Questions__Answers_to_RFP_v1 19_Sep_08.doc

HTC711-08-R-0011

USC-6 Questions and Answers #3

QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO RFP

HTC711-08-R-0011, UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRACT (USC-6)

Question 1: Sections A.3.1 and B.2.1, Attachment 6 pages 2 and 3: These provisions require the submission by the Contractor of a Military Manifest before payment will be made. This is unreasonable, because creation and sharing of the Military Manifest is not within the control of the Contractor, and as a factual matter the government does not always provide the Military Manifest to the Contractor.

Answer 1: The requirement to submit a military manifest as a required element of a proper invoice as described in A.3.1 and B.2.1 has been removed.

Question 2: Section B.1, Attachment 6 page 3: Truck detention/waiting time is not listed. This can constitute a major expense and must be explicitly acknowledged. Please clarify whether the section B payment procedures are to be used for this cost item. If yes, then please list the item in section B.1. If no, then please explain what procedures are to be used.

Answer 2: Attachment 6, Truck Wait Time. For areas where the wait time is a reoccurring event this cost should be included in the linehaul rate. For locations where this is an unusual and unforeseen event, an REA will need to be submitted for review and subsequent payment."

Question 3: Section 1.1, Background: How will the Prime Vendor be identified in the booking and in the documentation process?

Answer 3: Prime vendor cargo can be identified by the DODAAC of the consignee. SDDC will provide and maintain a list of Prime Vendor DODAACs.

Question 4: Page 28 of 60 – Section 3.1.1.1 – Can language be added to address:

A) How long after sailing is the U.S. Government required to provide the Contractor with a vessel manifest from WPS. We recommend within 72 hours of sailing.

Answer 4A: The current SDDC policy is as follows: When cargo is booked Free-in/Free-out manifests will be in WPS available for distribution in 3 days after departure for "short sails" (sailings of 8 days or less) and within 5 days for all other sailings. When cargo is booked “Liner terms” the policy is manifests will be in WPS available for distribution in 3 days after departure for "short sails" (sailings of 8 days or less) and 5 days for all other sailings "after receipt of the load list" from the carrier. This policy will be maintained.

B) How long after the Contractor has provided the “loaded but not booked” listing is the U.S. Government required to provide the Contractor with bookings (i.e. PCFN’s) for these cargoes.

Answer 4B: The current SDDC policy is as follows: When cargo is booked Free-in/Free-out bookings shall be completed in 6 days after departure for "short sails" (sailings of 8 days or less) and within 10 days for all other sailings. When cargo is booked Liner terms the policy is bookings shall be completed in 6 days after departure for "short sails" (sailings of 8 days or less) and 10 days for all other sailings "after receipt of the load list" from the carrier. This policy will be maintained.

Question 5: Pages 33 & 34 of 60 – Sections 3.K.2.1, 3.K.2.1.1.1, 3.K.2.1.2 and 3.K.2.1.3 –

Please clarify the language within the above sections.

Answer 5: 3.K.2.1 Ordering Officers may order linehaul movement for breakbulk shipments or flatrack container using carload rates when rates are provided and cargo is:

8'6" or less wide

48' or less long

10' or less high

40,000 lbs or less weight

3.K.2.1.1 For cargo exceeding these dimensions rates may be negotiated.

Question 6: Page 34 of 60 – Section 3.K.2.4.1 – When ordered, the Contractor shall provide Greater Security Service and be compensated $75.00 per railcar. Please explain the requirements for Greater Security Service?

Answer 6: Greater Security Service (GSS). GSS is a seal tracing and inspection service performed by rail carriers for in transit inspection of unclassified sensitive items. Inspection under GSS is external to detect evidence of forced entry or tampering with seals or securing devices. See websites below for further detail.

www.sddc.army.mil/sddc/Content/Pub/10089/mftrp10ANSI.pdf Item 90 http://www.transcom.mil/j5/pt/dtrpart2/dtr_part_ii_205.pdf DTR II-205 Para O.12

Liner Terms—Breakbulk: The Contractor provides all services from receipt of cargo at POE to load of cargo on the vessel (liner in) or from discharge of the vessel at POD to outgate (liner-out). Any costs for the loading and discharging of inland transport within the Contractor’s terminal are for the account of the Contractor.

Question 7: Page 5 of 60, Section 3.A.2.1.4, The RFP requires that the Contractor produce “tremcards” for hazardous cargo transiting through countries where this requirement exists. However, as the language provided below from the applicable European regulations clearly provides, it is the duty of the consignors to provide tremcards to the carrier/contractor. Accordingly, Section 3.A.2.1.4 should be deleted because the Contractor cannot comply without violating European law. For your convenience, we are providing the url to the regulations. http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr2007/English/05-0%20E_Part%205.pdf

5.4.3 Instructions in writing 5.4.3.1 As a precaution against any accident or emergency that may occur or arise during carriage, the driver shall be given instructions in writing, specifying concisely for each dangerous substance or article carried or for each group of goods presenting the same dangers to which the substance(s) or article(s) carried belong(s):

(a) - the name of the substance or article or group of goods; - the class; and - the UN number, or for a group of goods, the UN numbers;

(b) the nature of the danger inherent in these goods as well as the measures to be taken by the driver and the personal protection equipment to be used by the driver;

(c) the general actions to be taken, e.g. to warn the road users and passers-by and call the police/fire brigade;

(d) the additional actions to be taken to deal with minor leakages or spillages to prevent their escalation, if this can be achieved without personal risk;

(e) the special actions to be taken for certain goods, if applicable;

(f) the necessary equipment for additional and/or special actions, if applicable.

5..4.3.2 These instructions shall be provided by the consignor and shall be handed out to the driver at the latest when the dangerous goods are loaded on the vehicle. Information on the content of the instructions shall be supplied to the carrier at the latest when the carriage order is given, so as to enable him to take the necessary steps to ensure that the employees concerned are aware of these instructions and are capable of carrying them out properly and to ensure that the necessary equipment is on board the vehicle.

5.4.3.3 The consignor shall be responsible for the content of these instructions. They shall be provided in a language the driver(s) taking over the dangerous goods is (are) able to read and to understand, and in all languages of the countries of origin, transit and destination. In the case of countries with more than one official language, the competent authority shall specify the official language or languages applicable throughout the territory or in each region or part of the territory.

Answer 7: The Contractor relies upon Section 5 of Annex A to the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (hereinafter “the ADR” or “the Regulation”) for the proposition, “it is the duty of the consignors to provide TREMCARDS to the carrier/contractor.” The ADR provides in relevant part:

5.4.3 Instructions in writing

5.4.3.1 As a precaution against any accident or emergency that may occur or arise during carriage, the driver shall be given instructions in writing, specifying concisely for each dangerous substance or article carried or for each group of goods presenting the same dangers to which the substance(s) or article(s) carried belong(s):

(a) the name of the substance or article or group of goods; the class; and the UN number, or for a group of goods, the UN numbers;

(b) the nature of the danger inherent in these goods as well as the measures to be taken by the driver and the personal protection equipment to be used by the driver;

(c) the general actions to be taken, e.g. to warn the road users and passers-by and call the police/fire brigade;

(d) the additional actions to be taken to deal with minor leakages or spillages to prevent their escalation, if this can be achieved without personal risk;

(e) the special actions to be taken for certain goods, if applicable;

(f) the necessary equipment for additional and/or special actions, if applicable.

5.4.3.2 These instructions shall be provided by the consignor and shall be handed out to the driver at the latest when the dangerous goods are loaded on the vehicle. Information on the content of the instructions shall be supplied to the carrier at the latest when the carriage order is given, so as to enable him to take the necessary steps to ensure that the employees concerned are aware of these instructions and are capable of carrying them out properly and to ensure that the necessary equipment is on board the vehicle.

5.4.3.3 The consignor shall be responsible for the content of these instructions. They shall be provided in a language the driver(s) taking over the dangerous goods is (are) able to read and to understand, and in all languages of the countries of origin, transit and destination. In the case of countries with more than one official language, the competent authority shall specify the official language or languages applicable throughout the territory or in each region or part of the territory. (Emphasis added.)

While the ADR requires that “these instructions shall be provided by the consignor,” we can find nothing in the Regulation that prohibits the preparation of such instructions by the consignor’s agent or assignee. Certainly, the obligation to provide instructions does not give rise to a prohibition against third-party preparation of them. In fact, USC Carriers have prepared literally thousands of TREMCARDs on behalf of the US Government (and innumerable commercial shippers) for several years under the onus of the ADR. We are unaware of a single criminal or civil action commenced by a solitary foreign agency against even one of our USC Carriers related to such activities. Please advise if you have other information.

While the ADR provides that “the consignor shall be responsible for the content of these instructions,” we can find nothing in the Regulation that prohibits the preparation of these instructions by a competent third party. Surely, a party may remain responsible for the content of instructions while at the same time contractually assigning the preparation of such instructions to a competent third party. We are unaware of a single instance in which the US Government has denied responsibility for the content of a TREMCARD prepared by a USC Carrier since the inception of the ADR regulatory regime. Please advise if you have other information.

Accordingly, the USC-6 RFP will continue to require (as in each of the last several USC contracts) that the Contractor prepare and provide to inland European carriers “instructions in writing, specifying concisely for each dangerous substance or article carried” the information required by Section 5 of Annex A to the ADR.

If the Contractor relies upon other statutory or regulatory schemes providing civil penalties or criminal sanctions for such activities or otherwise expressly prohibiting such commercial services, please provide to the USC-6 CO an English translation of each such statute or regulation together with the title, address and telephone number of the cognizant authority responsible for the enforcement of same.

In addition, based on information provided by UN Economic Commission for Europe, Transport Division, the agency responsible for drafting and maintaining the ADR, the ADR will be changed to assign responsibility for TREMCARDs to the carrier.

The provisions regarding instructions in writing have changed somewhat in the annexes to the ADR which will be applicable as from 1 January 2009. Instead of the consignor it is now the carrier that is responsible for providing these instructions.

The new provisions can be found on in the document at the following link:

http://unece.org/trans/doc/2008/wp15/ECE-TRANS-WP15-195e.pdf Therefore, no change will be made to 3.A.2.1.4.

Question 8: Pages 7 of 60, Section, 3.A.3.1.7, please confirm that any unilateral change to reporting requirements are subject to equitable adjustments.

Answer 8: Paragraph 3.A.3.1.7 has removed from the PWS Question 9: Page 24 of 60, Section 3.G.8,The Government should be liable for all equipment loss or damage after delivery of the container to the designated shipping/receiving facility until the equipment is returned to the Contractor, regardless of the cause of such loss or damage. That is particularly true in exigency areas since the Contractor would not otherwise deploy equipment in such areas.

Answer 9: Just as the carrier would not be liable for Government owned cargo/equipment if damage was caused by a force majeure event, the Government will not be liable for carrier owned equipment damaged due to force majeure events.

Question 10: Page 38 of 60, Will the Government disclose the performance ratings of all Contractors and by what means?

Answer 10: Carrier performance information will not be posted for access by the general public. DoD shippers/users will be able to access carrier performance information to assist in the best value carrier selection process. Carrier performance information in IBS is password protected. Carriers will be able to view only their own performance information. This will not be a change from current processes.

Question 11: Page 38 of 60, If a Contractor is a “C” performer it will take a minimum of three months/quarter of the year to improve to an Alpha status. XXX believes this is an unreasonable length of time and the RFP should be modified to read based upon performance of prior 30 days.

Answer 11: Non-concur with this analysis. Even though the rating is based on a 90-day average the average is recalculated every month affording contractors the opportunity for improvement Question 12: Page 41 of 60, Section 6.C.2.3, The deduction of administrative costs for delayed detention invoices is non-commercial, unreasonable, and should be deleted.

Answer 12: Section 6.C.2.3 has removed reference to deduction of administrative costs. Revised language is as follows:

6.C.2.3 Detention invoiced more than 120 days after the expiration of free time shall not accrue interest for delays attributable to the processing of such invoices.

Question 13: Page 2 of 5, It is contrary to procurement regulations to require a Contractor to provide a Government-generated document to qualify as a “proper” invoice.

Answer 13: The requirement to submit a military manifest as a required element of a proper invoice as described in A.3.1 and B.2.1 has been removed.

Question 14: Section 2.2.a. (1) Meeting the RDD is one of the primary performance standards of the contract. A Contractor that can meet the RDD without having the next arriving vessel should be awarded the cargo. This language appears to contradict the remainder of the contract.

Answer 14: The reference to the next arriving vessel in Exhibit 2, Ordering Procedures, has been removed.

Question 15: Clause 3.I.6 (Page 29 of 60) BREAKBULK/RORO CARGO - TERMS FOR LOADING AND DISCHARGING SERVICES: Please reinsert the breakbulk dunnage clause as per USC-05. It reads as follows: “The Government will provide and lay all dunnage material as required for the proper stowage and protection of Free In/Free Out cargo on board. The Government will be responsible for and pay cost of removing their dunnage after discharge of cargo"

Answer 15: 3.I.6.1.1 has been added as follows:

3.I.6.1.1 Dunnage The Government will provide and lay all dunnage material as required for the proper stowage and protection of Free In/Free Out cargo on board. The Government will be responsible for and pay cost of removing their dunnage after discharge of cargo"

Question 16: 5.2 – How does this differ from the current process in which

Carrier gets CDR

Carrier addresses CDR with response

Claim is filed for damaged or lost goods

Answer 16: Contract Discrepancy Reports (CDRs) would be one vehicle used by the Government to document instances of non-conforming transportation services and allow Contractors an opportunity to respond. The price reduction or other consideration (if appropriate) would one of the final steps in the CDR process.

This section generally details what actions a contracting officer may take when dealing with non-conforming transportation. These actions may be made independently of, or in conjunction with, other mechanisms provided in the contract.

Question 17: GFC – Shipper Owned Containers – There should be a clause that deals with Chassis detention when using a carrier chassis with a shipper owned container. Is it the Governments intent to provide detention for carrier chassis that it keeps beyond free time?

Answer 17: See language provided in Responses provided in Q&A #2, Ref PWS 3.G.4.3.1 “Detention is payable for chassis only when the chassis is not used with a carrier container.”

Question 18: 3.G.4.4.1 – Reefer Maintenance

Please change to provide reefer maintenance payments whenever Government delays delivery. Carrier compensation for in port reefer maintenance cannot be dependent on expiration of free time.

Answer 18: Entitlement for payment of reefer maintenance is provided at 3.G.4.4 and not appropriate to be addressed in Attachment 6.

Question 19: 3.H.8.8 – Notification

Object – 15 days from receipt for the Military inspect cargo and 30 an additional days to notify the Carrier about an alleged problem is unreasonable and unacceptable. Government has sole custody and control after delivery. Please delete – Notice to the Carrier must be immediate.

Answer 19: Keeping in line with commercial standards PWS Section 3.H.8.8 has been revised as follows:

3.H.8.8 Notification The consignee has 15 days after the date of accepting the cargo to inspect the cargo and an additional 15 days to notify the carrier of any loss or damage to the cargo not noted at time of acceptance

Question 20: FAR Clauses (Page 30 of 62)

At previous meetings the government advised the carriers that the Service Contract Act is not applicable for USC-06. However, reference to the Service Contract Act is included in the list of FAR clauses. We assume this was an oversight and Transcom will remove this clause from the contract. Please confirm this is a correct assumption.

Answer 20: FAR 52.212-5 (Deviation) is a mandatory clause for commercial contracts and is not subject to "tailoring." The clauses listed under paragraph (b)(1) of this clause (of which 52.222-41 is one) are those that would need to be “flowed down” to subcontractors if they are included in the RFP. 52.222.-41 does not apply to this acquisition.

Question 21: EDI Requirements (section 3.A.10, Page 9 of 60)

Carriers must be capable of receiving Shipping Instruction 304 transactions from the government. This is a new requirement and unnecessary, as the receiving and notify parties for each destination are identified in the DTR.

Please advise the government’s intention for 304 shipping instruction transactions.

Answer 21: Carrier’s ability to receive the Shipping Instruction 304 is optional. 3. A.10 has been revised as follows:

3.A.10 Electronic Commerce / Electronic Data Interchangexe "Interchange" (EDIxe "EDI")

The Contractor shall use Electronic Data Interchangexe "Interchange" (EDIxe "EDI") or Ocean Carrier Interface (OCI) (or successor system) as the primary means for interfacing with SDDCxe "SDDC" for all CONUSxe "CONUS" and OCONUS bookings.

The Contractor shall use the Defense Transportation Electronic Data Interchangexe "Interchange" (DTEDI) approved Implementation Convention for the ANSI X 12 300, 301, 303, 304 and 315 transaction sets in compliance with their approved concepts of operations. Versions 3060, 4010 or later are required. The Contractor shall implement changes to business processes contained in revisions to Transaction Set Implementation Conventions and their controlling concepts of operations as may be approved by the Ocean ACI Committee. These changes shall be implemented in accordance with schedules approved by the Ocean ACI Committee.

The Contractor shall receive or transmit, as appropriate, the following transactions sets:

- Contractor receiving order data, 300 (Deliveryxe "Delivery" order, the booking, including increases and decreases)

Contractor ordering confirmation data, 301 (Confirmation of order, Contractor to Ordering

Officer/COR)

- Cancellation data from Ordering Officerxe "Ordering Officer", 303 (Ordering Officer cancellation)

- Shipping Instructions, 304 (optional)

- Contractor shipment status reporting data, 315

Question 22: Page 14 of 60, Section 3.C.1.2.2, The Contractor shall provide drop and pick service without surcharge for: 3.C.1.2.2.2 CONUS/OCONUS locations listed at Attachment 2 where the Contractor has no pool assignment- Aren't all pool locations listed in Attachment 2? Doesn't the contractor have a pool assignment listed here?

Answer 22: Yes, Attachment 2 lists pool requirements. Carrier allocations for pools are not known in advance of award. It is possible that a carrier may have bookings at a pool location for which the carrier does not have a pool location.

Question 23: Page 15 of 60 Section 3.C.1.2.3.1, When drop and pick service is ordered, the Contractor shall be compensated $300 per container. Does this apply to all inland locations that are not in the inland equipment pool? How does this differ from the drop and pick service without the $300.00 surcharge?

Answer 23: Section 3.C.1.2.3.1

a. This paragraph applies only to CONUS locations which do not have a pool per attachment 2.

b. The service is the same whether ordered as an accessorial for $300 or provided at no added cost because the origin is a pool location and the carrier has no pool assignment.

Question 24: Page 15 of 60 Section3.C.1.2.4, A container which has been spotted by the Contractor for stuffing by the U.S. Government shall be permitted a period of two working days, commencing on the first workday after delivery, for stuffing before detention applies. Detention at origin does not apply to any containers that are lifted to the booked sailing or any earlier sailing nor to any containers sailing on a later vessel when the Government is not responsible for the delay. So does detention apply for drop and pick orders for locations that do not have container pools after 2 working days?

Answer 24: Yes Question 25: Page 15 of 60 Section 3.C.1.3.2, The contractor shall provide live load service, at no added cost, for locations otherwise entitled to pool or drop and pick service, when requested by the shipper in the booking, free time and waiting time rates apply in accordance with 3.G.4.5.3; It should be noted that 3.G.4.5 applies to "Live unload" and that the wording of 3.G.4.5.3 is "four hours free time starting from the time of the appointment to unload the container." - Therefore, my understanding is that 3 hours load/unload free time applies for normal (i.e. not in the shipper pool) locations and 4 hours load/unload free time applies for 'locations otherwise entitled to pool or drop and pick service.

Answer 25: Your understanding is correct

Question 26: Page 22 of 60 Section 3.G.4.5.2, When containers are not delivered on chassis, live unload free time shall start when the shipment is accepted at the base gate or an earlier date if the Contractor provides notice that the container is locally available for immediate delivery by providing an "AV" EDI transaction as described by 3.A.10, in which case the date/time the transaction is sent would start live unload free time. Driver wait time shall start when live unload free time ends. Driver wait time shall end when either the container is removed from the conveyance or the cargo removed from the container or conveyance and the receiver annotates the completion of delivery on the driver's copy of the delivery receipt. - Won't they be really be exposing themselves to potentially large fees here? i.e. Live unload free time would begin once we provide and AV EDI transaction?

Answer 26: Language at 3.G.4.5.2 is changed as follows:

3.G.4.5.2 When containers are not delivered on chassis, live unload free time shall start when the shipment is accepted at the base gate or an earlier date if the Contractor provides notice by providing an "AV" EDI transaction (see 3.A.10) that the container is locally available for immediate delivery but is delayed by the U.S. government, in which case the date/time the transaction is sent would start live unload free time.

Driver wait time shall start when live unload free time ends. Driver wait time shall end when either the container is removed from the conveyance or the cargo removed from the container or conveyance and the receiver annotates the completion of delivery on the driver’s copy of the delivery receipt. For locations listed at Table 3.G.4.5.3.2, Contractor shall be compensated as described at 3.G.4.5.3.

Question 27. Attachment 6, 1.A.3.1

Delete requirement for a copy of the Military Manifest. Government does not always provide a copy to the Carrier.

Answer 27: The requirement to submit a military manifest as a required element of a proper invoice as described in A.3.1 and B.2.1 has been removed.

Question 28: Attachment 6, B.2.1

Delete requirement for a copy of the Military Manifest.

Answer 28: The requirement to submit a military manifest as a required element of a proper invoice as described in A.3.1 and B.2.1 has been removed.

Question 29: The answer does not match up to either the question or the language of the contract.

The question was simply whether the intent of the priority ranking is that, where stages I and II of VISA are referenced, priority continues to go to those carriers that are enrolled at the minimum levels set each year by TRANSCOM, all other things being equal. We understand that you are not changing the definition of "VISA participant," but if the stage I and II enrollment levels are no longer relevant, what was the regulatory change that made that the case. and when was it published in the Federal Register?

Answer 29: Amendment 01 language is correct and in conformity with 62 FR 6837 and DODI 4500.57. It was not our intent to address accuracies or inaccuracies in 72 FR 45298 (August 13, 2007) in our RFP.

Question 30: TRANSCOM posted a letter with Attachment No. 1 on September 12, 2008. The posting provides information on CPARs. Paragraph 4 of the TRANSCOM letter refers to the Government's action at the "end of the performance period." Please define the term "performance period" as it relates to USC-06. Is it one year?

Answer 30: 365 days (1 year)

Question 31: Section II A VISA Priorities Preference on page 62 of 63 has an error. Subparagraph No. 7 should read: "Foreign owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity of a VISA participant."

As written, VISA participants are excluded but non VISA participants are included. This is contrary to the VISA rules.

Answer 31: Amendment 01 language is correct and in conformity with 62 FR 6837 and DODI 4500.57. The VISA priorities preference does not exclude foreign owned or operated foreign flag vessels.

Question 32: With respect to Exhibit 2 Ordering Procedures, please confirm if 3 Carriers receive awards under VISA Priority No. 1, they will receive bookings before TRANSCOM utilizes any lower priced Carrier with a No. 2 or below VISA priority ranking.

Answer 32: VISA priorities will be adhered to when booking cargo.

Question 33: Reference is made to TRANSCOM's issuance of Amendment 2 and the new RFP, PWS, and attachments.

Although Amendment 2 was issued on September 10, 2008, and so noted on Fed Biz Ops, the actual Amendment is dated September 5, 2008. In order to avoid any confusion on Amendment acknowledgement, this error needs to be corrected. Please reissue Amendment 2, Standard Form 30 with the correct date, 10 September 2008 in box 2.

Answer 33: No change to the date will be made to Amendment 02. Amendments cannot be “reissued”.

Answer 34: In addition, Amendment 2 does not reference or incorporate the Q&As TRANSCOM issued on September 9, 2008. As you know, in order to be part of the RFP, the Q&As must be issued as part of an Amendment or be incorporated by reference in an Amendment. Accordingly, in the reissuance of Amendment 2 for the Box 2 date correction, please reference/incorporate the Q&As. The Q&As posted on September 12, 2008 were not part of an Amendment. They need to be incorporated in the next Amendment.

Answer 34: Questions and Answers will not be incorporated into Amendments and there is no regulation that requires it. If the Question and subsequent answer result in a change to the language in the current RFP, an Amendment will be issued with the language change. Amendment 03 will be issued with all language changes identified in this Q&A (#3) and the previous Q&A (#2) posted 12 Sep 08.

Question 35: Page 49, Section 7, B-Drop and Pick- The definition of drop and pick needs clarification. The true definition of a drop and pick is that the same driver drops off an empty or load and picks up a load or empty in the same move.

Answer 35: We believe that we have clearly defined the government’s requirement for:

Drop and Pick

Round Robin Drop and Pick

Live Load

Pools

These naming conventions as described in Section 7 “definitions” are well understood by our shippers and we do not believe that they are misinterpreted by carriers when these services are ordered.

Question 36: All Risk Liability The “all risk” accessorial will be ordered at time of booking.

Will the carrier be able to decline the accessorial and counter offer the booking to include only COGSA-liability?

Answer 36: If the “all risk” liability is ordered at the time booking and the carrier does not have an accepted rate for the accessorial as requested, no counter booking will be accepted. The Contractor can decline the all-risk liability accessorial but is not able to counter

Question 37: Consignee has up to 15 days after receipt of cargo to inspect cargo and another 30 days to notify the carrier of loss or damage.

This lengthy process protects the receiver and completely exposes the carrier to indefensible claims. There should be a joint survey at time of delivery in which the consignee would, at a minimum, note any visible loss and/or damage. Carriers must be given a fair opportunity to inspect cargo when the consignee determines there is subsequent loss and/or damage. The consignee should advise the carrier within 24 business hours when such loss and/or damage is identified.

Answer 37: Keeping in line with commercial standards PWS Section 3.H.8.8 has been revised as follows:

3.H.8.8 Notification The consignee has 15 days after the date of accepting the cargo to inspect the cargo and an additional 15 days to notify the carrier of any loss or damage to the cargo not noted at time of acceptance.

Question 38: Attachment 8 - Prime Vendor

Please confirm that the DSCP Prime Vendors are cognizant of and have accepted the Section 2.2 Application of COGSA for Non-Government Owned Cargo provisions.

Answer 38: The Prime Vendors have been advised of the applicability of COGSA and have been strongly encouraged to view the USC06 Contract.

Question 39: 2.3.1.4 states that the Gov’t can tell the carrier where to discharge cargo. I believe it is agreed that this is always the Master of the Vessel decision, and only under VISA activation does the Government have rights as to where the vessel goes. Please clarify the intent of this language?

Answer 39: The Master is, at all times, responsible for the prudent navigation of the vessel and disposition of her cargo. Nowhere does the RFP relieve the Master of those obligations. At the same time, Section 2.3.1.4 of the RFP provides:

Where the Contracting Officer determines that the contractor's planned diversion of the Cargo is not in the best interest of the U.S. Government and the Contracting Officer and the Contractor cannot timely agree upon the disposition of the Cargo, the Contractor shall comply with the CO's direction to the contractor to divert the cargo to a port of the U.S. Government's choice and to make any other arrangements for the cargo the Contracting Officer deems necessary to protect the Government's interest.

The “intent of this language” is recited plainly at Section 2.3 of the RFP:

U.S. Government cargo, by its very nature, may require special diligence in the prosecution of a voyage at sea. In some cases, the highly sensitive nature of military cargo may require extraordinary handling to ensure the safety and security of the cargo as well as that of our warfighters in the field. Accordingly, the diversion of U.S. Government cargo at sea requires the unique conditions set forth below.

Accordingly, as in all previous iterations of USC, the Contracting Officer must retain the final word on the disposition of highly sensitive military cargo.

Finally, the ability of the US Government to assume operational control of a vessel activated under VISA does not preclude agreement under USC-6 that the Contracting Officer will retain the final word on the disposition of highly sensitive military cargo.

13of 13