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

***Refer to the attachments for the complete detail*** 95332419E0001 Amendment 2 DCO TVS Abidjan Transport Project (ATP) A-E Service in C�te 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. Ing�rop 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...