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

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail*** 95332419E0001 Amendment 5 DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in C'te d'Ivoire Synopsis Amendment 5 The purpose of Amendment 5 is (1) to issue updated Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 20190131, (2) to respond to last set of questions received before the deadline, (3) to remove the requirement for the LOE Percentage by Deliverables, (4) to clarify MCC's evaluation for cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods, and (5) to extend the SF-330 submission deadline to 5:00pm ET on 14 February 2019 (Thursday). Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow. Any changes to the previous version of the ToR are noted as Track Changes. The following Amendment 5 Q&As and attached ToRs represent the most recent information and supplant any conflicting information from previous Amendments/versions. Questions and Answers (Q&As): 1. Synopsis Evaluation Factor 3: Will concrete or gravel cement pavements be considered as similar to rolled compacted concrete in your analysis? Response: Experience in cement treated base courses produced using a pug mill will be considered as similar. 2. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: Article 1.2.7.4 refers to an Annex I-16 which is not present in the file. Can you specify the content of this Annex? Response: This Annex I-16 refers to the Annex of the Compact, which is available on line at the following link: https://assets.mcc.gov/content/uploads/compact-cote-divoire.pdf 3. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: The table on page 12 indicates the key elements that will be provided to the A&E by the agencies and their respective ministries: all available as-built files on project roads and all utilities, any existing traffic Models and studies, all available data including traffic counts, geotechnical characteristics, underground utilities... Apart from the WSP's VGE integrated model, are there any other models that will be made available to the A&E? Can you confirm that all existing elements related to the mentioned fields will be provided to the A&E by April 2019? Response: The existing elements noted in the table are expected to be provided by April 2019, however note that some or all of the as-built files may not exist, especially with regards to the utilities. In order to minimize uncertainties and therefore claims during construction, the exact positioning of all underground utilities with non-destructive and destructive methods (trenches to confirm) during the design is required. 4. ToR page 12 sec. 1.2.7.4: Apart from the MCLU/DGUF data, the table on page 11 does not mention any GIS data. Can you confirm that we will not have any other GIS database other than the one mentioned? Response: Please see section 4.5.1 ArcGIS Platform for more information on what is being provided. MCC is not aware of the availability of any other readily available platform for the city of Abidjan. 5. ToR page 21 sec. 3.1.2.1.2: The A&E shall provide a justification for the selection of the modelling tool, including a preliminary cost estimate of data collection campaign and modelling tasks. Afterwards, the detailed methodology definition and detailed data collection will be presented to MCC, MCA-C'te d'Ivoire and local authorities for validation. We understand that the whole traffic data collection campaign and modelling tasks will only be defined and estimated at that time, according to the analyses that will have been carried out on the available data and models. Can you confirm that we fully understand the terms of reference and that it is not necessary to estimate levels of effort for these tasks? Response: The A&E shall estimate and provide a detailed methodology by which it intends to collect and model the required data to be able to perform all of the activities required under Phase I. During the Phase II, the selected A&E will be asked to include the costs associated with Section 3.1.2.1.1 Data Collection. Section 3.1.2.1.2 Modelling Tool Justification provides for any additional justified modifications that would not have been foreseen during the bidding process. The ToR has been adjusted accordingly. 6. ToR page 23 sec. 3.1.2.2.4: The A&E shall ensure that the initial traffic (deviation) management model can accept any changes on the network with an almost real-time result. Can you specify your expectations in terms of calculation time to satisfy this requirement for an almost real-time result? Response: In order to achieve this task, it is expected that the A&E shall make use of a traffic model that can provide the dynamic re-distribution effect of any change in the network. For instance, if two lanes of a four-lane major artery in the vicinity of VGE are blocked, how would that effect the traffic flow on VGE? 7. ToR pages 30 sec. 3.1.5.4: Can you confirm that all the necessary elements will be provided for the A&E to perform the assessment of the existing Vridi bridge: calculation note, execution plans (including reinforcement and formwork plans), detailed inspection reports, history of interventions on the structure (reinforcement, resurfacing of pavements, etc.)? Response: As built drawings, detailed inspection reports and history of interventions on the structure are not available. 8. ToR pages 46-57 sec. 4: The deliverable timeline is based on a 2 week review period by MCC, MCA-CI and CTCTR. How is the global timeline updated if the review organizations do not meet this 2 week deadline? Response: The effect of a delay will be reviewed on a case by case basis and based on the A&E workplan. An equitable adjustment will be contemplated to the updated work plan. 9. ToR page 62 sec. 5.2.1: For the pavement engineer, will the experiences with concrete or gravel cement pavements be considered as similar to rolled compacted concrete experiences? Response: Experience with conventional concrete pavements or pugmill-produced cement treated base shall be considered equivalent to RCC experience. 10. Provisions and Clauses: As part of the contract, can we be required to prove that we comply with the rules of US embargoes on our equipment and/or for our suppliers? Response: Yes, MCC may ask to prove such compliance. FAR 52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases prohibits contractors and subcontractors from acquiring supplies or services from entities subject to US economic sanctions. As required by FAR 52.203-13 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, firms must establish appropriate internal controls to facility timely discover of any improper business conduct, including compliance to US economic sanctions. MCC may request the contractor to prove compliance and contractor must do so in timely manner. 11. Provisions and Clauses: We understand the contract will be composed of the clauses referred to in the document "Provisions and Clauses" and that we will find these clauses at www.acquisition.gov/ browse/index/far. But could you please indicate us if there will be additional clauses or other contract template not sent yet? Response: MCC believes the "Provisions and Clauses" document lists all the applicable provisions and clauses. 12. Provisions and Clauses: We would like to introduce limitation of liability clause to the contract amount in aggregate. Could you please amend the particular conditions in this way? Response: We will consider any special terms and conditions as long as it does not violate US law or other applicable contract clauses. The Bidder's terms and conditions must be proposed in Section H. Additional Information, unless it discloses any price/cost information. If so, it shall be proposed during the Phase II. 13. Provisions and Clauses: Could you please specify what are the insurances required? Response: MCC does not require any specific insurance. However, the contractor should carry professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, a common general liability insurance, and any other insurance applicable by law. 14. The pavement engineer should have at least 3 projects with rolled compacted concrete placement whereas the technology suggested for the project include high modulus asphalts (HMA) and rolled compacted concrete (RCC). Would other relevant experience also be considered for the pavement engineer, for instance high modulus asphalt concrete placement? Response: High Modulus Asphalt Concrete is considered the same as high modulus asphalts. 15. Regarding the multimodal traffic demand and simulation model, we would like to know if the stakeholders/ the MCC have already identified the followings: a. Recent household surveys, b. Traffic counting, demand surveys and their respective dates, c. Traffic models: area/ zoning, simulation period (peak hours only, full day, etc.), software(s) that were used and forecast periods. If so, would it be then possible to circulate a list of the recent surveys and existing traffic modelling studies? Response: The BNETD (Bureau National D'tudes Techniques et de D'veloppement), a government owned corporation, has performed household surveys and traffic counts, and has calibrated EMME version 2. Through an agreement to be signed by MCA-CI and the BNETD, the latter is committing to provide all data and some basic support at no cost, to the A&E. However note that this agreement has not been finalized. 16. Amendment 2 Q&A No. 7: In the Synopsis Section 1. Background, what does it mean by "The estimated cost range for the construction project is to exceed $10,000,000"? A: This is simply a prescribed set of ranges per FAR 36.204. What does it mean by "To exceed $10,000,000" is not a range or set of ranges. Can MCC provide a range estimate or are we to refer to the answer to Question 30 - "the estimated contract value for this A-E service is between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000"? Response: FAR 36.204 suggests "the estimated price should be described in terms of one of the following price ranges" with "(h) More than $10,000,000" being the highest threshold. A narrower estimate for this project is US$10 to $15 million. 17. Amendment 2 Q&A 15: Where in the SF-330 should firms incorporate the Commitment Letters? A: You may include all the Commitment Letters as a separate attachment to the SF-330 Section E. Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for this Contract. As a reminder, there is no page limit for Commitment Letters. Amendment 2 Q&A 16: Does MCC want a confirmation of the A-E firm's commitment to this project from an authorized officer of the firm? A: Yes. The Cover Letter shall include a statement from an executive of the proposing firm confirming their commitment to actualizing the proposed and negotiated plans, including the team members. Firms may simply include a statement in the signed Cover Letter, "Firm ABC confirms the commitment of carrying out our proposed and any negotiated technical plans, including mobilizing and maintaining the proposed team members." Given that employees of a company have no legal authority to commit their time [such a commitment is legally binding only if it comes from a duly authorized officer of the firm] may we assume commitment letters from a firm's employees are no longer required so long as the firm provides a commitment for the proposed employees in the cover letter? Response: Individuals working as consultants or subcontractor (anyone not an employee of the prime firm) must submit a signed commitment letter. Otherwise, firms are permitted to submit a signed blanket statement confirming the commitment and the availability of proposed employees of the firm. (If all the proposed personnel are employees of the prime firm, individually signed commitment letters are not required.) The resumes of the proposed personnel must clearly indicate that their current employer. If MCC is unable to identify whether or not a proposed team member is a current employee of the prime firm from her/his resume, MCC will assume the team member is not an employee of the prime firm. 18. Amendment 2 Q&A 26. Page 7 of ToR, asks for the LoEs less administrative effort. There may be uneven comparison by removing the administrative effort. A: We have changed this requirement to propose the Total Estimated LoE Percentage per Deliverable. Refer to the Attachment c. LoEs by Deliverable. We are no longer seeking a total number of hours per deliverable. The sum of all the LoE percentages (including the Base Period and Option Period 1) must equal 100% and shall reflect the total hours, including both technical and administrative hours, in the calculation. Changing the requirement for presenting actual LOE labor hours to percentages is, to a degree, a distinction without a difference. In order to compute percentages, the proposing firm would first need to calculate actual LOE hours, from which it could then derive percentage effort. In either case, the question arises as to whether it is proper to evaluate LOE labor in an SF 330 procurement which is intended to solicit Q&E and a management structure/approach, not to evaluate proposed level of effort? Response: MCC believes that without the firm's hourly rates or specific LOE hours, MCC cannot infer or deduce a firm's price/cost from the LOE percentages. However, to ease the submission requirement, MCC is removing the LOE Percentage by Deliverables spreadsheet for this time. 19. Amendment 2 Q&A 28. Are firms permitted to propose cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods? A: Yes. Firms may propose innovative cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods that can improve the Government's requirement in Section H. Additional Information. However, this synopsis phase is strictly a technical evaluation phase and SF-330 does not allow any cost information. Therefore, firms must take care not to submit any specific cost detail. General explanations of the methods are permitted but any numbers associated to cost or even inferences that can be made to any specific cost numbers are prohibited. MCC will not advise the firms whether or not their language would be permissible before the submission due date. Firms should consult the permissible language with their legal counsel. The provided guidance specifically includes: "General explanations of the methods that are permitted but any numbers associated to cost or even inferences that can be made to any specific cost numbers are prohibited." How are firms going to provide detailed percentage level of effort, by labor category, by deliverable, without violating the prohibition that no information provided may facilitate inferences as to cost? Response: Bidders are asked to provide technical explanation of cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods without disclosing pricing/cost information. During Phase I, MCC will evaluate the innovation and applicability of these methods, not the extent of cost savings, as part of Qualification Factor 2. However, this is not a required qualification. Innovative and applicable cost-cutting and/or value engineering methods will be given a greater consideration; but choosing not to present this information will not negatively affect the Bidder's evaluation rating for Factor 2. As noted in MCC's response to Question no 18 above, LOE Percentage by Deliverables is no longer requested. 20. Amendment 2 Q&A 31. During the contract performance, it may be necessary for the contractor to access various areas of the project. What would happen if there are any accessibility issue? A: If the said issue arises from the fault of the Government, we will absolutely consider modifying the contract for reasonable equitable adjustments. If the issue/delay could have been resolved or avoided by the contractor, any additional costs incurred would be assumed by the contractor. Why is this issue being addressed in the context of an SF 330 technical submission? Issues such as accessibility should be addressed during cost negotiations with the selected firm. In any event, such issues would be properly addressed via negotiation of costing assumptions. Is it truly MCC's intent that such issues would be addressed via formal equitable adjustments to the contract? Response: MCC is simply responding to a hypothetical question posed by an interested firm. MCC is not requesting firms to address the cost implication of such scenario in the SF-330 submission. FAR 52.243-1 Changes-Fixed Price Alternate III paragraph (b) states that the Contracting Office shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, in case of an increase or decrease in the cost of performance. Accordingly, if the cost of performance is increased by Government-caused delay, MCC will consider negotiating an equitable adjustment. 21. Amendment 2 Q&A 34. Regarding the key-experts and their presence on site, should we consider a minimum share of their man-days to be spent in Ivory Coast? A: The firm shall propose how they anticipate staffing and maintaining the appropriate level of in country presence to complete the assignment. How does a firm "propose how they anticipate staffing and maintaining the appropriate level of in country presence to complete the assignment" without specifying LOE labor hours, or LOE percentages which is prohibited? Response: The A&E shall outline their approach to staffing the project in country and at home office, including key and non-key personnel throughout the requirement including associated logistics and arrangements. 22. TOR 1.2.6 Stakeholder Engagement, most specifically: For the design phase, the A&E shall anticipate, at a minimum, the following: 1. A stakeholder set of approximately fifty (50) entities (excluding individuals and households affected by the Project who are part of the Resettlement Action Plan); 2. The review/validation of a minimum of seventy-five (75) products and/or deliverables; 3. The delivery of one hundred fifty (150) working sessions or workshops involving venue rental, including meals and coffee breaks for a minimum of thirty (30) participants; and, 4. A communications and invitation package for each workshop including printed material. As part of the stakeholder engagement program, the A&E shall i) provide logistical support, ii) meet individually with stakeholders during preparation and/or as follow-up to the workshops, iii) publish and print materials including sketches, technical drawings or electronic media, iv) organize venues and send necessary invitations, v) prepare materials and present at the workshops, and vi) provide for any follow-up that is required. Further, the A&E shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials for all Stakeholder Engagement activities that are conducted under their contract scope. 2.1 Objectives of the Consultancy The A&E services are comprised of one eight (8) month Base Period (Phase I), with a ten (10) month Option Period 1 (Phase II), both under a full fixed price basis. The details outlined in 1.2.6, especially those bolded, suggest a significant number of unknowns and variables yet Section 2.1 dictates the work shall be performed on a fixed prices basis. Under general contracting principles, fixed price contracts should not be used where there are contingencies and unknowns that render costing not suitable to fixed price contracting. Such would appear to be the case here. In order to protect itself from the inherent risk of fixed price bidding, the contractor would need to propose an inordinate number of labor hours and/or a slew of contingency assumptions. Further, the contactor would not be allowed a proposed MOD unless it could demonstrate there was a scope change. This might be problematic for the contractor since there may not be evidence of a scope change, rather the issue would be that the scope itself is full of contingencies and unknowns. Would MCC consider changing to a T&M contract? Response: No. 23. TOR 3.2.2 Social Safeguarding This includes Stakeholder Engagement, ESIA preparation, and Resettlement Planning. The Social Safeguarding component of the A&E's work will be very difficult to cost on a fix priced basis. The challenge is that much of the critical information for scoping these efforts (e.g. project designs, number and status of people to be resettled, and outputs from stakeholder meetings) will not be available at the time of bidding because these efforts are part of the project itself. The following two questions identify the challenge in more detail. 23(a). TOR 3.2.2.1 Preparation of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Per the TORs, "The A&E shall prepare an ESIA, Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and an environmental and social monitoring program for each of the road segments" The dimensions of the ESIAs, will depend on studies and design work which will not have been completed at the time that the A&E is required to propose a cost for preparation of the ESIAs. Lacking 3.1.5.5 Social Inclusion Analysis, 3.1.5.7 Conceptual Design; and 3.2.1.4 Preliminary Design Documents which will be completed as part of the ATP, the costing will be unreliable. This creates a significant financial risk for the A&E. How does MCC propose that this risk be mitigated? Response: The A&E shall have to assess an estimate for these activities. We have supplied minimum requirements as we currently understand them. We also encourage Bidders to narrow risks further through direct observation using remote sensing. As in all instances where information is incomplete (in this case potentially due to not having final designs prior to scoping the ESIA, or full stakeholder mapping), the Bidder will have to make certain assumptions which should be stated transparently at the outset so that it is possible to understand what the proposal includes and what it does not include. These assumptions shall be presented to MCC for consideration. 23(b). 3.2.2.2 Involuntary Resettlement This item identifies that the A&E will Prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and a Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP). The dimensions of the Resettlement Plan (especially the number of Potentially Affected People involved) can't be reliably estimated prior to completion of the Stakeholder Mapping exercise (part of the Inception Report) and the conceptual and engineering designs that are part of the project. According to the TOR's, Potentially Affected People (PAP) estimates provided: "are not based on any field work, i.e., no PAP census or interviews with PAPs or other stakeholders have been conducted. The estimates were also developed prior to the forced eviction of truckers from the port zone that occurred in November 2017." Yet the A&E will be required to propose a cost for developing the individual project RAPs as well as LRPs before this requisite information is available. PAP estimates provided in the bid documents are likely to change significantly. Costing will be difficult without the stakeholder mapping and the design work. This will in turn create a significant financial risk for the A&E. Again, how does MCC propose that this risk be mitigated? Response: The A&E shall have to assess an estimate for this activity. RAP implementation is however not part of this contract. We have supplied minimum requirements as we currently understand them. We also encourage Bidders to narrow risks further through direct observation using remote sensing. As in all instances where information is incomplete, the Bidder will have to make certain assumptions which should be stated transparently at the outset so that it is possible to understand what the proposal includes and what it does not include. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. [End of Amendment 5] Amendment 4 The purpose of Amendment 4 is (1) to issue updated Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 20190102 and (2) to clarify the submission deadline. Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4." This version of the ToR updates the Section 1.2.6 Stakeholder Engagement to include a minimum level of anticipated stakeholder engagement work. The changes are highlighted in yellow and noted in Track Changes. Due to the US Federal Government lapse in FY2019 Appropriations, MCC will shut down starting 3 January 2019 and thus the submission deadline may be affected. MCC's intent is for the submissions to be due by 5:00PM ET on 4 February 2019 (Monday); however if MCC is unable to timely address the questions (due by 1:00PM ET on 4 January 2019), then MCC may consider extending the submission deadline. With a few exceptions, MCC will not be allowed to work during the furlough period (or also called "shutdown"). MCC will not be able to make amendments to this Synopsis until the US Federal Government reopens. Please check this Synopsis on FBO.gov after the US Federal Government reopens. If MCC decides to extend the submission deadline, MCC will make an amendment before the submission deadline or within 5 business days from the reopening date, whichever is later. Unless this Synopsis is amended, interested offerors shall assume that the questions and the submission deadlines remain unchanged. The interested offerors are responsible for staying updated on the current US Government furlough/shutdown status and submit your SF-330 timely. Please check the US news and https://www.opm.gov/ regarding furlough/shutdown information. Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. [End of Amendment 4] Amendment 3 The purpose of Amendment 3 is (1) to extend the Submission Due Date to 5:00pm ET on 4 February 2019 (Friday), (2) to answer several questions posed by interested bidders, and (3) to issue updated Attachment a.1 Terms of Reference (ToR) 20181227 (Microsoft Word) [Official]. This Amendment 3 revises the answers to Amendment 2 Questions 1 and 2. Please note the information in this Amendment 3, including the Attachments, supplants any conflicting information you may found in previous versions of this Synopsis. Any changes to the previous version of the synopsis are highlighted in the body in yellow. Any changes to revised version of the ToR are noted in the Track Changes. We have made some changes to the ToR, including the removal of one task (formerly 3.1.4.2) and its associated deliverable (Deliverable 14). We also added language regarding the bachelor's degrees for engineering positions at the senior level, namely that the degrees shall come from accredited engineering institutions. We provided the names of the accreditation institutions with links for verification in the US, Canada, France and international agreements (Washington Accords and CTI). Firms must acknowledge Amendments 1, 2, and 3 in their Cover Letter. Firms may simply state, "Firm ABC acknowledges Amendments 1, 2, and 3." Questions and Answers (Q&As): 1. Requirements for the Pavement Engineer (s) (P. 58 of the ToR): "S/he shall have a Masters' degree in Civil Engineering with specialty in concrete pavements and high modulus asphalts." To our knowledge, this specialty is acquired rather after years of practice. Would you consider lowering the education requirement? A: Section 5 paragraph 7 allows for the substitution of years of experience for a Master's degree. 2. TOR 5.2.1 page 57: Can PM/TL's two projects over $175 million count toward the requirement that s/he must have led at least three projects over the past 10 years? In other words, is three total projects acceptable, or is MCC looking for five total projects for the PM/TL? A: The two (2) urban infrastructure projects valued at over $175 million can be counted as part of the three (3) projects over the last ten (10) years. 3. Can MCC provide a copy of WSP's VGE integrated model? A: MCC would require a legal approval to release this model, which may significantly delay this procurement. We also don't believe this is critical for bidders to prepare their submission. Therefore, this will not be shared with the interested bidders. However, it will be made available to the awardee after the award. 4. Does a cost loaded implementation plan with WBS need to be provided for the purposes of this qualifications-based submittal? A: No. this will need to be provided with the financials as part of the second phase of the procurement. 5. Who will have primary responsibility for developing the Stakeholder Engagement Plan - the ESOC or the A&E? (There seems to be conflicting references to SEP preparation on pages 9 and 16 of the TOR.) A: The A&E has total responsibility for planning and conducting all Stakeholder Engagement for all activities that are conducted under their contract scope. The ESOC has responsibility for the Project-wide Stakeholder Engagement Plan as required under the IFC PS and MCC, of which the Stakeholder Engagement program of the A&E is a part. The ESOC will need to capture and document what the A&E does in the larger Project-wide Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the A&E will need to share information and collaborate with the ESOC on its approach and results. Note on page 17 of the ToR, it states, "The A&E shall provide a preliminary stakeholder engagement plan including stakeholder mapping for completing the requirement." Therefore, this is consistent and correct. 6. Who will have primary responsibility for developing the Training course - the ESOC or the A&E? (There seems to be conflicting references on pages 9 and 13 of the TOR.) A: The two training courses and objectives are different. Additional clarification is provided in revised ToR with this Amendment. Each consultant is responsible for their own course content development. 7. Who shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials? A: The A&E shall bear the costs of stakeholder engagement expenses such as venues, media adverts and information materials for all Stakeholder Engagement activities that are conducted under their contract scope. Page 10 of the ToR has been modified to reflect this. 8. One of the requirements for the key personnel is to have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and/or construction engineering. In some non-US countries, the degree is not called bachelor and not always civil, construction. Could the wording be modified to Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or similar? A: Yes, this has been adjusted. Note that MCC reserves the exclusive right to evaluate what constitutes similar; as such the firm shall provide supporting evidence to help inform the MCC appropriately. 9. Can the A/E proposed different dates for the deliverables as long as the Base and Option Period do not go beyond the timeframe proposed by MCC? Also, can the A/E include additional deliverables not listed in the ToR? A: Yes, the A&E is encouraged to propose different dates for deliverables. The A/E may propose additional deliverables, however the MCC reserves the right to accept or decline the proposal. 10. General Review and Approval Question. Please specify that the NTE Due dates provided in the schedules of the RFP are for DRAFT deliverables, which will begin the review "clock" ticking, and NOT for Final deliverables having undergone the 4-week pre-submission review process. A: The dates provided are for approval of the deliverables. See Question No. 9 above. The A&E may modify the deliverables schedule as long as they fit in the period of performance provided. 11. It is stated that the A/E must possess an average of at least $100 million USD in total annual revenue over the last five years. Please clarify if the $100 million refers to revenue from design and/or from construction. Some design firms do not provide construction services. A: This refer...