Questions__Answers_to_RFP_v2_29_Sep_08.docx

HTC711-08-R-0011

USC-6 Questions and Answers #4

QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO RFP

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

Question 1: Page 34 of 60 – Section 3.K.2.2.1 (Carload Service) – Contractor’s loading and securing of cargo on conveyance at POD and removal from conveyance at POE is included in liner term rates for breakbulk.

Answer 1: Language in 3.K.2.2.1 is consistent with the definition of breakbulk liner terms service and shall not be changed.

Question 2: Section 5 - Rejection and Price reduction for Non-Conforming Transportation Services – Page 49-50 of 62,

· The first sentence of Section 5.1 should be deleted because it is extraneous and inaccurate.

· Section 5.2.c should be deleted because “rejecting” allegedly non-conforming transportation services is fraught with problems. Since the Contractor does not own the cargo, what happens after the transportation is rejected? Sections 5.2.a, 5.2.b, and 5.2.d provide adequate remedies.

· Section 5.3 should be clarified to provide that any final action must be the subject of a contracting officer’s final decision.

· Maersk does not support a reduction or nonpayment of freight for services rendered.

· Will the Government pay the Contractor dead freight when cargo that is booked does not show? This allows “quid pro quo” for liquidated damages.

Answer 2:

· Paragraph 46.407 of the FAR provides in relevant part:

(a) The contracting officer should reject supplies or services not conforming in all respects to contract requirements (see 46.102). In those instances where deviation from this policy is found to be in the Government’s interest, such supplies or services may be accepted only as authorized in this section.

(c) (1) In situations not covered by paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer ordinarily must reject supplies or services when the nonconformance is critical or major or the supplies or services are otherwise incomplete.

Accordingly, the First Sentence of Section 5.1 of the RFP is neither “extraneous” nor “inaccurate”. To the contrary, Section 5.1 recites precisely the obligation of the Contracting Officer under the FAR to reject contracted services found to be non-conforming or otherwise incomplete.

· The question, observation and recommendation made relative to Section 5.2.c of the RFP incorrectly equate rejecting transportation services with rejecting goods upon delivery. Certainly, delivery of goods may be tendered and accepted without vitiating the Government’s right subsequently to reject the underlying transportation service as non-conforming.

· Section 5.3 of the RFP will be amended to read:

5.3 the Contracting Officer shall not revoke acceptance of transportation services, reject transportation services, or implement a price reduction until the contractor has been provided notice and an opportunity to demonstrate that the transportation services conformed to the contract of carriage as booked.

· With respect to the Contractor’s refusal to “support a reduction or nonpayment of freight for services rendered,” the Government has two responses:

1. A Contractor’s refusal to “support” FAR provisions incorporated in a Government RFP is not determinative of the Government’s obligation to incorporate them.

2. Section 5 of the RFP in no measure reduces or denies payment of freight “for services rendered.” In fact, Section 5 calls for price reductions only where services paid-on-lift are ultimately NOT rendered or are otherwise non-conforming.

· With respect to the Contractor’s call for quid pro quo liquidated damages, the Government has two responses:

1. Price reductions do not “liquidate” damages. “Damages” for non-conforming transportation services, per se, are not addressed in any way by Section 5 of the RFP. This provision redresses payment for services not rendered to the Government.

2. Upon the recommendation and with the concurrence of all Industry Representatives nominated to the USC-6 IPT, the RFP has abandoned quid pro quo liquidated damage stalemates in exchange for meaningful, commercially recognized incentives to improved performance.

Question 3: Page 19, Section 3.G.3 Cancelled Shipments/No Shows- the Government is no longer responsible for no-show bookings without penalty. Contractors should be formally notified in advance that the booking is cancelled and if not then the Contractor should have the ability to charge

Answer 3: It is the government's position that no financial remedy shall be provided for lack of timely cancellation of booked cargo. The administrative burden of determining actual fault or cause outweighs the value of any potential financial remedy. As a non-financial remedy, Section 3.G.3.1 directs the contractor to notify the COR of shippers not tendering cargo as booked to allow the government to take timely corrective action. Based on industry input during IPT’s we removed all liquidated damages; this includes LD’s the carriers could assess against the carrier and LDs the Government could assess against the carrier.

Question 4: Page 42 of 60, Section 6.D.1, The word “occurrence” should be deleted from the third sentence since a Contractor cannot report an “occurrence” until it has been “discovered.”

Answer 4: Language changed to “The Contractor will report loss, breach, or hijacking to the Military within 48 hours of when the Contractor becomes aware of the event.”

Question 5: Page 42, Section 6.D.2 -Enhanced Security- CARE does not allow the Contractors to bid on this service.

Answer 5: CARE will be updated to include accessorials for Enhanced Security on various linehaul routes in applicable exigency areas.

Question 6: Page 43 of 60, Section 6.D.2.4, The RFP must be clarified to relieve the Contractor of liability for cargo loss or damage and RDD requirements when taking instructions from security teams designated by the Contracting Officer/COR.

Answer 6: The security language at Section 6.D has been revised. The requirements at 6.D.2.4 have been removed.

Question 7: Page 2 of 5, It is contrary to procurement regulations to have a two-step invoicing process (i.e., submit to COR for verification and then submit to PowerTrack for payment).

Answer 7: This process protects both the contractor and the Government from 1) inaccurate payments 2) unnecessary invoice rejections due to supporting document submission limitation in PowerTrack.

Question 8: Attachment 8, States in the RFP that the Contractors must have a contract in place with the Prime Vendors prior to the submission of the proposal; this isn’t practical, because until the USC-06 is awarded it is not clear as to what CLINS the Contractor is awarded and who all the Prime Vendors will be. We would request that this statement be amended to read that the contract with the Prime Vendors be in place before the beginning of the contract in March?

Answer 8: Contractors are not required to execute an agreement with Prime Vendors prior to submission of their proposals. These agreements would be executed after award notification. No USC Contractor will receive a booking for cargo movement on a Pak GLOC route under the contract unless they have an executed Prime Vendor/USC Carrier Agreement. For routes other than Pak GLOC routes, USC Contractors are not required to have an executed Prime Vendor/USC Carrier Agreement. However, carriers should know that having an agreement will provide a competitive advantage in the best value determination against USC Contractors who do not have the Prime Vendor/USC Carrier Agreements.

Question 9: Clause 3.G.3 (Page 19 of 60) NO SHOWS: Clause states that U.S. Government will provide notice of no-shows not later than 24 hours prior to vessel cut-off. Please advise what remedy a carrier has if Government does not meet this contractual obligation?

Answer 9: None. It is the government's position that no financial remedy shall be provided for lack of timely cancellation of booked cargo. The administrative burden of determining actual fault or cause outweighs the value of any potential financial remedy. As a non-financial remedy, Section 3.G.3.1 directs the contractor to notify the COR of shippers not tendering cargo as booked to allow the government to take timely corrective action. Based on industry input during IPT’s we removed all liquidated damages; this includes LD’s the carriers could assess against the carrier and LDs the Government could assess against the carrier.

Question 10: 3.G.4.5.3.2 – Driver wait time costs were submitted for many different countries and they are all different. While the Gov’t captured wait time for Afghanistan as submitted, these rates do not apply to Iraq, Kuwait and Bahrain as the Government has represented. Please change these to the actual costs submitted.

Answer 10: PWS Section 3.G.4.5.3 has been revised as follows:

3.G.4.5.3 Free time and waiting time Table 3.G.4.5.3.1

*Note: For USA and Canada Round to next higher quarter hour *Note: Waiting time shall only run during receiver’s hours of operation

3. G.4.6. For other locations, Contractor may request reimbursement of actual expenses for waiting time incurred after expiration of at least four hours of Free Time.

Answer 10 (part 2): PWS Section 3.G.4.5.2 has been revised as follows:

3. G.4.5.2 When containers are not delivered on chassis, and waived per 3.A.15 live unload … Question 11: 3.H.8.4 – Carrier Liability How does the Government’s directives for Carrier to utilize a Government designated security team from a separate Government contract impact Carrier’s liability? What about Government interference – border crossing-documents problems and delays, failure to accept at destination? Who is liable for losses?

Answer 11: The security language at Section 6.D has been revised. The requirements at 6.D.2.4 have been removed.

Question 12: Table 3.G.4.5.3.2 – Insufficient wait time charges for Persian Gulf Area.

Proposed charges do not reflect actual charges.

Answer 12: See Answer to Question 10 above.

Question 13: 6.D.2.2 – These seem to be unreasonable requests, please clarify the intent of the Government?

Answer 13: This section has been revised, see Amendment 03.

Question 14: 6.D.2.4 – Who pays Government security contractor? What about cargo losses – COGSA protections?

Answer 14: The requirements at 6.D.2.4 have been removed.

Question 15: Page 9 of 10 – The Carrier cannot be liable for losses resulting from the failures, mistakes, inadequate protection, etc. of the Government provided security company. The Force Majeure and COGSA provisions in the USC protect the Carrier from losses or damages resulting from Acts of War, Weather, God, hostilities, etc. This must include liability for losses/damages resulting from the actions and failures, etc., of the Government provided security contractor.

Answer 15: The requirements at 6.D.2.4 have been removed.

Question 16: Prime Vendor – Why does the Government guarantee payment for Authorized Agents, but not for Prime Vendors?

Answer 16: The Government guarantees payment for Authorized Agent shipments due to the fact that the cargo is considered Government owned cargo.

Question 17: Rejection & Price Reduction for Non-Conforming Transportation Services (Page 49 of 62. Section 5): Language remains unchanged from the previous draft except for a comment indicating that the loss/damage is due to the fault or liability of the contractor. It was our understanding that Transcom was to change the language in this section to further define that the non-conforming transportation is strictly due to loss and/or damage.

Please confirm that a modification to the RFP will be issued to clarify this section.

Answer 17: Paragraph 5.1 points out that “to the extent the transportation of cargo results in loss or damage of cargo, the purpose of transportation is frustrated and the non-conformance in the transportation service is major/critical.” The condition of cargo in relation to acceptable transportation services is discussed again in paragraph 5.2 and 5.2b. Read as a whole, it is clear paragraph 5 applies to non-conforming transportation due to loss and/or damage of the cargo.

Question 18: Breakbulk Rail Locations CARE II has only 2 US inland points for the breakbulk rail requirement, Fort Drum, NY and Waco, TX. It is our understanding that this requirement was added to provide a cost effective means of inland transportation for unit and large moves to and from locations such as the large Army depots, Fort Campbell, West Point, MS, and Fort Hood. Limiting this new requirement to only two locations will not allow the government to take full advantage of potential cost reductions. Will new locations be added to CARE II for the initial proposal or will each location be added on an as needed basis?

Answer 18: We are starting with these locations; once the process is validated we may add other locations as needed.

Question 20: Attachment 6, A.3.2; When can Carrier invoices be submitted?

Answer 20: The invoicing procedures are contained in Attachment 6 of the PWS (see paragraph A.3.2, B.2, B.2.3).

Question 21: Attachment 6, A.4 Detention

Add – Detention charges submitted after six months will be filed as a claim with the Contracting Officer.

Answer 21: Detention charges are not to be “filed as a claim” with the Contracting Officer. The language has been changed to, “Detention invoices with proper documentation should be submitted to the paying office no later than 6 month…”

Question 22: Provisions must be made for the payment of detention if free time expires prior to container delivery.

Answer 22: PWS Section 3.G.4 provides for the payment of detention after the expiration of free time.

Question 23: Attachment 6, A.5 Delete – The clause fails to identify specific pass through charges, provisions for payment.

The requirement to first submit charges to the AOR for pre approval is open ended.

Insert new language: Pass-through charges: The Contractor may submit on a reimbursable basis various pass-through charges and expenses incurred for the account of the US Government, which are not covered by a basic contract rate, accessorial rate, or are not directly paid by the US Government or consignee. These include but are not limited to port charges assessed by the port on the cargo, customs inspection charges, dry runs, rework of improper blocking and bracing, border clearance charges, etc. The invoices must be submitted to the cognizant COR (AOR where the additional costs were incurred.)

Answer 23: Pass-through charges are identified in the RFP, Additional Clauses, Section 8.

Question 24: Attachment 6, A.5.1 The invoice will include the following:

Copy of the third party invoice If applicable, port tariffs Relevant documentation supporting the reasons for the additional charges

In accordance with the Prompt Payment Act, payment terms are 30 days from the COR’s receipt of a proper invoice. Receipt of the invoice will be measured from the date of receipt by the COR or the Contracting Officer, whichever is earlier.

Answer 24: What constitutes a “proper invoice” is identified in Attachment 6, Section A.3.1.

Question 25: Attachment 6, B.1; Insert:

The Contractor is authorized to submit invoices for the above charges every 30 days.

Answer 25: Concur, although the language is revised in Attachment 6, B.2, Invoice procedures.

Question 26: Attachment 6, B.2; When can invoices be submitted?

Answer 26: The invoicing procedures are contained in Attachment 6 of the PWS (see paragraph A.3.2, B.2, B.2.3).

Question 27: Attachment 6, B.2.3

Add – Detention charges filed after six months will be submitted as a claim to the Contracting Officer.

Answer 27: Non-concur. Detention charges are not to be “filed as a claim” with the Contracting Officer. The language has been changed to, “Detention invoices with proper documentation should be submitted to the paying office no later than 6 month…”

Question 28: Attachment 6, B.2.4

Insert: The Contractor shall be entitled to reefer maintenance charges when the movement and/or delivery of the container is delayed or impacted by events and circumstances beyond the fault, control, or ability of the Contractor to cure. This includes non Contractor responsible delays in port, during transit, and/or at the delivery destination.

The Contractor’s right to reefer maintenance will end with the acceptance and delivery of the container at the designated delivery destination.

The Contractor will submit the Contractor AV notice with the reefer maintenance invoice.

Answer 28: Entitlement to reefer maintenance has been clearly defined in PWS section 3.G.4.4.

Submission of an AV transaction notice with a reefer maintenance invoice is unnecessary as this information is available through Government Information Systems.

Question 29: Attachment 6, B.2.5

Insert: A copy of the bill from the port for port storage charges.

Answer 29: Non-concur. The current list at paragraph B.2.5, as changed per Amendment 02, is adequate.

Question 30: Attachment 6; Add new paragraph:

B.3.5 Submission of invoices to the parties designated above will represent the submission of a proper invoice and will commence the Prompt Payment Act time clock.

Answer 30: Non-concur. Due to the constant receipt of inaccurate exigent area detention invoices, this verification process is required.

Question 31: Attachment 8 Please confirm that for cargo damage/loss falling under COGSA protection, the Prime Vendor will be solely liable for the loss/damage.

Answer 31: The USC-6 Contractor will be liable for loss and damage pursuant to Section 2.1 Application of COGSA, Section 2.2 Application of COGSA to Non-Government Owned Cargo, unless the Government has ordered one of the “All-Risk” accessorials.

Question 32: Attachment 8 Please confirm that under the DSCP contract provisions, the Prime Vendor is required to negotiate a claims notice resolution process with the USC Carriers. Please confirm that the agreement shall include detention, reefer maintenance, port storage, and other provisions.

Answer 32: Please see revised Attachment 8 in RFP Amendment 3. The attachment includes an agreement template with the minimum requirements for Carrier/Prime Vendor Agreements.

Question 33: Attachment 8 As set forth in Attachment 8; please confirm that the DDC does the ordering and booking of cargo movements.

Answer 33: Attachment 8 permits DLA to act as an authorized ordering agent for USC-6.

Question 34: Attachment 8 With respect to the 3.H.8 All Risk Liability provision, is the Prime Vendor permitted to elect this option? If so, what party, Government or Prime Vendor, pays for the accessorial rate for the container movement?

Answer 34: DLA can order and pay for the all risk liability accessorial to meet DLA’s requirements.

Question 35: Attachment 8 How is the Prime Vendor's election of the All Risk Liability claims reconciled with TRANSCOM's statements that the Prime Vendor has strict liability for cargo losses/damage?

Answer 35: DLA, not the Prime Vendor, is permitted to act as an authorized ordering agent for USC-6 and the Prime Vendor is not permitted to “elect” all risk liability.

Question 36: If the Prime Vendor has factored a risk allowance in its price for the cargo or obtained outside - third party insurance, will the Contract be able to utilize the loss-allowance insurance in case of a loss or damage under 3.H.8?

Answer 36: USC-6 contains no such provision

Question 37: I noticed in the Single Factor requirements for USC-6, there are no prior rates listed. Typically, I could run a quick formula to pull them in, but since the names were changed (as discussed), I can't do that either.

Could you either post the prior rates with the requirements, or post the requirements with the old city/group names?

Answer 37: No. However, carriers can access the current USC-05 rates in both pdf. and Excel format on the SDDC website.

Question 38: In response to the Government's answer to the subject question, we respectfully submit that Rate Rules Section 1.1.2.1.3 does not adequately cover breakbulk linehaul to/from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It is our understanding that IBS cannot marry a breakbulk ocean rate with a container linehaul rate. So, if ocean rates are in the "Shipping" section of CARE II and linehaul rates are in the "Container" section, the shipper or SDDC booker will not see the combined services when they look in IBS and the Carrier(s) will be excluded from all such shipments.

In addition:

1.1.2.1.3.1 states "Container rates shall apply to out-of-gauge flatracks as an exception to 1.1.3.7". It fails to provide for the linehaul for out of gauge cargo that is not moving on a flatrack.

1.1.2.1.3 does not address the differences between the weight and dimensional limits of container linehaul and breakbulk linehaul as defined in Section 3.K of the PWS.

* An in gauge shipment on a flatrack is defined as up to 96" wide and 77" high for a 40' flatrack and up to 96" wide and 87" high for a 20' flatrack whereas an in gauge breakbulk shipment is defined in 3.K.1.3.1 of the PWS as up to 102" wide and 126" high.

* 3.K.1.3.1 of the PWS sets weight limits of 44,000 lbs per flatbed/stepdeck and 40,000 lbs per doubledrop/RGN for breakbulk linehaul whereas Rate Rules Section 1.1.2.1.3 does not address the weight of the cargo at all.

The Container Linehaul section of CARE II provides for container sizes of "under 40 feet", "40 feet and over" for General Dry Cargo and Superloads. Breakbulk linehaul is provided by size and type of conveyance:

* In gauge flatbed/stepdeck

* Out of gauge flatbed/stepdeck

* In gauge doubledrop/RGN

* Out of gauge doubledrop/RGN

In view of the above, we propose that the Government add the inland points in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the breakbulk linehaul section of CARE II.

Answer 38: "At this time IBS does not automatically process and price breakbulk booking requests. Bookers must manually price out breakbulk bookings and are not prevented by the system from using the container linehaul rates for shipments to Afghanistan that IAW Rate Rules Section 1.1.2.1.3 also applies to breakbulk shipments."

Question 39: Will USTRANSCOM entertain questions regarding amendments made post-September 10th cutoff?

Answer 39: Proposal due date has been extended to 30 October 2008. Questions will be considered up to 15 October 2008.

Question 40: Attachment 8 – Will Carriers be able to propose accessorial rates applicable to Prime Vendor cargo?

Answer 40: No. Carriers will not be able to propose accessorial rates applicable to Prime Vendor cargo.

Question 41: Attachment 8 – Section 1.3.2 provides that Carrier-Prime Vendor agreements are optional (but preferred) for routes other than Pakistan/Afghanistan. Please confirm that Attachment 8 would not apply unless and until a Carrier-Prime Vendor agreement has been executed.

Answer 41: Attachment 8 has been revised. Carrier-Prime Vendor Agreements are not required for routes other than Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Question 42: When will the amended RFP/PWS (Amendment #3) be released?

Answer 42: XX Sep 2008.

Question 43: Questions 6 and 43: The answers are flatly inconsistent with one another. Answer 6 states that the language will not change; Answer 43 states that the language will change, but does not provide revised language. What does the government intend to do with the section 2.1 and 2.2 language dealing with the transition to the UNCITRAL cargo liability scheme?

Answer 43:

Section 2.1 of the RFP has been amended to read in relevant part:

"Upon U.S. Senate ratification of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Convention on the Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the Convention) or entry into force of the Convention (whichever event occurs first), the package limitation provisions of the Convention shall substitute for or otherwise stand in the place of the COGSA package limitation for the purpose of determining the limits of a Contractor's liability for loss or damage to US Government cargo arising at any time in the custody of the Contractor ."

Question 6 requested the “trigger” for incorporation of the UNCITRAL language be changed. USTRANSCOM did not concur and determined that the trigger language would remain the same. Question 43 was similar to Question 6 and it was decided that while the trigger would remain the same, the word “unilateral” would be removed. The only change to the language in 2.1 and 2.2 was the removal of the word “unilateral”.

Question 44: Question 7.a: The answer regarding the meaning of the word "allocable" in the Liberties clause fails to recognize the basis for the question. The construction of the term provided in the answer seeks to exculpate the government from direct costs associated with the government's actions. It does so by limiting compensable costs to those associated with the USC-6 cargo. That is not permissible. Specifically, the issue is whether the government intends to pay for costs associated with other cargo on the vessel when the government's deviation orders directly cause those costs to increase. Cargo on a vessel moves as a unit (the unit being the vessel). If the vessel is diverted, all of the cargo is diverted. If the government is the sole cause of that diversion, and the government is therefore the sole reason why there are increased costs associated with the non-government cargo on board, what is the rationale for the government not paying the costs that it has caused the carrier to incur with respect to that non-government cargo?

Answer 44: To the degree that the cost of diversion is not assignable to cargo booked under USC-6, those costs would not be “allocable” to the Government under this Clause.

Question 45: Question 7.b.: The answer to Question 7.b, like the answer to Question 7.a., impermissibly and without explanation seeks to limit the government's liability to costs associated with its own cargo, even though the government's actions may directly cause the carrier to incur costs with respect to other cargo on board. That is impermissible in the context of this question for the same reason that it is impermissible in the context of the answer to Question 7.a.

In addition, and separately, the answer misapprehends the purpose of the original question. The question did not seek to obtain a release of the carrier's duty of care. Instead, the question relates to the law of deviation that applies to ocean voyages. Oversimplified, that body of law states that if an ocean carrier makes an impermissible deviation in its voyage, then that carrier waives otherwise applicable defenses to claims for cargo damage. The point of the question was that the government's ordered deviation might be deemed to fall outside of what is commercially reasonable, thus potentially exposing the carrier to claims from owners of other cargo on the ship in the event of a casualty (including one not caused through any fault of the carrier). The response that the government "will respond to such a ruling at that time" provides no guidance to potential offerors who must submit bids or otherwise respond by the bid deadline. Please answer the question of whether the government will compensate the carrier if the government's orders to deviate result in a loss of carrier defenses that would otherwise protect the carrier from liability.

Finally, by way of clarification, the issue of a government taking is implicated by the fact that a judgment against the vessel can be fulfil1ed by judicial arrest and sale of the vessel. If the vessel were so disposed of because of the action of the government (ordering of the deviation) but the government provided no compensation for the loss so incurred that would constitute a constitutional taking.

Answer 45: USTRANSCOM has considered your comments and in reiterates its previous answer.

Question 46: Question 7.c: The answer is non-responsive. The question is whether the government recognizes its responsibility to compensate the carrier in the event that the government orders a deviation of the vessel to a different point, and at the same time requires inland delivery to the original destination, a circumstance that in most cases will result in higher inland costs. Under what rationale would the government not compensate the carrier for these increased costs, which are caused solely by the government's deviation order? Moreover, in the final sentence of the answer, under what rationale does the government characterize a substitute inland service as "non-conforming" when the government's deviation order is the sole and direct cause of the need for such substitute inland service?

Answer 46: USTRANSCOM has considered your comments and in reiterates its previous answer.

Question 47: Question 9: The answer does not clarify the situation. The question asked for an explanation of the intended meaning of the phrase "liability for costs/damages resulting from delays in performance" The response speaks in terms of "loss/damage to cargo," and therefore does not respond to the question. Stating that force majeure does not deal with loss or damage to cargo does not explain what the subject phrase in the original question is intended to mean. Please answer the question that was originally asked.

Answer 47: USTRANSCOM has considered your comments and does not consider its previous answer to be unclear.

Question 48: Question 30. With respect to the entire series of questions regarding the prime vendor program, the government has stated only that: "The current Attachment 8 is being revised." That provides no clarification whatsoever, and carriers are left in the position of having to prepare bids on a program that was previously very poorly defined, and that is now completely unknown. Please advise how these circumstances comport with the government's obligation to describe the services to be performed with reasonable specificity. Please also advise when this language and other language throughout the solicitation that is currently being re-drafted will be provided to potential offerors, and describe the process by which those offerors will be able to seek clarification of any ambiguous terms prior to bidding. With respect to Question 30m, which asks whether a carrier's choice not to submit bids for prime vendor cargo would affect its ability to compete for other cargo under the contract, the answer is nonresponsive, There is nothing in the referenced Exhibit 2 that answers the question. This is a central issue, and the government is obligated to provide a direct and full answer to the question, including both a "yes or no" component and an explanation of the reason for the answer.

Answer 48: A revised Attachment 8 is included in Amendment 03.

Question 49: Please explain how contract awards will be made under USC-06?

Section II B on page 62 states low price, technology acceptable awards will be made by trade lanes by VISA priority. Please confirm that TRANSCOM will award to more the one Carrier per trade line, per VISA priority. For example, TRANSCOM may award to three (3) Carriers on trade lane X, VISA priority No. 1, to 2 Carriers on trade lane X VISA priority No. 2, etc.

Answer 49: Our intent is to award multiple contracts so as to have multiple carriers providing service on each trade lane. Your example shows a possible combination of Contractors, and their varying VISA priorities, that may receive awards for a particular trade lane.

Question 50: Looking at Section III "Basis for Award" on page 62 of 63, please explain the phrase "Awards will be made to the proposal determined to be technically acceptable, from a responsible offerer, and with the lowest proposed prices in rank order after applying the VISA preference."

Answer 50: All contractors that are determined to be technically acceptable IAW Addendum FAR 52.212-3, Evaluation Procedures and are determined to be responsible (IAW FAR 9.103) and offer reasonable pricing will receive an award. If the pricing on specific lanes/routes are determined not to be fair and reasonable that contractor’s rates will be rejected. This does not preclude that same contractor from having accepted rates on other lanes/routes. DFAR 247.573-2 requires all solicitations for the purchase of ocean transportation provide an evaluation factor or subfactor for offeror participation in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA). All VISA participants that have been determined technically acceptable, responsible and who have submitted reasonable rates will receive a contract award. VISA participation does not preclude the contracting officer from determining rates offered on certain routes not acceptable.

Question 51: Please confirm that awards will be made to the Carriers that meet VISA Preference No. 1, before an award is made to a lower priced offerer that falls under VISA Preference No. 2?

Answer 51: USTRANSCOM intends to accept multiple rate offers for the same route/lane. Accepting of rates is one portion of the award process. As in other iterations of USC it is our intention to accept multiple rates for the same route as long as the prices are determined fair and reasonable.

Question 52: I also noted that the new Attachment 8 - Prime Vendor was not included with the Amendment 2 posting. The absence of Attachment 8 and lack of answer in the Q&As regarding Prime Vendor issues is severely impacting the Carrier's proposal preparation. Please advise when the new Attachment 8 will be issued?

Answer 52: A revised Attachment 8 is incorporated in Amendment 03 posted 29 Sep 08.

11of 13