USC-7 Q As 27 JAN 12.xls
XLS spreadsheet 161 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Universal Service Contract (USC)-7: International Surface (primarily ocean) transportation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-11-R-W004
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions
| # | RFP Page # | RFP Para # | Industry Questions/Comments | US Government Response | |
| 1 | 31 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.H.3 | Industry recommends reverting to USC-6 language, including maintaining CLINS for Crating and Tarping separately | There are separate CLINs in CARE for Tarping and Crating. | |
| 2 | 31 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.H.3 | When cargo concealment is required during origin and destination linehaul, the contract language should be amended to specific origin and destination cargo concealment should be ordered for self-propelled cargo. | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 3 | 32 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.H.7.4 | The Government’s cargo washing requirements have been evolving. Please advise whether the Government intends to revise the cargo washing requirements in the RFP to reflect developments in that area. | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. If a change is necessary, an amendment/modification will be issued at a later date. | |
| 4 | 32 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.H.6.3, 3.H.7.3 | Recommend replace with following language:"The Contractor may choose where to perform the [rinsing or washing] service, however the payment shall be based on the POE." | Language did not change from USC-6 and will remain as written for USC-7. | |
| 5 | 17 of 72 | PWS, 3.B.3 | Can the Government define local time? | Local time is based on where the booking is processed. | |
| 6 | N/A | General Question | When booking cargo what steps are taken to assure that cargo preference laws are adhered to. Is Transcom aware that there have been several instances where cargo has been booked to a non-US flag vessel when there has been US flag P1 service available? If cargo is routinely offered to the Carrier with the lowest rates on file, is there a system in place to confirm that there is no P1 option available at fair and reasonable rates prior to booking cargo either P2 or P3? if not, is there any other process in place to ensure that the use of direct US flag service is maximized for all cargo that is booked by Transcom? | The Integrated Booking System (IBS) complies with the Cargo Preference Act. | |
| 7 | Worksheet | Exhibit 1, | |||
| Attachment 2 | Since there is no field in the rate spread sheet for the service type (i.e. P1, P2 or P3), how does Transcom monitor whether the cargo is being booked on US flag vessels in compliance with the cargo preference laws? | The attachment is applicable to linehaul; therefore, the Cargo Preference Act does not apply. | |||
| 8 | 36-40 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) Section 3-I | Vessel Demurrage- Industry recommend adding the following language to the contract. When the Contractor's vessel is prevented from berthing at it's scheduled arrival time due to delays caused by the US Government, the Contractor is entitled to receive vessel per diem at the rate provided in the table of accessorial rates | Contractors may submit a request for equitable adjustment (REA) if the Government causes the delay. | |
| 9 | N/A | General Question | As we are inputting rates into CARE, we've got a couple of questions on "Accessorials" that need to be clarified, please: 1.) CBCA Handling Aqaba and Jebel Ali, 2.) Intermediate Port Stop | ||
| Could you please help us understand what they are? | The Government is in receipt of questions regarding this issue and are working diligently to make sure that these CLINs are in fact required and what they are. | ||||
| 10 | N/A | General Question | In Care we have located a request for rates for Intermediate port stop / CBCA. Can you advise language in the RFP to explain how this is applied? | The Government is in receipt of questions regarding this issue and are working diligently to make sure that these CLINs are in fact required and what they are. | |
| 11 | N/A | General Question | In Care we have located the ability to offer rail services. Can you advise the section in the RFP that will overview operation requirements? | The option to select rail in CARE is not available. Please note that this does not preclude a Carrier from moving Cargo via rail. | |
| 12 | N/A | General Questions | In Care “cargo crating” requirements are requested. The service area defined under cargo concealment where the “the US Government can request specific material….” Materials and their eventual disposal are a significant cost to this assessorial. i.e. steal, oak, pine other. Can we clarify? | The Government typically uses wood crates and do not foresee the use of any other materials. Language will be revised in Amendment 4. | |
| 13 | N/A | General Questions | Tank Cleaning / Purging rate requirement in Care is not operationally defined in the RFP. Can you advise operational details? | The Government is in receipt of questions regarding this issue and are working diligently to make the appropriate changes where applicable and respond to your question/comment. | |
| 14 | N/A | General Questions | In reviewing USC 07 requirements in CARE system I noticed that you are soliciting container & break-bulk rates. For route 60AB USEC/Ascension Islands. In our conference Dec 16 you had advised that since this route was a dedicated contract that rates would not be sought for the same route in USC 07. Please review this matter and advise. | The Government is in receipt of questions regarding this issue and are working diligently to make the appropriate changes where applicable and respond to your question/comment. | |
| 15 | 1 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | What ETA Modules are needed for USC-7? Currently have access to CARE II, IBS-Web Vessel Schedule and IBS-Ocean Carrier Interface. Are any other modules required? | Carrier Analysis & Rate Evaluation System Service Module (CARE II SM), IBS Web Vessel Schedule, IBS One-Time-Only (IBSOTO) and Ocean Carrier Interface (OCI) | |
| 16 | N/A | General Question | Can USTRANSCOM provide a historical breakdown of container & breakbulk volumes by routes? | SDDC maintains historical data on their public website. | |
| 17 | 4 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | In reference to Exhibit 1, Section d.2.iii, please confirm that if a listed accessorial charge in CARE does not apply for a specific Carrier, than accessorial charge should be left blank? | That is correct. Carriers should not offer a rate in the CARE II SM for contract line item numbers (CLIN) they do not offer service on. (Exhibit 1, 52.212-1, Section (d)(2)(iv). | |
| 18 | 21 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.E.1.6 | Add the following language at the end of 3.E.1.6: "The Contractor is not responsible for delays in customs clearance resulting from events beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor." | The process has not changed from USC-6. The language will remain as written for USC-7. | |
| 19 | 20 of 72 | 3.E.1.2 | 3.E.1.2 Contractor-Arranged Cargo Clearance: Contractor acts on behalf of US Government to obtain Cargo clearance. // Recommend that language be inserted to allow for Customs Clearance to be assessed for multiple countries when cargo is required to clear in-transit through several different countries. For example, many imports/exports in Africa require In-Transit customs clearance to cross each border location, but contractor is only receiving one customs clearance charge for the Port of Entry | The Government can only order customs clearance based on one country. If cargo transits through multiple countries, carriers need to include the associated cost in their linehaul rate. | |
| 20 | 20 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.E.1.2 | The current language is ambiguous and could restrict payment to carriers unintentionally. | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 21 | 31 of 72 | PWS, 3.H.3 | Can the Government explain the difference between tarping and concealment? | Tarping is a type of concealment. | |
| 22 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.1 | Why did TRANSCOM change the language to cease accrued detention prior to |
the issuance of the intent to purchase? The 6.C.3.1 Optional Purchase does not apply to lost or damaged containers and therefore the reference to 3.G.4.1.6.1 2 or 3 does not apply.
Should read:
| 2. i.e., accrued detention from the expiration of free time to the date of government purchase notice, less paid detention, plus the applicable purchase price | CMM Data must be received to verify a container is available. Detention must cease to accrue at pick up. The language will remain as written. | ||||
| 23 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.1 | Can you please confirm that the end of the first sentence in 6.C.3.1 Optional | ||
| Purchase should read as follows: (i.e. first 60 days of detention shall not be applied to the purchase price) | Language will be revised in Amendment 4. | ||||
| 24 | 53 of 72 | PWS, 6.F | What about driver wait time for various issues associated with retro/redeployment moves? | It would be difficult Government to verify this. The EC code would not work either because it is tied to a booking. | |
| 25 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.1 | 6.C.3.1 Optional Purchase – The US Government may opt to purchase a container | ||
| at the Container Purchase Prices set forth in 3.G.9.1 after that container has accrued a minimum of 60 days of daily detention charges and provided that the container has not been returned to the Contractor [ref 1] (i.e. first 60 days of detention shall to be applied to the purchase price). The Contracting Officer will issue a not-to-exceed delivery order. The Contractor will verify against its records within 60 days on whether the container is eligible for purchase and, if so, will provide the Contracting Officer with its calculation of the amount due [ref 2] (i.e., accrued detention from the expiration of free time to the earlier of 2 or 3 specified in 3.G.4.1.6.1, less paid detention, plus the applicable purchase price). The Contracting Officer will issue a contract modification with verified containers and change the not-to-exceed to the specific number of verified containers. If the US Government does not take one of these actions, it will be obligated to pay further detention from Day 61 until conclusion of detention through container return, pick-up or purchase. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | ||||
| 26 | 18 of 72 | PWS, 3.C.1.1.1 | 3.C.1.1.1 States that container detention at origin does not apply. Why was our | ||
| previous agreement not incorporated by adding, "when shipped on originally booked vessel"? As discussed during the IPT meetings, carriers, just like the government, cannot make undefined and open ended commitments of equipment and resources. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | ||||
| 27 | 25 of 72 | PWS, 3.G.4.1.6.1 | 3.G.4.1.6.1 Standard Container Detention - On line 7 delete the "to the earlier of |
2 or 3 specified in 3.G.4.1.6.1." and insert "from the expiration of detention to the Government notice of purchase line 3 in 3.G.4.1.6.1." TRANSCOM may not use Paragraph 2, Available for Pick-Up Notice, to end detention prior to the purchase notice.
| Why was the automatic purchase (#4 on page 26 of 72) added to the non-exigency area container detention language? | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 28 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.3 | 6.C.3.3 Lost or Destroyed Containers. Why was the RFP changed to state | |
| that detention for a lost or destroyed container stops at the earliest of the lost/destroyed notice or the CMM empty pick up notice? The IBS CMM date may not be used to stop detention prior to the government declaration of lost or destroyed. The Government may not stop detention with a CMM notice, fail to return the container, and then 3 months later declare that it is lost and revert detention date to an earlier CMM date. Please Delete "or CMM on line 6 and language on line 7. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 29 | 25 of 72 | PWS, 3.G.4.1.6.1 | 3.G.4.1.6.1 Standard Container Detention. USC-7 RFP added in paragraph 4 on | |
| page 26 the right to purchase after non-exigency equipment 350/700 days of detention. As in USC-3 through USC-6, the Government does not have the unilateral right to purchase carrier equipment outside the exigency area. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 30 | 46 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.C.1.1 | Recommend adoption of the previously proposed free time levels for dry and reefer respectively: |
PAKGLOC = 36/31 days NDN RC Capital, East, and North = 21/16 days
| NDN West and South – 35/30 days | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 31 | 47 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.C.2.1 | To avoid confusion, this section should state when free time/detention ceases to accrue since the start and stop dates are different than non-exigency areas. Recommend the following language: |
Daily detention charges will continue to accrue from the expiration of free time until 2400 hours on the day that one of the following occurs:
(1) the date the Contractor is notified in writing or via the U.S. Government designated system that the container is available for pick up at the Contractor’s point of delivery and the container is actually available when the Contractor arrives for pick up; or
(2) the date the U.S. Government executes a purchase modification pursuant to 6.C.3.1 or notifies the carrier that a particular container is lost, destroyed or impracticable to return pursuant to 6.C.3.3;
| (3) the date that daily detention charges have accrued for 350 days on a dry container or 700 days for a reefer. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 32 | 47 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.C.3.1 | Recommend deleting or revising the parenthetical “(i.e., first 60 days of detention shall not be applied to the purchase price).” The minimum amount payable for an optional purchase is the purchase price PLUS 60 days detention. |
The delivery order/contract modification process is confusing and not consistent with the verbal agreement reached with Gail Jorgenson. Recommend the following language:
| 6.C.3.1 Optional Purchase -- The US Government may opt to purchase a container at the Container Purchase Prices set for in 6.C.3.4 below after that container has accrued a minimum of 60 days period of daily detention charges and provided that the container has not been returned to the carrier. To exercise its option, the Contracting Officer will issue a Purchase Modification with a “not to exceed” amount to cover the purchase price and the estimated unpaid daily detention charges that have accrued up to and including the date of the Purchase Modification. The Carrier will submit an invoice for payment under the Purchase Modification based on its calculation of the sum of the applicable purchase price and accrued unpaid daily detention charges up to and including the date of the Purchase Modification. The Purchase Modification invoice will not include any equipment that the Carrier has identified as not being eligible for purchase and the Contracting Officer will revise the Purchase Modification accordingly. The US Government will pay all undisputed amounts and any disputed amounts will be reconciled promptly by mutual agreement. The US Government will neutralize such containers by removing the container markings. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |||
| 33 | 47 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.C.3.2 | The “purchase credit” was not part of the compromises agreed to by the parties. The Carriers agreed to: (a) reduce purchase prices by 10 percent; (b) reduce the minimum detention for 90 to 60 days; and (c) set max cap periods at 350/700 days as proposed by the Government. Recommend the following language: |
| 6.C.3.2 Automatic Purchase – After daily detention charges have accrued for 350 days on a dry container or 730 days for a reefer, no additional daily detention charges will accrue on that container. The Contractor will notify the Contracting Officer of containers that reach the 350/700 day threshold and invoice for any accrued but unpaid daily detention charges up to the threshold amounts. The Contractor is not required to transfer ownership of the container unless and until the US Government has paid 350/700 days of accrued daily detention charges. The US Government will neutralize such containers by removing the container markings. | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | ||||
| 34 | 53 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.G | Stop Off | Para 6.G.7 will be added in Amendment 4 stating "Stop offs are not applicable to Afghanistan." | |
| 35 | 24 of 72 | Exhibit 3 (PWS) 3.6.4.1.2 | Recommend adding the sentence “Free time/detention will commence to run when a container is available for deliver in accordance with 3.A.10.4.1” | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |
| 36 | 25-26 of 72 | Exhibit 3 (PWS) 3.G.4.1.4, 3.G.4.1.6.1 | These two provisions conflict with respect to the cessation of detention. Recommend moving the language in 3.G.4.1.6.1 (beginning with “Daily detention charges will continue to accrue”) to replace the language in 3.G.4.1.4, except that “4” should be deleted because automatic purchase does not apply in non-exigency areas. | The language at 3.G.4.1.4 will be updated in Amendment 4. | |
| 37 | 23 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.F.4.1 | Delete current language and replace with "The Contractor will use commercially reasonable efforts to position trucks at the delivery locations to evacuate empty containers within 10 calendar days after receiving notice from the U.S. Government that the container is available at the original point of delivery. The U.S. Government will use reasonable efforts to load empty containers onto trucks that the Contractor positions to evacuate empties, including trucks that have delivered loaded containers as well as trucks dispatched to pick up empties. Corrective actions plans will be jointly developed by the Contractor and the US Government to address any significant deficiencies in timely empty container evacuation." | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |
| 38 | 49 of 72 | PWS, 6.D | USC carriers will not know the new Afghan Security rates until March 20, 2012, well after the USC-7 submission date. Clearly, we cannot populate CARE with our USC-7 security rates until we know what our costs are going to be. Should we submit estimated placeholder rates and then reopen CARE for actual security rates in April? Our estimate is that this APPF transition will impact ~330 USC-7 security rates. | We are currently reviewing this issue. The PAKGLOC and Afghan Security Rates will be removed from RFP 0012 and moved to a separate RFP, which will open at a later date. | |
| 39 | 32 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.H.9.1 | Cargo Handling Services- Industry is requesting clarification on the Governments intent to bundle cargo handling services. How will diverse services be handled if the intent is for one rate to include entirety of services | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 40 | N/A | General Question | Just wanted to remind you that USC carriers will not know the new Afghan Security rates until March 20, 2012, well after the USC-7 submission date. More information on the APPF transition is below and contained at the following website: https://sites.google.com/site/appfadvisorygroupdocuments/ Clearly, we cannot populate CARE with our USC-7 security rates until we know what our costs are going to be. Should we submit estimated placeholder rates and then reopen CARE for actual security rates in April? Our estimate is that this APPF transition will impact ~330 USC-7 security rates. | We are currently reviewing this issue. The PAKGLOC and Afghan Security Rates will be removed from RFP 0012 and moved to a separate RFP, which will open at a later date. | |
| 41 | 7 of 20 | Attachment 11 | It is noted that BAF is getting reset to significantly reduce BAF payment. However the Carriers are all still paying the very high fuel bills. This will result in a higher ocean freight rates to the Government when compared to USC 06 Rates. Is this how the Government wants to proceed? | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 42 | 7-20 of 20 | Attachment 11 | We cannot find language that specifically states in what month or date the applicable ocean rate applies to a given shipment. There is language in the sections on the BAF/CAF/FAF that indicate these accessorials apply against the booked vessel which has been interpreted to mean the original vessel even if rolled to a later vessel. The problem develops when cargo is booked to a vessel in say March, but then rolls to a vessel in April. There have been questions raised as to whether the March ocean and other rates apply or the April rate (original booked vessel, or actual lifting vessel). Convention holds the date of the actual lifting should apply to all costs, but it is not clear. Our request is: |
1) Language be inserted that specifically details the date that applies for purpose of rate calculation when shipments occur which addresses the confusion between booked vessel and actual lifting vessel.
| 2) That whatever language is decided that this be harmonized to all charges including ocean rates, BAF/CAF/FAF etc. so that the same date of applicability applies to all appropriate charges. | Language addressing this issue will be added in Amendment 4. | ||||
| 43 | 17 of 72 | PWS Section 3.B.3 | Please confirm that a Contractor may reject a booking in the event the Contractor cannot perform the requested service(s) in accordance with contract requirements. | Yes, a Contractor can reject a booking if they cannot perform the requested service(s). | |
| 44 | 38 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.I.5.9 | Carrier Convenience | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 45 | 17 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.A.21.2 | Bulk Liquids- The Last sentence should be deleted or clarified. The surcharge for carrier-provided tank containers applies when the carrier provides a tank container. | The last sentence was deleted from Draft 4 to the Final RFP. | |
| 46 | 20 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.E.1.6 | Add Clause, 3.E.1.7 - Cancellation or Modification to Temporary Importation. When Contactor performs Customs Clearance services as requested by the Government, Contractor notifies local authorities of the intent to import on a temporary basis. If the Government decides to not return each container imported under a Temporary Importation, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred to request a Cancellation to the Temporary Importation | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 47 | 31 of 72 | PWS, 3.H.3 | Cargo Concealment |
| It was agreed at the 18-October conference call to change the language for Cargo concealment to the current USC-6 language and 2 CLINs, one for TARPING and one for CRATING would be solicited. Please confirm this was an oversight and the language will be changed accordingly through an amendment to the PWS. | The language will remain as written, however, there are separate CLINs in CARE for tarping and crating. | ||||
| 48 | 19 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.D.1.3.1 | Cargo Lift and Advancement- Industry recommends deleting Section 3.D.1.3.1. | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 49 | 16 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.A.17 and 3.A.19.2 | Chassis Requirements- 3.A.17 and 3.A.19.2 these two sections have slightly different language regarding when chassis requirement is waived. Both sections should use the language in 3.A.19.2, which recognizes the custom of the trade. | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 50 | 1 of 10 | 2.1, 2nd paragraph | Please advise whether it is TRANSCOM intent that the COGSA limitation for all USC-7 cargo booked as breakbulk should be measurement tons as opposed to “packages” (e.g., number of MTs times $500) | Liability will be in accordance with second paragraph of 2.1. | |
| 51 | 53 of 72 | PWS, 6.F | 6.F Driver Wait Time, specifically Table 6.F.3.1 establishes a $100 per day rate. | ||
| At the October 14th summit meeting, TRANSCOM agreed to equalize USC driver wait time rates at $150/day so that USC-6/7 drivers are not de-prioritized by gates and consignees because they were the cheapest contract group to keep waiting. Why was Table 6.F.3.1. not updated to the $150 rate? Why was Iraq added, $150 per day driver wait time is non-compensatory? | The Driver Wait Time in Afghanistan will be updated to $150 per day. Iraq Driver Wait Time is as stated. | ||||
| 52 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.1 | Why did TRANSCOM change the language in the first sentence in 6.C.3.1 | ||
| Optional Purchase? Please confirm that a typo occurred and it should read as follows: | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | ||||
| 53 | 46 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.1.1 | Why was the table in paragraph 6.C.1.1 changed from our agreed upon detention/ | ||
| free time numbers in USC-7 RFP Draft #4 and in our IPT discussions? | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | ||||
| 54 | 47 of 72 | PWS, 6.C.3.1 | There is a mistype that needs to be repaired. On pg 47 of 72 of the PWS, section | ||
| 6.C.3.1 “Optional Purchase” the paragraph reads in part “…i.e. first 60 days of detention shall to be applied to the purchase price.” This is incorrect. It should read: “…i.e. first 60 days of detention shall not be applied to the purchase price”. Could you please correct this typo? | Language will be updated to reflect the first 60 days of detention shall not be applied to the purchase price. | ||||
| 55 | 53 of 72 | PWS, Table 6.F.3.1 | It was agreed at the 14-October meeting the driver wait time rate in Afghanistan would increase to $150 per day. Please confirm this was an oversight and an amendment to the PWS will be issued accordingly. | The Driver Wait Time in Afghanistan will be updated to $150 per day. | |
| 56 | 26 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.G.4.2 | Free Time and Driver Wait Time- | The Government carefully considered all carrier recommendations regarding container detention, free-time, and container purchases. However, based on market research on similar commercial terms, inputs from government shippers, and our analysis of historical costs, we crafted language that meets the government's requirements while balancing the interest of carriers and shippers. The current language provides fair compensation to carriers if containers are not returned within allotted free-time. | |
| 57 | 53 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 6.F.3 | Industry Recommends - 6.F.3 Free Time and Waiting Time Table 6.F.3.1 See Attached Document | The Driver Wait Time in Afghanistan will be updated to $150 per day. | |
| 58 | 22 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.F.1.6 | Industry proposes amending the opening sentence as follows "The Contractor shall provide a delivery receipt for the consignee or agent to sign to acknowledge receipt of the container (including the local time and date) and to annotate any exceptions. The Contractor is not responsible for the failure of consignee or agent to sign annotate the delivery receipt provided by the Contract. | Language was discussed at IPTs. Language does not mandate a signed receipt, it states carrier shall provide. If consignee or agent refuse, carrier should annotate on receipt. This is for their protection as we do not ask for this information unless there is an issue with the cargo. Language will remain as written. | |
| 59 | 44 of 75 | Clause 952.225-0011 | 952.225-0011 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED CONTRACTOR SUPPORT - |
The current RFP is insufficient and provides only Resuscitative Care.
| Please provide the following services to allow carriers to serve you effectively and efficiently: | The contract clause provides the maximum government furnished contractor support authorized by CENTCOM. See Exhibit 2, Additional Clauses on page 9 of 10. | ||||
| 60 | 27 of 75 | FAR 52.222-42 | 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates. Are we required to provide a statement from our vendors attesting that they meet the requirements of this clause? | No statement from subcontractors is required. The Statement of Equivalent Rates is provided for informational purposes only. It is not a wage determination. | |
| 61 | 3 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | Volume IV – Subcontracting plan. What time periods should the Subcontracting plan be applicable? Currently it is based on the Military Fiscal year. Does it need to be changed to match the submission dates of the RFP, the effective dates of the contract period, remain as it is (fiscal year based), or apply during a different period altogether? | The subcontracting plan (including goals) shall cover the offeror’s fiscal year and apply to commercial services performed by subcontractors under the contract. | |
| 62 | 2 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | Can the Government clarify how a USC06 carrier can waive the requirement to submit a narrative? | Language will be revised in Amendment 4. | |
| 63 | 7 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | Can the Government explain how they will evaluate rates submitted? If rates are only evaluated individually and not in a series of rates than the result can lead to a flawed rejections of rates. Different carriers have differing capabilities enabling some to be very aggressive on certain pricing but not as competitive on others. On a large move that one high rate when added in series to the other lower rates can easily lead to an overall cost savings to the Government. However if that one rate is rejected that the OCCA will not be able to take advantage of that carriers services due to the missing rate. | Rates will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. | |
| 64 | 10 of 75 | FAR 52.247-64 | This is a new FAR clause added to USC. Please advise the intent of this clause as it only requires 50% carriage by US Flag vessels. However, the LAW requires US Military cargo to be shipped 100% on US Flag vessels? How does this clause relate to the VISA-priority booking procedures? Why does the Transom require Carrier bills of ladings if the vessel particulars are contained in the IBS booking module for each specific shipment? |
| This clause is not applicable in the USC and should be removed. We trust the removal will be reflected in an amendment to the RFP. Please confirm. | FAR Clause 52.247-64 removed. | ||||
| 65 | 6 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | During the evaluation process are regular liner service rates for those carrier’s active in individual routes compared in the same manner as the rate levels proposed by potential tramp operators or “historic place holders” who will only offer service when it’s convenient or opportunistic. | All factors are considered. | |
| 66 | 3 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | Confirm that “past performance” may be covered using USTRANSCOM. Do forms have to be sent? | The offeror shall send out a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1 to Exhibit 1) to each of the offeror’s references (which may include USTRANSCOM) identified in their proposal along with a request for the reference to complete the questionnaire and return it to the Government by the date specified for receipt of offers. The responsibility to send out the Past Performance Questionnaires rest solely with the offeror. | |
| 67 | 2 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | Certificate of vessels and routes. If all is in IBS do we need to certify for each route or is one letter adequate? | A signed statement certifying that all of the information in IBS or CARE II SM is sufficient. | |
| 68 | N/A | General Question | Will CARE open by COB today? | The Carrier Analysis and Rate Evaluation (CARE II) system opened 20 Dec 2011. | |
| 69 | N/A | General Question | Is the January 17th date still firm? | Amendment 3 was issued on 24 Jan 12 to suspend the offer due date from 30 Jan 2012 4:00 PM CST to a date/time yet to be determined. | |
| 70 | 20 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.E.1.2 | Industry is requesting that USTRANSCOM please confirm that CLINS for Cargo Clearance Import and Cargo Clearance Export for the Middle East Region will remain and new CLINS will be established for the specific locations of Iraq, Kuwait and Pakistan as identified in this Clause. | New CLINs have been established for specific locations of Iraq, Kuwait, and Pakistan. | |
| 71 | 22 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 52.216-9 paragraph ( d ) | Refers to paragraph ( c ) above and there is no paragraph ( c ) | Question/Comment as written is unclear. Please provide clarification. | |
| 72 | Amendments to USC-07 RFP. No Amendments to USC-07 RFP have been received as noted. Once TCAQ submits Amendments to Industry, please confirm that Industry will have suitable time to review and address these items. They have been outstanding throughout each version of the Drafts up to RFP, and continue to remain outstanding up to question submission Deadline. | Thank you for your comment. TCAQ will ensure Carriers have sufficient time to review Amendments. | |||
| 73 | 11 of 75 | FAR Clause 252.247-7003 | Pass-Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Adjustment To The Cost Bearer | Question/Comment as written is unclear. Please provide clarification. | |
| 74 | 9-11, 23-24 of 75 RFP | Various | Recommend that TRANSCOM delete all FAR/DFAR clauses that are not required to be FAR Part 12 Commercial Item contracts. | Agencies may supplement the provisions and clauses prescribed in FAR Part 12 (to require use of additional provisions and clauses) only as necessary to reflect agency unique statutes applicable to the acquisition of commercial items. | |
| 75 | 11 of 75 RFP | DFAR 252.247-7003 | Recommend deleting the clause entitled “Pass-Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Adjustment to the Cost Bearer.” In the alternative, recommend that the contracting officer grant an exception to this clause pursuant to 252.247-7003 (b). | Clause will remain as written. | |
| 76 | General RFP | Various | There are a number of clauses (CENTCOM) and provisions (e.g., Iraq Convoy Security) that were developed based on a CENTCOM infrastructure in Iraq that may no longer exist after DOD’s drawdown in that country. Recommend that TRANSCOM review the continued applicability of such clauses in the USC-7 environment. | USTRANSCOM will continue to monitor the situation and the applicability of CENTCOM clauses. | |
| 77 | 2 of 9 | FAR 52.212-1 | Please clarify what topics must be addressed by written narrative as opposed to IBS/Care Submission. |
| Why are separate narratives required for each designated route and combined non-designated routes when most of the requested information beyond vessel profiles are the same company wide? | The requirement to submit narratives has been removed. Language will be revised in Amendment 4. | ||||
| 78 | 3 of 9 | FAR 52.212-1 | Will it be sufficient for an ALPHA rated carrier to submit TRANSCOM/USC-6 as its single reference for past performance given that it is a “pass/fail” evaluation? | Yes. However, USTRANSCOM reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own. | |
| 79 | 6 of 9 | FAR 52.212-2 | The language for the basis of award is inconsistent (best value v. low-price, technically acceptable. Recommend that best value be used for contract award and booking. | The basis of award will remain unchanged. Low-price technically-acceptable source selection procedures will be utilized for the base contract award. Subsequent task orders (bookings) will be awarded utilizing "best value" booking processes as identified in Exhibit 4 of the RFP. | |
| 80 | Worksheet | Exhibit 1, | |||
| Attachment 2 | Regarding Volume V, Pricing Proposal, paragraph c, 6 ii, the spreadsheet attachment 2 to Exhibit 1. The spreadsheet details splits for Karachi to Chaman Gate and Karachi to Torkham, but only lists points from Chaman gate to Afghanistan points. Do you also want the same information from Torkham to the Afghanistan points? Afghan points via Torkham are not listed in the spreadsheet. | Updated. Torkham to Afghanistan points are listed in rows 138 to 195. | |||
| 81 | Worksheet | Exhibit 1, | |||
| Attachment 2 | Each carrier’s full rate between port and FOB is the only rate that should be evaluated. That is the cost submitted by the carrier to the government. Comment was made that OSD is supposedly interested in better understanding the economic impact to the various nations through which NDN cargo is transiting between European ports and Afghanistan. The economic impact to various nations has no part in a low-cost, technically acceptable evaluation. Carriers price each component of a shipment individually – in this case, pricing is constructed as a through rate from the port to the FOB Carriers also conduct end-to-end analysis of the complete shipment revenue, the competitive environment and the overall capability to meet the government’s requirements. |
The presumption that the government will be able to determine any economic impact to the countries in the NDN transit countries is fundamentally flawed. Trucking rates to/from Afghanistan are priced by the trucking subcontractors to be all inclusive- this enables carriers to provide best pricing to the government, and include the complete transportation, including any rail and/or truck costs, any border crossing documentation, liability and profit components. Assigning a specific dollar amount to separate the pieces between port/border and border/FOB is not feasible. Additionally, if forced to develop some formula to do so, subcontractors may not be consistent. It is difficult to split items such as liability into two parts. The cargo may be on a truck longer during transit through European countries, while the threat of attack is more real during the transit within Afghanistan.
| If the government is insistent for this information, it should be obtained outside of the USC-7 bid process and only provided once the evaluations and awards are complete. | The information requested will be utilized as part of price analysis. | ||||
| 82 | N/A | General Question | In consideration of the Christmas and New Year holiday period, an extension on the January 17, 2012 due date would be appreciated. | Amendment 3 was issued on 24 Jan 2012 to extend the offer due date from 30 Jan 2012 4:00 PM CST to a date/time yet to be determined. | |
| 83 | N/A | General Question | When will TRANSCOM confirm the inclusion of Pay on Lift in USC-7? If removed from the solicitation, all contract rates will need to be increased to reflect the carrying costs and extended payment terms. This additional work revising rates would require CARE to be opened for a longer period. | It is the Government's intent to proceed with Pay on Lift, should this change, offerors will be allotted sufficient time to revise rates. | |
| 84 | 3-4 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | All of our commercial small business subcontracting plans are based upon fiscal year vice a shifting USC contract period. The plan was created IAW FAR Part 17.7, FAR Clause 52.219-9, and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003. This is done in order to accurately record and track small business spending and the plan is updated annually. Will the submission of a plan based on fiscal year satisfy the Written Proposal, Volume IV, Small Business Subcontracting Plan submission requirement? | The subcontracting plan (including goals) shall cover the offeror’s fiscal year and apply to commercial services performed by subcontractors under the contract. | |
| 85 | 6 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | In reference to Amendment #0001, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, (a) (1) (I.) (Vessel Profile) page 6 of 9. It states that to be rated as Acceptable, offerors must propose vessels that they own, or have control of. Is it Acceptable to use feeder vessels that are not U.S. flag for part of the transit to routes/zones proposed in the solicitation? If it is Acceptable, the wording should be changed to show that if the vessels are not owned or controlled by the offerors, than the offerors would also need to state that in their proposals to be rated as Acceptable. | Yes, it is acceptable to utilize feeder vessels that are not U.S. flag for part of the transit to routes/zones proposed in the solicitation. However, it will be evaluated at a lower priority (P2). Language will be revised accordingly. | |
| 86 | 45 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 5.Cc | CPARS | Question/Comment as written is unclear. Please provide clarification. | |
| 87 | 3 of 9 | Exhibit 1 | In only working with the RDC contracts in the past I wanted to make sure that I understand Volume IV under the USC-7. In the RDC contracts, the Small Business Subcontract Plan was based off of FAR 19.704 (see below language from RDC), however on the USC-7 Exhibit 1, Section 5, it states in accordance with FAR 19.702. How is FAR 19.702 different from FAR 19.704 on the requirements and what needs to be reported? Is it more simplistic? Can you please review our last subcontracting plan for the RDC and advise if this is sufficient for the USC-7? “b. Offerors should submit documentation reflecting their small business participation. Offerors that are not considered small businesses as defined by FAR 19.001, are required to submit a Subcontracting Plan with their proposals. The plan should be prepared in accordance with FAR 19.704 Offerors should address the following items in addition to the requirements of FAR 19.704: (1) Broadening Small Business Vendor Base -Describe efforts undertaken to broaden Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business and Women-Owned Small Business active vendor base. (2) Description of Supplies/Services to be Subcontracted - Identify the types of supplies/services planned for subcontracting. (3) Development of Percentage Goals for Small Business- Please explain efforts you will take to meet the following subcontracting goals established for this solicitation: - Small Business 28% - Small Disadvantaged Business 2.5% - Small Woman-Owned Business 2.5% -HUBZone Small Business 1.6% -Veteran-Owned and Service-Disabled 3% - Veteran-Owned Small Businesses 3% | Offerors plan shall comply with FAR 19.704. | |
| 88 | N/A | General Question | Can you advise when the written answers to all of the questions will be released? | All answers will be posted to FedBizOpps prior to the closing date of the RFP. | |
| 89 | 18 of 72 | Exhibit 3, (PWS) 3.C.1.3.2 | The language appears to be or is potentially misleading. The general $300 rule for compensation does not take into account varying distances (e.g. within remote inland locations) | After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement. | |
| 90 | N/A | General Question | Will TRANSCOM extend the USC-7 proposal and rate submission deadline to | ||
| February 16th, 2012 in accordance with previous USC submission schedules, most recently, USC-6? | Amendment 3 was issued on 24 Jan 2012 to suspend the offer due date/time from 30 Jan 2012 4:00 PM CST to a date/time yet to be determined. | ||||
| 91 | N/A | General Question | What is the CARE II open schedule? What dates and how many iterations will there be? | The Carrier Analysis and Rate Evaluation (CARE II) system opened 20 Dec 2011. Carriers will be notified of the CARE II Schedule. | |
| 92 | N/A | General Question | With the NDN being refreshed in 6 months increments, and the Option 2 year extended two months to end of May, how will the NDN rate offer work in conjunction with the rest of the rates for the new contract? Will the NDN rates be delayed to match the timing of CARE for the other rates, or will they be requested/entered for a separate period? | NDN Rates will be entered at the same time as all other rates in USC-7. | |
| 93 | N/A | General Question | Please advise when CARE II will be open for carriers to begin updating rates and services. | The Carrier Analysis and Rate Evaluation (CARE II) system opened 20 Dec 2011. | |
| 94 | 51 of 72 | PWS, 6.D.3.1 | High Risk Waters Armed Security |
a. We are very surprised at the change in ant-piracy security reimbursement to a CLIN that is bid. This is a significant change and is not consistent with the commitment of TRANSCOM since the inception of the Armed Security language in USC-6. Anti-piracy measures are not a commodity that can and should be bid. The pass-through charge to Transom is reflective of the required security onboard vessels through the Gulf of Aden and other high-risk piracy waters. We strongly believe that Transom should revert to the previous Draft 4 language and reimbursement mechanism.
b. Alternatively, if it stays a CLIN, please confirm that the anti-piracy CLIN will not be included in an analysis of rates as this too is inconsistent with prior TRANSCOM leadership commitments. a. After careful consideration and re-evaluation of the RFP language, the current language meets the Government’s requirement.
b. It will be evaluated at award , but not at the booking level.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .