Question and Answers for Posting IV.docx

Question and Answers Draft PWS Solicitation HTC711-12-R-C002

Question 1: Within the CENTCOM AOR, certain airfields require the Government or a Government representative to load and offload the aircraft, Paragraph 1.3.2 is in conflict with local procedures; example KATO is the Government agent at Kandahar Air Field. Will the PWS be modified.

Answer 1: PWS paragraph 1.3.2 is modified to read, “The contractor shall be responsible for aircraft load planning, weight and balance, loading/off loading, secure fastening, and any required special handling. Cargo may include hazardous material (HAZMAT) Classes 1 through 9 as defined in the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulation. At locations where the Government has operational responsibilities and representatives to load/unload the aircraft, the Government or its contracted agency will be responsible for loading/unloading the aircraft”.

Question 2: Would the government consider the following revision?

At point of pickup and delivery Consignor may load and Consignee may unload the carrier’s vehicle. Operational priorities often prevent the two parties being able to load/offload at the same time leading to inefficiencies and potential service delays. Allowing the Contractor to load/offload will improve service levels.

Answer 2: PWS paragraph 1.3.3 is modified to read, “At point of pickup and delivery Consignor may load and Consignee may unload the carrier’s vehicle. At a minimum, the Consignor and Consignee must be available for pickup and delivery of the cargo.”

Question 3: Please provide origin/destination locations for shipments.

Answer 3: Origins/destinations will be provided with the RFP.

Question 4: Section 1.14 Pre Alert Notification, Page 10, Paragraph 1.14.2. Is this a requirement for all CLINS?

Answer 4: Pre alert notifications applies to all CLINs.

Question 5: $100,000 per shipment is the commercial maximum amount allowed to be declared for carriage in the commercial industry, would the Government accept this maximum?

Answer 5: No. Paragraph 1.21.1 states “The contractor shall be liable for loss, damaged, or misrouted shipments. Unless the shipper declares a higher value on the shipment documentation, the contractor’s liability shall be limited to their commercial limitation of liability terms and conditions in their service guide (latest edition). All damaged shipments remain the property of the US Government.”

Question 6: Please clarify if the ASC is paid on Sales or Revenues. For other Contracts the ASC is paid on the revenue the carrier receives. It is not fair to the Contractor to pay ASC for a shipment in which payment has not been received. If the ASC is paid on Revenues, then it is not appropriate for the Government to calculate this amount unless a central Government payor is paying all invoices.

Answer 6: ASC will be calculated using the total shipment costs semi-annually. The detail report is submitted to the Government no later than the 18th of the month, which includes shipments from the previous month. The Government submits the ASC amount within 30 days after the end of semi-annual period; therefore, the risk of the carrier paying on a shipment that has not been received, or paid for, is minimal.

Question 7: Restricting positional weight from being charged for single-piece shipment weighing less than 150 lbs scale weight and having a length greater than 125 inches and less than 176 inches is unreasonable. A Contractor will make every attempt to best utilize the space available to accommodate a long, thin shipment. On occasion, especially with antennas, it is not safe to place a shipment on top of other shipments. In addition, a Contractor may have all other cargo in containers which eliminates the option to top load such a shipment. Any shipment which totally or partially prevents other freight from being loaded on to same pallet should be eligible for positional weight without limitations.

Answer 7: From historical data, the Government does not anticipate shipments under 150 pounds where positional charges are assessed.

Question 8: When will a template be available listing origin and destinations and the format for the pricing?

Answer 8: When the RFP is released.

Question 9: Are any new users anticipated at this point and will USTRANSCOM have historical movement data to provide industry if they are added?

Answer 9: In comparison with the current CAT A, United States Army Medical Material Center, Europe (USAMMC-E) United States Army Medical Material Center, Southwest Asia (USAMMC-SWA) are new users to the CAT A re-compete requirement. USTRANSCOM does have historical movement data that will be provided with the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Question 10: Page 4. Para 1.1.1, last sentence reads and within the definitions, “CONUS: All states within the contiguous United States, including the District of Columbia (DC). For the purposes of this contract, this includes Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.” However, the GLOSSARY OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION ACRONYMS & TERMS and Joint Publication 1-02 defines CONUS as “CONUS Continental United States “ and “continental United States — United States territory, including the adjacent territorial waters, located within North America between Canada and Mexico, respectively.” Additionally, the DTR defines CONUS as “Continental United States” and OCONUS as “Outside the continental limits of the United States. Why is USTC deviating from the Established and accepted definition of the GLOSSARY OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION ACRONYMS & TERMS, Joint Publication 1-02 and the DTR? Please provide your justification.

Answer 10: Provides flexibility; originally retrograde shipments stated individual depots. When the Government expanded the retrograde shipments to additional depots within the United States, the Government determined to add AK, HI, and PR as part of CONUS to prevent an overabundance of contract modifications.

Question 11: Page 5. Para 1.3.2., reads The contractor shall be responsible for aircraft load planning, weight and balance, loading/off loading, secure fastening, and any required special handling.

This would be the case on a full plane-load charter, but with less than pallet load, it is the air carrier responsible for this. What is the foundation for USTC thinking that a CRAF carrier would be responsible for another carrier’s aircraft weight and balance?

Answer 11: Paragraph states that the contractor is responsible for aircraft load planning, weight and balance, loading/off loading, secure fastening, and any required special handling. USTC does not consider that CRAF carriers are responsible for another carrier’s aircraft weight and balance as USTC places all contractual responsibility with the prime contractor.

Question 12: Is WWX participation a requirement for receiving an award under CAT A?

Answer 11: No.

Question 13: Page 25, Appendix 6.3, Para 1.1.1., Last sentence should read “Approved/validated users are identified in Appendix 6.2.”

Answer 13: PWS Appendix 6.3, Para 1.1.1. changed to read Appendix 6.2.

Question 14: Why is industry expected to re-compete for the business on shipments over $3,000 when the pricing that was originally submitted was deemed to be in a competitive range? What is the purpose of having submitted rates for lanes/projected volumes on routes when it appears that the Government may only want “One Day Quotes” on everything over $3,000? This practice is not a ‘Commercial Best Practice” and should be removed.

Answer 14: Seeking additional discounts before placing an order is suggestive and not mandatory. If a potential order is over $3,000 and an ordering officer seeks additional discounts, the ordering officer shall ensure each awardee is provided a fair opportunity.

Question 15: A carrier when handling a particular route establishes prime carrier routings, ground drayage both in CONUS and OCONUS and relies on partnerships to achieve the high on-time performance the Government expects. If the Government is only looking for the lowest cost for each shipment, it could backfire and cause unpredictable service by making multiple changes. Recommend removal of 1.1.6.

Answer 15: Through market research, the Government determined that spot bids are a good commercial practice for oversized/outsized cargo.

Question 16: Page 26, Appendix 6.4, Introduction fails to state this SAFETY AND AUDIT OVERSIGHT only applies to those operations into/out of military controlled airfields.

Answer 16: PWS paragraph 1.2.1 identifies the need for Appendix 6.4 for “air carriers that operate into or out of a military-controlled FOB/FOL airfields. Paragraph 1.2.1continues to state “This section does not apply to operations into or out of civilian-controlled airfields without a joint-use military presence where air carrier operations are governed by the applicable country Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requirements.” No change necessary.

Question 17: Will the current CAT A contract be extended?

Answer 17: Yes. The Government intends to extend the current CAT A contract to 1 December 2012.

Question 18: Will there be a pre-proposal conference?

Answer 18: The Government’s intent is to solicit carrier feedback by releasing the draft PWS with the pre-solicitation notice. The Government will determine the need of a pre-proposal conference from the questions received.

Question 19: Will CAT A be awarded to five carriers plus a small business CRAF carrier or including the small business CRAF carrier?

Answer 19: The Government intends to award approximately five awards. One of the approximately five is reserved for a small business if the small business participates in CRAF, is responsible, and awarded rates are at a fair market prices.

Question 20: If a shipper has a low number of shipments, their on-time performance percentage rating is significantly affected by only one or two late shipments. Would you consider evaluating shippers with low shipment volumes differently than on-time percentage similar to the methodology used for Cat-B?

Answer 20: We do not intend to modify the current language.

Question 21: Page 11 of 16, para 1.21.1 and Question and Answer 5. "Unless the shipper declares a higher value on the shipment documentation, the contractor's liability shall be limited to their commercial limitation of liability terms and conditions in their service guide (latest edition)." With the recently released Multimodal RFP, there liability limit of $50,000.00 dollars or " the actual amount of the loss or damage to the cargo, whichever is less." Will USTC consider placing the $50,000.00 limit on the liability to be consistent with other RFPs released from the same office?

Additionally, with the multimodal RFP "Should a shipper desire to declare the value of its booked cargo in an amount greater than $50,000, the shipper will order the "increased value" accessorial (see table of accessorials) which obligates the carrier contractor to be liable for damage and loss up to the amount stated below, or the actual value of the lost cargo, whichever is less." Does USTC plan on adding an increased value accessorial CLIN?

Answer 21: To be consistent with other contracts, language has changed to “The contractor’s liability shall be limited to the lower dollar amount of $50,000 or $9.07 per pound or the actual amount of the cargo”.

Question 22: The definition of CONUS deviates from accepted norms. Your answer states "...the Government determined to add AK, HI, and PR as part of CONUS to prevent an overabundance of contract modifications." All Government documents define CONUS as the "Continental United States". When you use the term "Government" in "...the Government determined to add AK, HI, and PR." do you mean the US Government, USTC or the CO?

Answer 22: This was a CO decision. For the CAT A requirement, definition of CONUS changed to meet DTR.

Question 23: With respect to question 19 (20) in the recent Q&A document posted on FBO, it is noted USTC does not intend to modify the current Draft RFP language to consider a minimum number of shipments when considering performance reliability, similar to USTC's Cat B contract. Would you please provide the confidence level (statistically speaking) you expect of your performance reliability ratings based on the undefined number of shipments (sample size)? With undefined sample sizes, does USTC feel confident this accurately reflects a carriers ability to deliver and their true performance?

Answer 23: The performance threshold for the CAT A requirement will remain as the contractor must meet the required transit times 95% of the time.

Question 24: Often oversize shipments require a flatbed or other specialized equipment for the pick up or delivery. It is in the Government’s best interest to allow an accessorial for this service instead of having the specialized equipment charge embedded into the transportation rate of all shipments. Will specialized equipment be an accessorial allowed to be charged?

Answer 24: No Accessorial for specialized equipment will be added. There will be a need for flatbed trailers but the contract contains CLINs for Oversize cargo.

Question 25: The PWS reads:

1.3.3. At point of pickup and delivery Consignor is to load and Consignee is to unload the carrier’s pickup/delivery vehicle.

Answer to Question #2 implies the consignor or consignee must be available to receive the shipment which is significantly different than allowing or mandating that they load/unload the carrier’s vehicle.

Could the PWS be rewritten to better explain the Government’s true intent? Is the consignee/consignor to load/unload the carrier’s vehicle or only be present?

Answer 25: Changed answer to question number 2.

Question 26: If the Government doesn’t anticipate any oversize shipments under 150 lbs where positional charges will be assessed, then why isn’t the PWS modified to remove this limitation?

Answer 26: Leaving this information as is gives clear concise language that positional charges are not applicable for a single-piece shipment weighing less than 150 lbs.