TCAQ Response to Industry Questions 14 Apr 2011.pdf

WWX‐5 Solicitation Questions

HTC711‐11‐R‐C001

14 Apr 11

Q1. CENTCOM Safety and Audit Oversight Program. 1.2.1.1 appears to contradict 1.2.1:

1.2.1 In order to provide service to a CENTCOM AOR location (a specific base)

1.2.1.1 .to perform any portion of the airlift requirement within the CENTCOM AOR (the entire airspace). It is unrealistic for the Government to expect an audit of subcontractors when that subcontractor does not have direct operations into a Government location.

Example: A subcontractor is used to fly from Dubai to Doha International airport to service the DoD facilities in Qatar. It is a scheduled airline or a contracted cargo flight; it does not land nor have direct involvement at any DoD facility within Qatar. So long as the airline meets the Civil Aviation requirements of the origin, destination and over flight countries, it should be able to be used as a subcontractor without U.S. Government regulation. Would the Government consider modifying 1.2.1.1 to read: 1.2.1.1 .utilize a subcontractor to perform the airlift requirement to a CENTCOM AOR location? An alternative would be to remove the sentence in its entirety. This would be consistent with the language in 1.2.1 and be limited to flying directly onto a U.S. Government location.

A1. Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.2.1. has been revised.

Q2. Data Feed Requirements, Exhibit E. In the past, data volume was an issue and a decision was made not to send scans X4 and K1. Therefore, currently, these are not sent in an effort to keep the number of scans to a manageable level. Adding these scans could add up to 6 additional scans per package (arrived at origin station, arrived at origin ramp, arrived at hub, arrived at destination ramp, arrived at destination station, and arrived at customs). Is the volume no longer an issue?

A2. No—there are not data volume issues with reporting the additional event codes (X4 and K1).

Q3. Do the submitted proposals have to be from the CRAF Carrier? Can the partner of a CRAF carrier submit the proposal in their name?

A3. No--all proposals must be submitted/signed by the CRAF carrier/offeror.

See PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(a) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(1) To be eligible to receive a contract award and subsequent orders pursuant to this solicitation, offerors are required to be a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carrier and maintain their CRAF status for the duration of the contract.

Q4. The revised HVSL tab does not have totals (rows 165-168). Was this intentional?

A4. There will be no totals for HVSL. The column totals were based on the estimated quantity and HVSL proposed prices. However, since the HVSL prices are just a price discount and we have not forecasted the HVSL quantities, it does not make sense to have totals at the bottom.

Q5. In light of the overall scope and size of WWX-5 RFQ Solicitation HTC711-11-R-C001

– including the addition of approximately 50 FAR clauses and the addition of approximately 74 new lane pairs that require custom pricing – carrier seeks a 45-day extension to stated May 3, 2011 proposal due date. These new FAR clauses and lane pricing requirements necessitate global interactions, communications and legal agreements/modifications. We require additional time to compile a fully compliant proposal.

A5. No extension will be granted. The draft Attachment 1, Schedule of Supplies/Services, with all new lanes was posted on FedBizOpps Dec 14, 2010.

Q6. Under WWX-4, EPA was effective October 1st and optional downward adjustment was effective April 1st. Carrier requests clarification as to time lines for EPA and downward rate adjustments under WWX-5. Will due dates be the same as those used for WWX-4, or will the EPA and the downward adjustment be combined under one timeline (i.e., October 1st)?

A6. The optional downward adjustment, conducted on April 1st in the current contract, has been removed from the Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause. The EPA and downward adjustment, effective at the time of option exercise, will be combined under one timeline.

Q7. Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving (FAR Clause 252.232- 7003): Carrier requests confirmation that Wide Area Workflow (part of this FAR clause) will NOT be a mandated carrier requirement under WWX-5. Wide Area Workflow standards and requirements are inconsistent with commercial industry small parcel electronic data exchange standards.

A7. For this contract the Contracting Officer authorizes use of another electronic form and addresses invoicing/billing/payment in Performance Work Statement, paragraph 1.18. Further, FAR Clause 252.232-7003, paragraph (c) (4) specifically states: “DoD makes payment for commercial transportation services provided under a Government rate tender or a contract for transportation services using a DoD-approved electronic third party payment system or other exempted vendor payment/invoicing system (e.g., PowerTrack, Transportation Financial Management System, and Cargo and Billing System).”

Q8. Does the Safety & Audit requirement apply to subcontractors not completing movements entirely within the CENTCOM area of responsibility? For example, is an audit required for a non AMC/A3B carrier that is flying from London to Kuwait City and back?

Or from Doha, Qatar to New York? We seek clarification that the CENTCOM safety and audit requirements are not applicable to carriers that are entering and exiting the area of responsibility (and are not completing any movements solely within the area of responsibility).

A8. Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.2.1. has been revised.

Q9. Carrier requests clarification as to whether new CRAF Carrier Statements of Compliance need to be issued. If carrier’s CENTCOM fleet currently meets all safety & audit requirements for the Theater Express Contract, then will the audits/compliance statements issued under Theater Express have to be re-issued in order to re-set the 24-month audit window for WWX-5?

A9. If a Theater Express prime contractor has already completed the CENTCOM Safety and Audit Oversight and Statement of Compliance requirements on a foreign flag carrier, that audit and statement of compliance is valid until the 24-month expiration date. For these situations, the offeror should submit a copy of those completed audit reports and compliance statements to satisfy the WWX PWS requirements.

Q10. Standardized Delivery Exception Codes: RFP requirement states that in order to standardize delivery exception codes in the monthly detail report, contractors shall utilize the fifteen Delivery Exception Codes identified in Exhibit G. Carrier requests confirmation that this standardization code requirement is specific to carrier monthly reporting requirements only. It would be outside of the scope of commercial industry practice to standardize WWX-5 exception code standards within carrier tracking data feeds (i.e., web-based tracking).

A10. Yes, Exhibit G is specific to the WWX contract.

Q11. Per the Time-in-Transit tab on Attachment 1, carriers are required to submit transit times in days. Yet, Exhibit D (Field Sequence 40) seems to require that transit times be submitted in hours and minutes. Please clarify.

A11. Attachment 1, Schedule of Supplies/Services, Page N/A, Time-in-Transit Tab is used by the carriers to propose/set their transit times and rates/charges. Exhibit D is used for shipment detail reports, thus the difference in how data is stated. No change from WWX-4 contract/requirements.

Q12. The exception codes list is very restrictive. If an existing carrier exception code does not fit any of these categories, should we pick the closest allowable exception code?

A12. The carrier shall pick the code that best fits the cause of the exception on the monthly report.

Q13. RFP includes hazardous materials shipments under Non-Basic Service. Yet, under the accessorials tab of Attachment 1 (CLIN 0002, SLIN 0002AH) a hazardous materials handling charge is included. Carrier requests clarification regarding status of hazardous materials: are we to move hazardous materials as Basic Service with the accessorial charge included, OR are we to move these as Non-Basic Service?

A13. Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) that doesn’t require a different transit time from what is listed in Attachment 1 would be defined as Basic Service. If a HAZMAT item requires a different transit time than what is listed in Attachment 1, the HAZMAT item will be defined as Non-Basic Service and require the contractor to price at their commercial rate minus applicable discount and at the agreed to transit time. The contractor shall code the shipment as Non-Basic Service using the NBS code per Exhibit G.

Q14. Under Basic/Non-Basic Service, RFP lists refrigerated/cold chain shipments as Non- Basic Service. We recommend that any reference to cold-chain shipments be removed from this solicitation as the Time-in-Transit requirements for these shipments are normally only 72-96 hours. Non-Basic Service would typically comprise ROW-type rates, or those lanes/services not specifically itemized as CLINs in the contract. We recommend that cold-chain requirements be clarified on their own, and not included as Non-Basic Service.

A14. The Government will not develop additional line items for cold chain requirements. PWS paragragh 1.3. Basic/Non-Basic service has been updated to remove the cold-chain reference;

however, the shipper can negotiate with the carrier to move cargo for services or locations not listed in Attachement 1using the carrier’s commercial rates minus applicable discount and at the agreed to transit time. The carrier will code all non-basic service requirements requiring a different rate and transit time than Attachment 1 as NBS per Exhibit G.

Q15. The worksheet entitled “Est Quantity” includes columns BH through BW with identical package totals (see rows 165-168). Please clarify whether or not these columns are accurate, as it seems unlikely these identical totals reflect actual activity levels.

A15. These rows are accurate; the customer indicated these are identical aviation battalions.