Questions_Answers_to_RFP_v2_31_Oct_08

HTC711-08-R-0011

USC-6 Questions and Answers #5

QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO RFP

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

Question 1: What is the estimated volume of all-risk cargo, segregated by route?

Answer 1: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 2: 3.H.8 – All Risk Liability – Please provide estimated ordering volumes, claim history for all regions being impacted, and any other information that will help carriers obtain insurance under this clause. Also, please clarify where liability ends as it relates to consequential damages.

Answer 2: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 3: Please confirm that adjustments will be done before container performance is measured on the 15th of every month under Section 5.A.2.1.

Answer 3: Yes, adjustments will be completed prior to final calculation of performance rating.

Question 4: TRANSCOM has identified five "all risk" accessorial rate categories under 3.H.8.2. Please provide a breakdown/estimate of the number of containers that the US Military projects that it will move under each rate category in Year 1 of USC-06. If TRANSCOM does not receive or accept Carrier accessorial rates for all or any of the five rate categories, will the military move the cargo under the standard USC-06 terms?

Answer 4: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 5: (Question submitted in response to Answer 14 posted on 9 Sep 08):

Previously Posted Question 14: Section 3.A.15, PWS page 11, Chassis Requirements: The provision makes no distinction between CONUS and OCONUS operations, and makes no exception (included in earlier drafts) for those situations in which the custom of the trade does not include carrier-furnished chassis. The reality is that carrier-provided chassis are the norm only in the United States. This equipment is simply not available on the terms requested in much of the world. The requirement as written is therefore unreasonable in that it: (1) requests a service that in many cases cannot be provided, and (2) provides no compensation for the considerable costs that would be incurred in providing this service where it is usually not provided, but where it might be possible to do so. Please revise so that the chassis requirement applies only where carrier-provided chassis are the recognized custom of the trade.

Previously Posted Answer 14: PWS Section 3.A.15 has been revised to require that the contractor request a blanket waiver from the cognizant COR for movements over certain lanes that do not normally use chassis.)

Question submitted in response to Q&A above: The answer recommends that carriers apply for a "blanket waiver" from the requirement to provide chassis OCONUS. What is the procedure for such a request, and what is the basis upon which such a request may be granted or denied? Does this advice constitute an acknowledgement by the government that the carrier does not provide chassis in most circumstances OCONUS? These questions are all also raised by Question 17. There however, the government states that the relevant language will not be changed, even though it states in response to Question 14 that the same language will be changed. Will the language be changed or not? What, precisely, will it say?

Answer 5: Amendment 0002 changed the language in PWS, Section 3.A.15, Chassis Requirements to the following:

Containers delivered to the Government or spotted by the contractor must be on a contractor-provided chassis that supports stuffing/unstuffing operations by the Government. The chassis must remain with the container while in the custody of the Government; unless this requirement is waived by, the cognizant COR. Blanket waivers for specific areas or destinations may be issued by the cognizant COR upon request.

Question: What is the procedure for such a request, and what is the basis upon which such a request may be granted or denied? Does this advice constitute an acknowledgement by the government that the carrier does not provide chassis in most circumstances OCONUS?”

Answer 5 continued: 1) The process will simply involve the carrier contacting the local COR by e-mail and requesting the waiver. The OCCAs communicate with carrier reps on a daily basis, and this type of coordination is the norm.

2) The requests would be approved/denied after the COR a) discussed the requests with the consignee to determine their existing receipt capabilities and/or b) researched the "customs of the trade" for that particular lane.

This is potentially a 3 year contract--the key is to incorporate flexibility in the PWS so that the government and carriers can work together to meet the needs of the customers. The provision for the waiver allows this type of case-by-case coordination and collaboration to take place within the contract.

Question 6: (Question submitted in response to Answer 16 posted 9 Sep 08):

Previously Posted Question 16: Section 3.B.1.5.1, PWS page 14, Required Delivery Dates: This section makes reference to the “acceptance logic resident in IBS.” We request that such logic be made available to the carriers so that systems may be configured to comply with the stated requirements.

Previously Posted Answer 16: The IBS logic supporting RDD validation along with the associated transit time tables are currently being updated for USC-6 and will be provided to the contractors by mid November. (No change to solicitation)

Question submitted in response to Q&A above: The response that IBS logic controlling RODs will be provided only after bids are submitted calls into question the government's representation that the government's systems will properly recognize RODs in counter-offers as the measuring dates for performance evaluations. It is impossible for carriers to assess their risk of non-performance without understanding the systems by which that performance will be measured.

Answer 6: Performance measurement shall be based upon the final accepted RDD. Government information technology systems shall be configured to accommodate this.

Question 7: (Question submitted in response to Answer 18 posted 9 Sep 08:

Previously Posted Question 18: Section 3.C.1.3, PWS page 15, Live Load: The provision states in the third sentence that the shipper shall have three hours free time beginning at the scheduled appointment time or upon actual start. We understand that the intent is that the free time begins upon the earlier of those two events (otherwise, the government could avoid paying for waiting time simply by refusing to begin operations). Please confirm that understanding and amend the language accordingly in order to avoid future confusion.

Previously Posted Answer 18: Free Time will commence at the earlier of the Appointment or start of loading. PWS Section 3.C.1.3 language has been changed to the following:

3. C.1.3 Live load. For other locations in CONUS, the Contractor shall provide live load service at origin unless drop and pick service is ordered. The Contractor and the shipper shall set a live load appointment (date and time and specific location) for each container booked. The shipper shall have three hours' free time, starting from the time of the appointment to load the container or upon actual start. The Contractor shall be paid waiting time at the rate of $60 per hour rounded to the next higher quarter hour Waiting time shall only run during the shipper’s normal hours of operation. In the event the Contractor does not meet the agreed appointment time by 15 minutes or more, the shipper may load the container immediately or reschedule the load for a later time. Free time start will be adjusted to actual start time. Shipper may also cancel the appointment and reschedule for a different day. (PWS 3.C.1.3)

Question submitted in response to Q&A above: Our understanding of the answer with respect to free time on live loads is that if the government delays the start of loading, free time will run from the appointment time, so long as the Contractor is less than 15 minutes late for the appointment. If the Contractor is 15 minutes or more late, then actual start time will be used. Please confirm.

Answer 7: Yes, your interpretation is correct.

Question 8: (Question submitted in response to Answer 26 posted 9 Sep 08:

Previously Posted Question 26: Section 6.C.2, PWS page 40, Exigency Area Container Detention: This provision is unclear in much the same way as section 3.G.4 (PWS page 20) is. Specifically, the inclusion of the phrase “Government caused” in the first sentence following the table in section 6.C.2.1 is misplaced, because all post-delivery retention of the container is for the government’s account, regardless of fault. We suggest that the words “Government caused” be removed from that section, and that a new sentence as follows be inserted after the amended sentence: “Free time shall run during any predelivery delay caused by the Government.”

Previously Posted Answer 26: USTRANSCOM determined this is the best manner to meet the Government’s requirements and the current PWS Section 6.C.2 language will remain unchanged. (No change to solicitation)

Question submitted in response to Q&A above: The answer is non-responsive. The question is whether the government takes responsibility for pre-delivery delays that it causes for purposes of starting the detention clock. The government has acknowledged in response to Question 21.a that it does take that responsibility, and has adopted language to make that clear (see answer to Question 56). We did not ask whether the government likes its current language; we asked what it means. Does the government or does the government not acknowledge responsibility for pre-delivery detention that it causes in exigency areas? If it does not acknowledge such responsibility, on what basis does it deny compensation to contractors for costs incurred by the contractor solely as the result of the government's actions or inactions?

Answer 8: As the PWS states, “[t]he Government will pay the carrier . . . daily exigency detention charges, for Government caused delay in the movement or return of containers….” The Government is accountable for Government caused delays. Thus, the free-time / detention clock would start, pre-delivery, if the Government caused the delay. The Government will pay detention on containers it does not return after expiration of free-time.

Question 9: I noticed in CARE that we cannot offer the rinsing rates per country. Right now, we have rates in the contract for washing per country. This is important because we can’t offer in every country. Can you please see if the requirement can be amended to allow us to put in country and rates?

Answer 9: Rates can be submitted along with the port locations, very similar to the way linehaul rates are submitted. The carriers can identify as many port locations with rates as they can support.

Question 10: The side load chassis charge that we have in the contract right now is a 50% surcharge per linehaul rate. This has been working very well and we would like to be able to put a percentage in CARE for this requirement but CARE doesn’t allow a percentage. Can you please look into that one as well?

Answer 10: The side load chassis accessorial will be priced per container, not as a percentage of linehaul.

Question 11: How will the mileage rates be used in Iraq and the distances measured? Due to the USG's main and alternate supply route road networks, straight-line distances are not applicable and often change as the situation dictates. We have no way to provide a mileage rate for this AOR without some further clarification.

Answer 11: They will be used, and the distances measured (using DTOD), in Iraq just as in any other country.

Question 12: Can a mileage chart for potential delivery locations be provided so rates can be established as requested.

Answer 12: A separate mileae chart will not be used. Mileage will be calculated using DTOD as stated above.

Question 13: Reference is made to SDDC's recent amendments to the RFP and the issuance of baselines for the east and west coasts.

In consideration of the continued volatility of the market and the need to ensure a free and equitable position for both the Government and Carriers at the commencement of USC-06 in 2009, XXX submits the following question.

The recent TRANSCOM revisions to the BAF language in USC-06 do not address the volatile pricing situation confronting the Carriers. The baselines set by TRANSCOM are already invalid based on the last 30 days of bunker prices.

Under the current TRANSCOM BAF mechanism, it is impossible for the Carriers to competitively and accurately price cargo rates. The use of the Government baseline established at the height of prices in 2008 for use in 2009 and 2010 seems unreasonable. The Carriers must prepare and submit rates that have a high likelihood of resulting in Carrier refunds to the Government on Day 1 of the USC-06 contract. This is to say that on February 28th, the total price to the Government for a particular route might be $2,000 per D40 inclusive of bunker, and on the very next day, March 1st, the price to the Government would be $1,850, due to the carrier refunding the government $150. The carriers simply cannot bid this way.

To solve the inequities in the current TRANSCOM BAF model and pricing baselines, XXX recommends that TRANSCOM set the baselines at a more current level between the USC05 baseline and the current baseline as written. Looking at bunker prices over the past week, it clearly shows how this could impact the carriers pricing.

The low on Friday was $540 for IFO380 and $915 for MGO. This represents a price differential of 19% from the TRANSCOM baseline of $689. If fuel moved downward another 1%, the carriers would pay the Gov't $150/D40 for every container shipped in Route 1. I believe it would be more reasonable to put the price somewhere between the USC05 OY2 baseline, and the current bunker rates. My recommendation would be around $550. With this baseline, the Carriers can competitively bid and the probability will be high that both sides will be starting at a neutral BAF baseline point at the commencement of USC-06. The Gov't wouldn't pay the carrier until Bunker reached $685, and Carriers wouldn't pay the Government until bunker reached $457. I believe this is the way the EPA was designed to work.

Answer 13: Based on market trends we changed the baseline to $500 with Amendment 05. Due to the volatility of the bunker fuel market, the Government will continue to monitor bunker prices up to contract award. If market prices indicate a downward trend, the Contracting Officer will recalculate the BAF baseline and request revised pricing prior to contract award.

Question 14: BAF - Will Transcom consider the proposal that XXX has submitted to either leave the bunker baseline as is in USC-05 and wait until the new study comes out to create a new formula, or the alternate proposal to change the formula to instead use a 12-month time horizon removing the high and low months vs. the current 4-month time horizon, which gives a baseline of approximately $532 vs. your $656? Bunker prices are currently trading at $524/MT in Los Angeles. We need together to avoid a pay-back situation at the contract start.

Answer 14: See Answer 14.

Question 15: Defense Base Act - Will the Government agree to the request to remove the DBA due to its irrelevance to the contract? In the alternative, please make the DBA compensatory under a separate CLIN as other Government contract are, so that these costs don't get bundled into the rates, which effects commerciality, competitive pricing, and the Government's overall performance costs.

Answer 15: Federal law requires all U.S. government contractors and subcontractors to secure compensation for their employees working overseas. The related statutes include the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1651-54 and Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50.

We’ve made changes to Attachment 6 in Amendment 05 that stipulate DBA cost will be reimburseable as a direct “pass-through” cost.

Question 16: All-Risk Insurance - Will the government be providing the volumes necessary to properly calculate the risk associated with this service? Without this information, how would the carrier or an insurance company spread risk over more than one container?

Answer 16: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 17: Prime Vendor - Will the Government place the same guarantees under the Prime Vendor section as it does for Authorized Agents? Why would this be different? Was it an oversight that the claims process that the carriers and the Prime Vendors agreed upon was not included in the contractual language that was suggested?

Answer 17: In Amendment 05, the Government revised Attachment 8 to include certain USC Carrier – Prime Vendor claims situations where the Government will either be a guarantor or relieve the Carrier of its obligation to accept bookings to ship the Prime Vendor’s cargo.

Question 18: PWS page 21, top, purchase price of containers: The RFP provides in clause 3.G.4.3.1 that: “When purchase is made in accordance with 3.G.8 or 3.G.9, the parties will bilaterally negotiate the purchase price.” Both 3.G.8 and 3.G.9, however, reference the container purchase prices set forth at 6.C.3.3. Inasmuch as the purchase prices are already set, the reference to a bilateral negotiation is confusing. It appears that that reference should be removed, and that the 6.C.3.3 price should control. Please confirm that the 6.C.3.3 price in fact controls.

Answer 18: We will remove the following sentence “When purchase is made in accordance with 3.G.8 or 3.G.9, the parties will bilaterally negotiate the purchase price” from paragraph 3.G.4.3.1.

Question 19: PWS page 26, section 3.H.8, All Risk Liability: The provisions in this section and the available CLINs for bidding in the CARE system do not allow any variation in rates for all risk liability based on routes and destinations. The facts are that insurance is available for some routes and destinations but not others, and rates vary widely depending on the route and destination. By not providing a method by which carriers can tailor their offerings to reflect the different rates and coverages available in the insurance market, USTRANSCOM runs a substantial risk of: (1) obtaining all risk bids that reflect a worst-case scenario for the most risky destinations, and/or (2) discouraging bids for this accessorial item. We recommend that the RFP be modified to provide a mechanism for bidding all risk liability on a more geographically specific basis.

Answer 19: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 20: We note that paragraph 7 of Attachment X should be deleted as being superfluous and ambiguous. That paragraph provides that third party beneficiary status will arise if Attachment X is not executed. However, because Attachment X (including paragraph 7) is itself effective only if it is executed, there can never be a situation in which paragraph 7 could become effective. Because the purpose of paragraph 7 will be addressed by clauses 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of Attachment 8 (so long as the clarification requested above is provided), deletion of paragraph 7 would remove an ambiguity and strengthen the contract.

Answer 20: 1) Amendment 05 to the solicitation now states that third party beneficiaries are NOT subject to all modifications of the other party’s contract. 2) You are correct in your understanding that the third party beneficiary provisions are effective ONLY in the absence of an executed USC Carrier – Prime Vendor agreement. 3) Amendment 05 to the solicitation deleted paragraph 7 of Attachment 9 (what was previously referred to as Attachment X).

Question 21: It is our understanding that any negotiations for amendments to Attachment X would begin only after an Attachment X Prime Vendor/USC Carrier Agreement executed by the Prime Vendor is tendered to the Carrier for acceptance. In other words, the Prime Vendor may not at the outset tender a modified Attachment X. Please confirm this understanding.

Answer 21: Yes, any modification to the Attachment 9 agreement will be per agreement of the Prime Vendor and USC Contractor. The Prime Vendor will not be able to make unilateral modifications to the agreement.

Question 22: I need to have a couple of ports added to the logic in the CARE system for linehaul rates. I need to have Sihanoukville, Cambodia and San Antonio, Chile. I checked add ports as well and I just don’t see these two ports in there. Please add them and let me know when they are available so I can add my rates.

Answer 22: Sihanoukville, Cambodia and San Antonio, Chile have been added to the CARE II System.

Question 23: BAF – Given the extreme volatility in the BAF prices in recent weeks, USTRANSCOM should reconsider its BAF baseline.

Answer 23: Based on market trends we changed the baseline to $500 with Amendment 05. Due to the volatility of the bunker fuel market, the Government will continue to monitor bunker prices up to contract award. If market prices indicate a downward trend, the Contracting Officer will recalculate the BAF baseline and request revised pricing prior to contract award.

Question 24: Prime Vendor – The recent revisions to the Prime Vendor section has created more uncertainty as to the intertwining contractual relationships between USTRANSCOM, DLA, Prime Vendors, and Carriers through the requirement for the Carrier and Prime Vendor to enter into a vague agreement and the introduction of “third party beneficiary” status for Prime Vendors under USC-06 and Carriers under Prime Vendor contracts. The original issues regarding Prime Vendor shipments were limited to cargo claims and detention. The “solution” contained in the recent revisions go far beyond cargo claims and detention, and has a high risk of causing more contractual risks/uncertainties/problems than it might resolve. Any Prime Vendor section should be limited to actual problems and provide for practical, proven solutions rather than fundamentally changing contractual relationships with untested legal constructs. Recommend that Prime Vendor issues be resolved outside of the competitive procurement process with all stakeholders in face-to-face discussions.

Answer 24: Amendment 04 to the solicitation revised the language clarifying that “third party beneficiary” status only applies if a Prime Vendor / USC Carrier Agreement is not executed. The language in Attachment 8 is intended to ensure that those matters most appropriately worked out between the carrier and consignee are included in the Prime Vendor / USC Carrier Agreement. Based on experience with Prime Vendor cargo being shipped under the USC, we determined that it is in all parties’ best interest for the Prime Vendors and USC Carriers to execute an agreement to handle matters directly between them where non-Government owned cargo is involved.

Question 25: All Risk Liability – The manner in which the “All Risk Liability” requirement is structured effectively precludes carriers to transfer such risk to commercial insurance markets. Recommend that USTRANSCOM delete the clause and seek a solution outside of the competitive procurement process through a task force consisting of military and carrier representatives in consultation with commercial risk management professionals.

Answer 25: The requirement for All Risk Liability has been removed.

Question 26: There are contradictions with the answers regarding the military manifest being a requirement for invoicing. Can you confirm that it is not a requirement any longer?

Answer 26: All reference to a military manifest being required for invoicing were removed in Amendment 03 (See conformed copy).

Question 27: Section 3.H.8.8 Notification XXX still finds it unreasonable that the consignee has 15 days to inspect cargo and 30 additional days to notify the carrier about alleged problems once cargo is delivered. It should be 24 hours.

Answer 27: The “All-Risk Liability” accessorial has been removed in its entirety.

Question 28: Section 3.K.2.4.1 Can you please provide an explanation of seal tracing?

Answer 28: The reference to “seal tracing” is no longer in section 3.K.2.4.1.

Question 29: Performance Measurement- The language used to describe the rolling average of the performance ratings (A, B or C) is still not clear. It appears as it is stated today that the performance rating will change every month. If it was a 3 month rolling average then the rating would change on a quarterly basis instead. Please explain.

Answer 29: The rolling 3-month average is just that “rolling”. Once a 3-month average is established this becomes the carriers “performance rating”. At the end of the month a monthly average is again computed and used as follows.

For example: For Mar 09- May 09 a 3-month average will be computed. At the end of Jun, a new 3-month average will be computed for Apr 09 – Jun 09. At the end of Jul, a new 3-month average will be computed for May 06 – Jul 09 and so forth for the life of the contract. Therefore, the average is “rolling” throughout the contract.

Question 30: We noticed in the single factor requirements, there are no single factor rates for USC06 that include Waco Texas as an origin. We have been shipping a steady amount of boxes from this AAFES location to Giessen every week and thought it would be included. Wanted to advise in case this was going to change, please let us know.

Answer 30: Waco Texas has been added to CARE II as a location for rates to be offered.

Question 31: Page 12, item 3.A.21.1 states in part that an ITV surcharge is payable as per table of accessorials. We cannot find such an accessorials listed in the CARE II module accessorials. Please advise where we are to enter this charge.

Answer 31: Daily ITV surcharge has been added to the CARE II System.

Question 32: I find a Refrigerated option for HON Zone 2 for under 40' only, no 40' and over. There is no Ocean container rate for Refrigerated from Hawaii to Northern Mariana, or for the Garapan/Saipan drayage. Please confirm if these options will be included in the open USC-6 RFP.

Answer 32: The requirement has been updated in CARE II.

Question 33: The RFQ does not specify the required number of copies of “Volume IV – Subcontracting or Commercial Plan” to be submitted. Please advise.

Answer 33: One copy of the subcontracting/commercial plan is acceptable.

Question 34: Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance - The amendment has been revised to treat DBA insurance as a pass-through cost, which we believe is the appropriate compensation mechanism. However, the scope of the DBA under the USC-06 contract needs to be clarified. Specifically, the requirement for DBA insurance arise from FAR Clause 52.228-3 (Workers' Compensation Insurance - Defense Base Act), which is incorporated by reference into the RFP/Contract. Under FAR Clause 52.228-3, the Prime Contract is required to "insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the Defense Base Act applies, a clause similar to this clause (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to comply with the Defense Base Act." On the other hand, the full text of FAR Clause 52.212-5 (Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items - June 2008 Deviation) is included in the RFP/Contract. FAR Clause 52.212-5(b)(1) expressly provides that [n]otwithstanding the requirements of any other clause in this contract, the Contractor is not required to flow down any FAR clause, other than those in paragraphs (i) through (vii) of this paragraph in a subcontract for commercial items." The DBA Clause (FAR 52.228-3) is not one of the clauses identified in FAR 52.212-5(b)(1). Reading these two clauses in conjunction supports the interpretation that the DBA insurance requirement does not apply to subcontracted work for commercial items, such as trucking and terminal services. Such an interpretation will also significantly reduce the costs and administrative burden associated with DBA insurance under the USC-06 contract. Please confirm that the Contracting Officer concurs with the above interpretation.

Answer 34: The Defense Base Act (DBA) applies to prime contracts and subcontracts for commercial items. Contractors and their subcontractors are required to comply with the DBA, but have discretion under FAR 52.228-3 to either purchase insurance or provide some other commercially acceptable form of securing payment that will be made to or on behalf of employees as required by the DBA.

The DBA requires the contractor and all subcontractors at every tier to “provide for securing to or on behalf of employees . . . the payment of compensation and other benefits under [the statute].” The content or presence of a clause in a commercial item contract is distinct from the applicability of a statute that operates to impose rights or obligations directly. The DBA imposes the statutory obligation directly on the contractor and subcontractor.

Regarding the cost and administrative burden of DBA, Attachment 6 in Amendment 05 stipulates the cost of reimbursable to the Contractor as a direct “pass-through” cost.

Question 35: Performance Work Statement (PWS) page 17, clause 3.E.1.5.1 Import/Export Services: With respect to documentation for border clearances and transit, the clause states that “[t]he Contactor shall be responsible for the preparation and/or completion of all required documentation and submission of the documentation. . . .” Although it is correct that the carrier generally assembles the documents for presentation, it is also true that some of the documentation is “prepared” by the Government. Specifically, the Government provides the carrier with a consulate letter, a commercial invoice, and a commercial packing list. We also receive from the government a verified shipping instruction (VSI) that is used to manifest the cargo. Without these Government-provided documents, we cannot fulfill the functions described in the contract. Accordingly, we request in order to reflect actual practice and to avoid misunderstanding and delays that the following phrase be added at the end of the first sentence of that section: “;provided, however, that the Government must provide to the Contractor those documents (such as a consulate letter confirming the military use of the cargo, a commercial invoice, a commercial packing list, and a verified shipping instruction) that only the Government has the ability and/or authority to issue and that are required for the clearance and transportation of the cargo.”

Answer 35: The Government will be responsible to provide the contractor all documents necessary for clearance that only the U.S. Government has the ability/authority to issue.

Question 36: The requirements only allows per piece and not per container rate entry. If the assumption is that per piece is per container then we can add rates accordingly but will need to have your confirmation on this. Otherwise can the requirement be adjusted to receive both?

Question: Also, the requirements for enhanced security for Iraq zones do not allow you to submit a port only a rate. We would like to submit rates for both via Umm Qasr as well as Aqaba, Jordan. This is not possible at this time. Can you advise if the requirement will be adjusted to accept ports as well as rates?

Answer 36: SDDC is revising CARE to reflect a rate per “piece/container” and the ability to submit rates by port for Umm Qasr and Aqaba.

Question 37a: Accessorial type includes Daily ITV and Enhanced ITV - We cannot tell the specific difference between daily ITV and Enhanced ITV. The contract specifies the requirement for Enhanced Security, but we do not find the other. Could you please direct us to the specific clause that addresses the requirement for a daily ITV accessorial?

Answer 37a: The Daily ITV requirement is specified in Section 3.A.21 and addresses specific reporting requirements and reporting methodologies/formats. Enhanced ITV is specific to the Exigency areas and is described in Section 6.D.2 Enhanced Security Services.

Question 37b: Daily ITV and other new items, including Enhanced Physical security, all refer to "pieces" - what is "pieces" and how does it apply to containers? Does it refer to break-bulk cargo only such as loose cargo items, a vehicle, or parts? We need a clear definition of pieces and a means to handle or distinguish 20 and 40 foot containers in this?

Answer 37b: SDDC is revising CARE to reflect a rate per “piece/container.”

Question 38: Section 3.H.8.8 Notification XXX still finds it unreasonable that the consignee has 15 days to inspect cargo and 30 additional days to notify the carrier about alleged problems once cargo is delivered. It should be 24 hours.

Answer 38: No longer applicable. PWS Section 3.H.8 was removed in Amendment 05.

Question 39: Route 54-D is missing from USC-06 and was in USC-5 and the MsT factors have changed in the USC-6.

It is true route 79 is listed in both tables and shows as Hawaii-Kwajalein in there. In CARES II 79 is listed as Hawaii - Oceania. Which would cover our freight between Hawaii/Guam/Northern Marianas. To clarify, since the table reads Hawaii-Kwajalein, does this mean the BAF will only apply to freight between Hawaii and Kwajalein and no other route 79 freight?

How is it determined that a particular route is included or not included?

Answer 39: The Routes and Technical Factors from USC-05 have been copied over to USC-6 in CARE. The "D" was left off Rate Rules, Section 2.6,Table 1 and has been replaced with 54F (West Coast to Kwajalein). As for Route 79 both USC-05 and USC-06 Tables shows Route 79 as Hawaii-Kwajalein; however, CARE will be amended to identify 79 as Hawaii to Kwajalein.

BAF is only applicable to the routes identified in Table 1. How these routes were originally determined was based on cargo volumes to those locations. However, we have commissioned a study to review the entire BAF language and methodology to determine how to incorporate BAF for all routes and anticipate the final report sometime prior to exercising Option Year 1.