RFP Question and Answers IV

Question and Answers Solicitation HTC711-12-R-C002

Question 1: The pricing scenario in the RFP is far more extensive than the current Category A contract and is therefore more than expected. Would the Government consider extending the RFP due date to allow offerors ample opportunity to develop fair and reasonable pricing for all CLINs?

Answer 1: The Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date.

Question 2: Please validate with the consignee that the delivery time is 0630L. This is different from what is currently occurring. Qatar for example, clearance is completed at 0800hrs and deliveries no earlier than 1000hrs.

Answer 2: Only shipments to USAMMCE Pirmasens, GE shall have the “Must be delivered at 0630L” (SLINS X001AA through X001AG). For Subcontract Line Item Numbers (SLINs) X001AH through X001BX, the “Must be delivered at 0630L,” language is deleted.

Question 3: CLINX001AC and all CLINs for Medical Prime Vendor in which the commodity is General Cargo. Why is this CLIN excluded from the WWX5 Contract for the shipments weighing 1-300 lbs?

Answer 3: The Medical Prime Vendor requirements have specific pick-up and delivery times which must be adhered to based on the type of commodity being transported. The WWX-5 contract was established to permit the carriers to propose company-unique transit times which may/may not compatible with these medical requirements. As the Government dictates the transit times for the CAT A requirement, these medical requirements were validated for movement under this follow-on contract.

Question 4: CLIN X003AC and all CLINs for AMCOM in which the commodity is General Cargo. Why is this CLIN excluded from the WWX5 Contract for the shipments weighing 1-300 lbs?

Answer 4: Reference Answer 3 above.

Question 5: CLIN X005AA what is the origin city?

Answer 5: No origin city is applicable. SLIN X005AA is a country to country blended rated.

Question 6: CLIN X005AA and all CLINs for Class VIII in which the commodity is General Cargo. Why is this CLIN excluded from the WWX5 Contract for the shipments weighing 1-300 lbs?

Answer 6: Reference Answer 3 above.

Question 7: CLIN X005CC please clarify which country is requested as the destination. Kazakhstand is not a country.

Answer 7: SLIN X005CC has been deleted from the requirement per RFP Amendment 0001. Attachment 2, CLIN Matrix, and Attachment 3, Volume Estimates, have been amended accordingly to reflect SLIN X005CC as “Reserved.”

Question 8: Appendix 6.11, lists the 20 Critical Controls; however these do not match those listed on the referenced website (http://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls/ <http://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls/>). Which critical controls would you like vendors to respond to. Those listed on the web or referenced in the solicitation?

Answer 8: Vendors shall respond to the 20 critical controls stated in RFP HTC711-12-R-C002.

Question 9: Is it your expectation that the offeror will complete the SF1449 continuation sheets as with most RFP responses? If so, can you provide instructions or an example using Attachment 1 and CLIN Matrix (Attachment 2).

Answer 9: No. The Government’s expectation is for offerors to insert a proposed all-inclusive cost-per pound rate for each Subcontract Line Item Number (SLIN) listed in Attachment 2, CLIN Matrix, including an individual price for the minimum charge and each weight increment for 1-300 lbs, 301-500 lbs, 501-1100 lbs, 1101- 2200 lbs, and 2201+ lbs. Offerors shall also provide a positional charge rate for those SLINs which include this charge. Offerors shall only complete the CLIN matrix for the base year.

Question 10: Will DIM factor 139 be applicable to all shipments? i.e. including Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) to Alaska?

Answer 10: No. PWS paragraph 1.5.1.2 and Appendix 6.1, Definitions, have been revised via Amendment 0001 to distinguish between international and domestic (CONUS to Alaska and Hawaii) shipments. International shipments shall use a DIM factor of 139, whereas domestic shipments shall use a DIM factor of 166.

Question 11: We are requesting the government re-evaluate an extension for the CAT A RFP. The scope of the RFP is more complicated than the draft RFP posted on FBO and vastly different from the existing CAT A contract. We feel it will be in the best interest of the government to allow additional time for pricing and proposal development. Since the current CAT A contract has been extended through 30 Nov 2012, an additional 15 day extension in the due date would benefit all parties.

Answer 11: The Government has extended the proposal due date to 11:00 am 9 July 2012.

Question 12: The instructions require that the offeror submit a plan for accomplishing the technical requirements in PWS 1.2 Safety and Audit Oversight Program. PWS paragraph 1.2.1.2 states that “The contractor may use subcontractors with pre-existing audits completed to satisfy other USTRANSCOM contract requirements until the audit becomes invalid.” Question: Will a separate plan need to be submitted as part of the response if submission of a completed pre-existing audit from a subcontractor will satisfy this requirement?

Answer 12: Offerors shall submit a realistic plan for accomplishing the technical requirements identified in the PWS, Para 1.2. Safety and Audit Oversight Program. The offeror shall describe their techniques, procedures, and approach for complying with the Safety and Audit Oversight Program for foreign flag subcontracted carriers.

Question 13: In section 1.8. DLA Troop Support, Medical the specifications for cold chain cargo are indicated. Please also specify what kind of hazardous materials and UN numbers may be expected and if they will require cargo aircraft only.

Answer 13: Paragraph 1.8 is specific to refrigerated medical shipments, not hazardous material. Paragraph 1.7.4 addresses HAZMAT Shipments and lists examples accordingly.

Question 14: For the section 1.8. DLA Troop Support, Medical please indicate what the commodity would be for outsized cargo.

Answer 14: Paragraph 1.8 is specific to refrigerated medical shipments, not outsized cargo.

Question 15: Can we use our CPARS rating and performance from the current CAT A contract as a source of past performance for this RFP?

Answer 15: Yes. However, please keep in mind that past performance information is limited to no more than 5 pages per contract reference.

Question 16: In regards to attachment 2, pricing matrix, is partial response allowed?

i.e. – does each/every rate field need to be populated for our response to be considered complete/acceptable or are we allowed to ‘no bid’ items outside our normal scope of operations such as life and death services under Class VIII?

Answer 16: No. IAW 52.212-2, to be eligible for award, offerors shall insert a proposed all-inclusive cost-perpound rate for each Subcontract Line Item Number (SLIN) listed in Attachment 2, CLIN Matrix, including an individual price for the minimum charge and each weight increment.

Question 17: As per amendment 2 just posted to FBO, the due date is extended to 09 July. Would USTC consider a corresponding extension to the past performance questionnaires? We respectfully request an extension until 02 July for the receipt of completed past performance questionnaires.

Answer 17: Past Performance Questionnaire submission is changed to read “request response no later than 29 June 2012”.

Question 18: Regarding appendix 6.11 and Technical Subfactor 3, Information Assurance and Cyber Security, do principle subcontractors also need to prepare and submit an information assurance report, or is this limited to the prime contractor only?

Answer 18: The Information Assurance and Cyber Security is limited to the prime contractor only. 52.212-2 paragraph a(i) Factor 1 – Technical Capability is amended to read, “The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals at the subfactor level on a acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below.”

Question 19: The Attached “Past Performance Questionnaire” seems to specifically focus on the contractor “Military” customers. Our commercial customers would not be familiar with some points, such as:

- Contract Number/Type (FFP, CPFF, etc)

- Contractor (Company/Division):

- On Page 2, it states:

NOTE: PPIRS may be reviewed for the contractors as well as responses to this questionnaire. Although you may have filed a CPARS for the contract listed, we would appreciate your response to this questionnaire because some of the questions relate to areas not covered by CPARS.

Am I correct in understanding that contractors should send this “Past Performance Questionnaire” only to our Military customers?

Answer 19: The offeror shall send out a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire) for each contract reference identified. This would encompass military and commercial contracts.

Question 20: I do not believe that USTRANSCOM allows for a carrier to have more than one sub. Would that be correct?

Answer 20: The CAT A solicitation language does not specify a limit on subcontractors; however, for each subcontractor you must comply with the past performance submission requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

Question 21: Can you tell me if an international carrier (not part of the CRAF program) can participate in the program as a subcontractor?

Answer 21: Yes, as long the prime contractor is in compliance with PWS section 1.2.

Question 22: Pass Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Adjustment to the Cost Bearer, page 44, FAR clause 252.247-7003. Will Attachment 2, Pricing Matrix CLIN be revised to add a CLIN for fuel surcharge?

Answer 22: The use of the clause in reference is a flow down clause of 252.212-7001, which requires the prime contractor to implement 252.247-7003 when entering into a subcontract. Since the government is not allowing fuel surcharges in CAT A requirement the flow down clause is not applicable; therefore, attachment 2, Pricing Matrix will not be revised.

Question 23: Various Tenders and Contracts have been combined under this solicitation requiring various core capabilities. For example, a carrier strong in transporting medical shipments may not have oversize capabilities. Please explain the rationale behind mandating the bidding on all CLINs. This is a substantial deviation from the current CAT A contract and Tenders.

Answer 23: The carrier may enter into teaming agreements to satisfy these requirements as deemed appropriate within each company’s business model.

Question 24: After review of the Medical Prime Vendor X0001 sheet, we have identified that accessorial charges associated with the MEDLOG Tender were not included. The following charges were identified:

− Re-Icing (Wet Ice) (Applicable only if due to Government direction/delay) − Re-Icing (Dry Ice) (Applicable only if due to Government direction/delay) − Dangerous Goods (DG) / HAZMAT Fee Per UN − Shipper's Hazardous Export Declaration Filing Fee − Dangerous Goods (Accessible or Inaccessible) − Dangerous Goods (DG) HAZMAT Fee Per Shipment (Dry Ice) − Signature Service − Address Correction and Re-Delivery − Full Replacement Value Insurance for Declared Item Value (Unit price per $100 value) − G-Box 4G/4GV (325mm x 245mm x 300mm) − G-Box 4G/4GV (430mm x 310mm x 300mm) − G-Box 4G/4GV (570mm x 370mm x 430mm) − G-Box 4G/4GV (770mm x 570mm x 550mm) − 4D UN Certified Wood Crate for 50KG (600mm x 400mm x 410mm) − 4D UN Certified Wood Crate for 120KG (800mm x 600mm x 600mm) − 4D UN Certified Wood Crate for 225KG (1160mm x 860mm x 630mm) − GPS Tracking Answer 24: Added re-icing accessorial charges to CLIN 0008. The other suggested accessorial charges are either already part of the contract or no longer a requirement.

Question 25: We appreciate the extension that has been granted moving the deadline date for responses to July 9, however, given that the July 4 holiday falls on a Wed not much is gained in terms of actual productive days as many people in industry have taken off the reminder of that week in conjunction with the holiday. Any chance of extending the due date further by a few days, say Thursday July 12?

Answer 25: The Government does not intend to further extend the proposal due date.

Question 26: I question the validity of PWS paragraph 1.4.2.2. Perishables. The contractor shall ensure the shipper has properly packed, marked, and labeled cargo to maintain accountability and identify handling criteria for prudent care in preventing neglect, deterioration and compliance with IATA or label requirements. When necessary, add wet or dry ice to material and repack once the package has reached, but not exceeded, its expiration time and date. To prospective carriers, this places too much risk to the contractor, because they are not the expert in packing, marking, and labeling cargo to maintain accountability.

Answer 26: Changed PWS paragraph 1.4.2.2 Perishables to read: The contractor shall add wet or dry ice to material and repack once the package has reached, but not exceeded, its expiration time and date.