relevant Past Performance References have mostly negative reviews ("Marginal" or worse) of the firm.
Neutral Offerors without relevant Past Performance References will be assigned "Neutral" rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Offeror.

7.b. Evaluation Factors

All submissions will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors listed below in descending order starting with the most important factor:

Evaluation Factor 1: Proposed team professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

The firm must demonstrate:

a. The comprehensiveness of the team structure (including key and non-key personnel proposed by the A & E) to complete the requirement;

b. The technical capability and qualifications of the proposed key personnel and non-key personnel to meet the requirement including references for key personnel; (additional non-key personnel proposed by the firm will not be evaluated individually but as a whole, however resumes shall be provided);

c. The proposed team (key and non-key personnel) mobilization, deployment, and approach to maintain satisfactory stakeholder engagement throughout the requirement including the role of the Project Manager/Team Leader;

d. The proposed teams approach to meet the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; and,

e. The proposed team member's relevant urban transport engineering experience with special consideration of energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials.

Evaluation Factor 2: Methodology and Workplan

The Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed workplan, WBS with LOEs, and methodology to meet the objectives outlined under the terms of reference.

1. Workplan, WBS and LOE

The Government will evaluate:

a. Comprehensiveness of the proposed workplan and WBS;

b. Integration of the environmental and social tasks into the engineering tasks throughout the requirement and understanding of the conditions and challenges of working in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire;

c. The firm's proposed level of effort for each deliverable to ensure the appropriate understanding of the Government's requirements and the realistic expectations by the firm; and,

d. The firms proposed deliverables schedule.

2. Methodology

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the proposed methodology, specifically:

a. Urban traffic demand and simulation modelling approach relevant to this assignment;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural rehabilitation design (road recycling and rolled compacted concrete) approach relevant to this assignment;

c. Technical training and coursework delivery relevant to this requirement;

d. Approach to mitigate port congestion relevant to this requirement;

e. Integration of environmental and social tasks into the engineering process throughout the requirement; and

f. Addressing community welfare and needs throughout the requirement.

3. Subcontractor Plan

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan to ensure that it has comprehensive and methodical plans on how the firm will work with and manage its subcontractors.

Evaluation Factor 3: Firms specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required including capacity to accomplish the work

The firms must possess:

1. A minimum of ten (10) years of comparable related experience in direct management of urban transport engineering in highly congested, urban environments in cities over 1 million people on at least five (5) transport projects (about 100 lane kilometers per year) with at least 50,000 vehicles/day;

2. At least three (3) previous experiences in the reuse of recovered materials in transport projects (i.e. pavement recycling) and at least two (2) previous experiences in rolled compacted concrete (or similar);

3. A minimum of five (5) years demonstrated experience in urban traffic demand modeling and simulation relevant to the assignment;

4. 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); and,

5. A sufficient technical resource bench to satisfy the requirement.

The Government will evaluate the firm's specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. The Government will evaluate the firm's availability of resources, ability to timely deploy resources, ensure appropriate level of quality assurance and control, and ability to successfully deliver the project as required.

Evaluation Factor 4: Firm's past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

The Government will evaluate the performance under existing and prior contracts, including references with full contact information for:

a. Transport engineering experiences in highly congested urban environments;

b. Geometric reconfiguration and structural design of roads (pavement recycling and concrete) in a comparable urban environment

c. Projects for urban traffic demand and simulation modelling in similar complexity as the requirement; and/or

d. The use of IFC Performance Standards or equivalent, in urban transport environments in similar size and complexity.

The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relative to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the firm's qualifications and past performance.

Evaluation Factor 5: Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

The firms must demonstrate a clear understanding of the socio-politico-economic landscape in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, including unique challenges and solutions.

8. Synopsis Conference

MCC will hold a Synopsis Conference to detail the Government's requirement, what we expect in the submission, and to answer any preliminary questions from the interested firms. The conference details are as follows:

Location: MCC Headquarter
1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Date: Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Time: 2:00 PM Eastern Time

MCC will also host a teleconference of the event for those wishing to join us remotely. Those interested in attending the conference in person or via teleconference must email Andrew Lee at leeae@mcc.gov by 12:00pm ET on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 to allow sufficient time for the invitation. The email should contain a list of names, titles, and email addresses of those that wish to attend.

The highlights of the conference will be issued via an amendment to the synopsis.

9. Administrative Information

MCC may host a pre-submission conference to discuss the Government's requirements. A separate notice will be posted on FBO.gov under this synopsis for additional information.

After the close of the synopsis, the Government will notify those nonresponsive firms of their exclusion from further consideration if any part of the submission is missing or incomplete.

Once the MCC Evaluation Board selects at least three highly qualified firms, MCC will invite those firms for an oral presentation in person or via teleconference. Oral presentations are a crucial part of the evaluation. Those firms that cannot accommodate an oral presentation will not be considered for award.

Once the selection authority makes the final determination, those unsuccessful firms will be notified of their exclusion from further consideration. The solicitation will be first issued only to the most qualified firm. The second and third most qualified firms will be notified as such.

The firm may be invited in person or via teleconference for a technical and/or cost/price negotiation to reach an agreement.

The Government is not liable for any cost incurred by the firms for the preparation of the submission documents or for the in-person or teleconference meetings.

After the contract has been awarded, the contract information will be posted on FBO.gov and the firms will not be separately notified.

The Government hopes to award this A-E contract around March of 2019.

10. Attachments

a. Terms of Reference (ToR) (Microsoft Word)
b. Provisions and Clauses (Microsoft Word)
c. Levels-of-Effort (LoEs) by Deliverables (Microsoft Excel)
d. Commitment Letter Template (Microsoft Word)
e. SF-330 Part I and Part II Templates (Adobe PDF)

[End of Document]

.