USC-6 RFP Amendment 1 15 Aug 08.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate

2. Revised Ordering Procedures (Exhibit 2)

3. Revised Performance Assessment Language (Section 5 PWS)

4. Incorporate Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Requirement language in Additional Clauses Section of RFP

5. Incorporate Revised language in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors

6. Incorporate Revised language in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Commercial Items

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Aug-2008

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HTC711-08-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Aug-2008

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Aug-2008

CODE

USTRANSCOM COMMAND ACQUISITION

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62265-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC711-08-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

The following language has been added to Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items:

VI. Pre-Proposal Conference

USTRANSCOM will host the USC-6 Preproposal Conference on 28 Aug 08, from 7:30 to 12 noon at Scott AFB, IL in the Honor conference room (USTRANSCOM, building 1900). Due to the room capacity, seating is limited to two (2) individuals per carrier.

Names of attendees must be submitted to Cindy Strout (cindy.strout@ustranscom.mil) via e-mail in order to facilitate a base pass.

(End of Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

The following language has been revised:

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

I. General Evaluation

A. This acquisition is a competitive best value source selection. The Government intends to award multiple contracts to provide Government shippers flexibility of choice and service coverage. Awards will be made to offerors whose proposals are determined technically acceptable and offer fair and reasonable pricing. Past performance will be considered during the responsibility determination in accordance with FAR 9.104-1. Contract awards will be made in accordance with the terms of FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items”, FAR Part 15.101-2 (low-price, technically acceptable) source selection procedures and the provisions contained herein. In accordance with DFARS 247.573-2(c) the Government will give a preference to U.S.-flag vessels and to offerors participating in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA).

B. Proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal must demonstrate the offeror’s technical capability to provide the services on all route indices for which it offers rates.

C. The Government reserves the right to reject any offer of service on those route indices or route zones (where applicable) where the Government determines that the technical capability to serve the route index or indices as stated in the contractor’s offer is less than the carrier’s service offered commercially.

D. The Government reserves the right to reject any offer in whole or in part that does not comply with the material requirements of this solicitation. Failure to comply with any of the material requirements of this solicitation, including submission of all applicable representations and certifications may be determined to be grounds for the Government to reject offers as technically unacceptable.

E. The Government may accept some or all rates or services initially offered, without discussion of those rates or services. If negotiations are conducted, they may be limited to certain rates or service specifically identified in writing by the contracting officer to the offerors. Thereafter, offers will be notified of the close of negotiations and the opportunity to submit a final proposal revision (FPR).

F. U.S. Flag Service offers will be evaluated for compliance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631, as amended.). Evaluation of Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement priorities will be in accordance with paragraph II below.

II. Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) Priorities Preference Application

A. Submitted offers that are responsive to this solicitation and that are determined to have the required technical capability will be grouped into the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) participant categories for each trade lane. VISA participant categories are the prioritized order for utilization of commercial sealift capacity to meet Department of Defense requirements. IAW DoDI 4500.57, dated March 18 2008, the categories of priority of vessel capacity offered to perform these services in order from highest priority to lowest priority are as follows:

1. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and U.S.-flag VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

2. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

3. Combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

4. Combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

5. U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

6. U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a VISA non-participant.

7. Foreign-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity of a VISA non-participant.

B. Proposals will be ranked by VISA priority. Low price, technically acceptable awards by trade lane (SubCLINS) will first be made to contractors having the highest VISA priority and proceed to contractors with a lower VISA priority only after the higher priority has been exhausted. The process will continue in this manner until sufficient awards by lane are made to ensure the Government’s anticipated transportation requirements can be met.

III. Low Price Technically Acceptable Evaluation

A. The basis for award will be Low Priced, Technically Acceptable Offers after giving preference to VISA participants as described . Factor 1, Technical Capability, will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Factor 2, Price, will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Awards will be made to the proposals determined to be technically acceptable, from a responsible offeror, and with the lowest proposed prices in rank order after apply the VISA preference in paragraph II.

B. For each non-price evaluation factor, further information on specific matters to be considered can be obtained by reference to corresponding paragraphs in the Instructions to Offerors.

1. FACTOR – Technical Capability

(a) Determination of technical capability will be based on the evaluation of data submitted by each offeror with their proposal that demonstrates the offeror's ability to successfully accomplish all contract requirements applicable to the routes for which service is offered.

SUBFACTORS

(i) Vessels: Offeror owns and/or controls ocean vessels in sufficient quantities to service the routes/lanes they are proposing rates on.

(ii) Port Coverage: Offeror has access to all ports for the routes/lanes they are proposing rates on.

(iii) EDI Capability: Proposals will be evaluated to determine if the offeror's capability to provide all the required EDI transactions/event reports as described in the solicitation, to include the optional events for EDI 315 status reports meet the requirements in the PWS.

2. FACTOR – Price

(a) Contract Price Evaluation – Price evaluation for all proposed rates will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, utilizing the rates the offeror has inserted into the Carrier Analysis Rate Evaluation System Service Module (CARES II SM).

(b) Applicable to Ocean Rates – In addition to evaluation under FAR, Part 15, U.S. Flag Service offers will be evaluated for compliance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631, as amended). A rate will not be considered for award should the Contracting Officer (CO) determine that the rate exceeds charges to private persons for carriage of like goods, pursuant to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (or other law or regulation).

(c) The Contracting Officer will not consider an offer to be fair and reasonable, if it contains rates higher than the highest commercial service contract rate; or that are clearly and substantially in excess of the rates stated in comparable commercial service contracts to which the offeror is party, for the same trades and similar services.

(End of Addendum)

ADDITIONAL CLAUSES

The following language has been added to the Additional Clauses Section of the RFP:

7. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

7.1 Good performance by Department of Defense (DOD) contractors is essential. FAR 42.1502 directs all Federal Agencies to collect past performance information on contracts, which will benefit source selection teams. TCAQ will be conducting an evaluation of your company’s performance for the duration of the contract using a web-enabled application called the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

7.2 As of 01 November 2006, all DoD contractors were required to obtain a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate to access the CPARS/ACASS/CCASS applications. DoD contractors are required to purchase a certificate from an External Certificate Authority (ECA). However, we are aware that DoD contractors continue to face delays in acquiring certificates from the ECAs. As a result, we recommend that you begin the process in the very near future to obtain the PKI Certificate before the CPARs becomes available for review. If you have questions on obtaining PKI certificates, please visit www.cpars.navy.mil. Questions should be directed to the Help Desk at (603) 431-9460 x 486, or via e-mail: webptsmh@navy.mil.

7.2.1 You may purchase a DoD PKI certificate from one of three External Certificate Authorities (ECAs). The ECAs are vendors who provide digital certificates to DoD's industry partners who are using their own equipment or working in non-government facilities. A list of ECAs is available at http://www.cpars.navy.mil/pki_info.htm. Each contractor employee accessing CPARS, ACASS, or CCASS will need an Identity Certificate; an Encryption Certificate is not required. Certificate prices range from $99 - $115 per certificate per year, with volume discounts available at some ECAs.

7.3 Following a contract award, the contracting officer will request the contractor furnish the name of the Defense Contractor Representative who will have program management oversight on the awarded contract and is qualified to participate in the performance assessment process. This individual will receive a CPARS Userid and Temporary Password from the Government CPARS Focal Point by telephone or E-mail.

7.4 Contractors should log on to the Navy CPARS website (www.cpars.navy.mil). At this site, you will find helpful information regarding the CPARS process under “Reference Material” and then “General.” Of special interest to the contractor are the (1) CPARS System Policy Guide and the (2) CPARS User’s Guide pages 31-32, Replace Section 5 of the Perfomance Work Statement with the following:

SECTION 5 – MEASURING PERFORMANCE

5.A Performance Requirements The expectation of the U.S. Government is that all cargo booked under this contract shall successfully move in accordance with the terms of the contract. The US Government strategy for assessing the Contractor’s performance under this contract focuses on two business lines, Unit Moves and Other Than Unit Moves (OTUM). Performance Requirements, Measures and Standards are applicable to Exigency and Non-Exigency Areas.

5.A.1 Performance Measures and Performance Standards

5.A.1.1 To evaluate the Contractor’s success in meeting minimum contract standards that support stated Performance Objectives, the U.S. Government may monitor and measure Contractor performance under this contract using the Performance Measures identified at Table 5.A.2.1. There may be more than one Performance Measure for a single Performance Objective.

5.A.2 Performance Objectives

Performance Objective No. 1: On-Time Delivery

The Contractor shall deliver the cargo not later than the Required Delivery Date (RDD) specified in the accepted booking.

Performance Objective No. 2: In-Transit Visibility

The Contractor shall provide accurate and timely shipment status reports using the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), or the Ocean Carrier Interface (OCI) as required by Section 3.A.10.

Performance Objective No. 3: Good Order & Condition

Cargo shall be delivered to the consignee in the same order and condition as when turned over to the contractor for shipment.

5.A.2.1 Performance Assessment

Performance Averages shall be based upon 90-day rolling average refreshed at the close of business on the 15th business day of each calendar month. Rolling 90-day averages shall be based upon performance data provided by the Contractor to SDDC not later than the close of business on the first business day of each month. Data points for Performance Objectives 1, 2 and 3 represent one customary shipping unit as booked.

Table 5.A.2.1

Performance Objective Description Performance Measure

Average

Weight

Assessment

1 On-Time Delivery

Cargo shall be delivered within 24 hours of Required Delivery Date as accepted in the booking.

a% 0.60 a x .60

2 In-transit Visibility

The Contractor shall provide to the U.S.

Government an accurate 315 transaction set within 24 hours of triggering event.

b% 0.30 b x .30

Good

Order & Condition

Cargo shall be delivered to consignee in same order and condition as delivered to carrier c% 0.10 c x .10

Contractor Performance

Score

1.00 Total %

5.A.2.2 Performance Rating

The U.S. Government may use the Contractor Performance Score calculated at Table 5.A.2.1 above as a significant factor in the contemporaneous best value booking process. To facilitate that process, the U.S. Government may, as suggested in Table 5.A.2.2 below, assign a Contractor Rating to the Contractor’s Performance Score to be published in SDDC’s Integrated Booking System. As described below, the Government may, under certain circumstances, choose to use Contractors performing below 91% (below 91% being a “Bravo” or “Charlie” rated Contractor) by offering cargo bookings to those Contractors. If a “Bravo” or “Charlie” rated Contractor accepts an offered booking, it agrees to a pre-negotiated set percentage discount of ocean and inland transportation rates for the booking. Discounts will continue for any accepted bookings until the Contractor achieves an “Alpha” Performance Rating.

Table 5.A.2.2

Contractor

Score

Contractor

Rating

Performance Shaping Options

91% - 100%

Alpha

Eligible for all cargo bookings.

Preferred Contractor for Unit Move Cargo

81% - 90%

Bravo

Eligible for all cargo bookings at a reduced rate.

Reduced Preference Contractor for Unit Move Cargo (See 5.A.2.2.1 and 5.A.2.2.2 below)

80% & below

Charlie

Eligible for cargo bookings at a reduced rate.

Reduced Preference Contractor for all Cargo

(See 5.A.2.2.1 and 5.A.2.2.2 below)

5.A.2.2.1 If a Bravo rated Contractor is offered a booking and accepts, the Bravo rated Contractor agrees to a 3% reduction in price to their ocean and inland transportation rate for the accepted booking. If there is no Alpha or Bravo rated Contractors available to perform the transportation to meet a customer requirement, then the U.S.

Government may choose a Charlie rated Contractor, and if accepted, the Charlie rated Contractor agrees to a 5% reduction in price to their ocean and inland transportation rate.

5.A.2.2.2 The U.S. Government will generally consider Alpha rated Contractors first for Unit Move cargo. In situations when no Alpha rated Contractors are available to meet customer requirements, the U.S. Government may select a Bravo rated Contractor for the movement. If a Bravo rated Contractor is offered a booking for cargo and accepts, the Contractor agrees to a 3% reduction in price to their single factor or ocean and inland transportation rate. If no Alpha or Bravo Contractors are available, then the U.S. Government may select a Charlie rated Contractor. If the Charlie rated Contractor accepts the booking for cargo, the Contractor agrees to a 5% reduction in price to their single factor or ocean and inland transportation rate. SDDC shall make final determination of exclusion in cases of unit move cargo.

(End of Summary of Changes)

Exibit 2

ORDERING PROCEDURE

CARRIER SELECTION

“FAIR OPPORTUNITY PROCESS”

1. Fair Opportunity to Compete.

1.1. Fair Opportunity to Compete for Task Order (booking) Awards: Under the USC-6 multiple award contracts, fair opportunity for booking awards is provided through a “best value” booking process detailed below. Only appointed cargo bookers (ordering officers) are authorized to book orders. The cargo bookers are responsible for evaluating shipment requirements and for making independent best value booking decisions.

1.2. Ordering Clause: IAW FAR 16.505, Ordering, all multiple award contractors shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order in excess of $3,000 pursuant to the procedures established in this section, unless the contracting officer (or ordering officer / booker) determines that:

a. The agency’s need for the services or supplies is of such urgency that providing such opportunity to all such contractors would result in unacceptable delays.

b. Only one such contractor is capable of providing the services or supplies at the level of quality required because the services or supplies ordered are unique or highly specialized.

c. The task/delivery order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy or efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity pursuant to the procedures in this clause to be considered for the original order.

d. It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

1.3. All bookings will be awarded in accordance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904, with a preference given to VISA participants. Application of the “VISA Priorities” listed below for booking cargo ensures these requirements are met. SDDC will provide an updated list of VISA participants to designated Ordering Officers as changes to the list occur.

2. Ordering Process for Bookings:

2.1. The Universal Service Contract (USC)-6 allows for cargo bookings based on a “best value” concept. Once the minimums have been met, the Ordering Officer books orders as set forth below.

2.2. The best value analysis will consider the following factors and sub-factors:

a. Technical—the ordering officer first evaluates potential carriers on a pass/fail basis to determine which carriers can meet the following technical requirements:

(1) Can meet RDD or is the “Next Arriving Vessel” (at Point of Debarkation)

(2) Can provide all required accessorials

(3) Has required equipment

(4) Has an approved Prime Vendor Agreement as detailed in Attachment 8 of the PWS (Applies to Prime Vendor cargoes, moving on the PakGLOC Route only)

b. VISA Priorities—once the field of potential carriers meeting the technical requirements is identified, a review of the technically compliant carriers is conducted to determine which carriers have the highest VISA priority based upon the criteria below. The carriers/carrier identified as meeting the highest VISA priority under the following scheme (IAW DOD Instruction 4500.57, dated 18 March 2008) are then evaluated to determine which one represents the best value as described in paragraph “c” below:

(1) U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and U.S.-flag VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

Exibit 2

(2) U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

(3) Combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

(4) Combination U.S.-flag/foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

(5) U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

(6) U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a VISA non-participant.

(7) Foreign-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity of a VISA non-participant.

c. Best Value Determination—carriers meeting the technical requirements above and who are identified as falling within the highest identified VISA priority group will be evaluated based upon the factors below.

Evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. Subfactors within the Past Performance factor are of equal importance.

d. Evaluation Factors:

(1) Past Performance

(i) Carriers’ Performance Score from the Assessment at Section 5 of the PWS.

(ii) History of meeting RDD for the required route

(2) Cost

(i) Total prices of all the services (line haul, ocean freight and accessorials) applicable to the booking.

(3) Approved Prime Vendor Agreement (if applicable) as detailed in Attachment 8 to the PWS)

*Note: pursuant to the provision of paragraph 5.A.2.2 and 5.A.2.3 of the PWS, the Government will assign each contractor a “Performance Score” that will be considered in the Past Performance evaluation factor. Assignment of certain “performance scores” may result in a decision by the Government to consider certain carriers before others, or to exclude a carrier from certain types of cargo movements (i.e. unit moves, etc.) regardless of their technical or cost scores in the best value process. Certain best value booking evaluations may result in no bookings awarded under this contract and the Government utilizing a charter service instead.