Multimodal Industry Final RFP Questions_Posted.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Multimodal Transportation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-12-R-R003
About this file
Attached is the Q A document in excel format.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 21
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
Sheet1
| # | Date Received | RFP Page # | RFP Para # | Question | Comment Category | US Government Response | |
| 1 | 28-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Could we please get copies of the documents with tracked changes? Specifically: 1) PWS | |||
| 2) Ordering Procedures 3) HTC711 | General | Documents are provided on fbo.gov | |||||
| 2 | 28-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Is there a way we can get the questions from the draft RFP in the original Excel format? | General | Documents are provided on fbo.gov | |
| 3 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Request an additional 30 days be added to the current deadline. | General | Per Amendment 0001, the due date for proposals is 7 May 2012. | |
| 4 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | TCAQ advised in their most recent response that the USG encourages active participation in the spot bid process. Failure to actively participate may result in negative annual past performance evaluation leading to termination or the option not being exercised. In light of the fact that Carriers have changes in service, vessel drydockings, airplane maintenance/downtime, would request clarification on how the USG will negatively penalize a Contractor for not bidding on Spot Bids. Any negative past performance w/ legitimate non bids due to circumstances beyond our control is very concerning and requires more clarity. | General | Pursuant to attachment 3, If the Government discerns a trend by a contractor consistently not submitting a spot bid for a particular requirement, route, and/or cargo type in order to only perform on a preferred requirement, route, and/or cargo type, it will consider this an unfavorable behavior and may elect to use the trend to negatively impact the contractor's past performance evaluation in the Business Relations section of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, unless the Contracting Officer determines extenuating circumstances exist. Additionally, any such unacceptable trend detailed above, as determined by the Contracting Officer, may result in the Government not exercising an option on the contract. | |
| 5 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Can TRANSCOM define the number of awards? | General | As stated in the Solicitation, the Government intends to award approximately 4 Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts as a result of this solicitation. | |
| 6 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Historical Data - There seems to be no correlation between the cubic information which ranges from 300 to 5440 as opposed to the van type information which indicates a 20' ft dry van for all moves, please clarify | General | The historical data was obtained from IBS. The cubic information is not of the 20ft van and therefore does not directly correlate to the container type. | |
| 7 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Would the Government extend the due date of this RFP to allow for clarifications, amendments and responses to submitted questions to be analyzed and incorporated in responses? | General | Per Amendment 0001, the due date for proposals is 7 May 2012. | |
| 8 | 13-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Attachment #1, #4 and #5 are missing--could you please confirm that there's no changes to the 3 files? | General | There were no changes to Attachments 1, 4, or 5 in Amendment 0001. | |
| 9 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | We note that the closing date has been extended an additional few days. However due to the overwhelming number of questions being raised, we request TCAQ revise the closing date to 27-Mar. | General | An additional extension will not be granted. | |
| 10 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Can an offeror offer as a Prime contractor who also bids as a subcontractor in a separate bid? How will their rates be factored in relationship to other contracts (ex: USC) when bidding/offering on this business? | General | Yes offerors can be a prime and a subcontractor to another offeror. Any rates submitted must comply with the McCumber Amendment to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904, 10 U.S.C. 2631. | |
| 11 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | How is Defense Base Act Insurance addressed in the RFP? | General | Defense Base Act insurance should be included in the offeror’s NTE rate/spot bid price. | |
| 12 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | I noticed in the amendments from 4/12/12 that the new response day is 5/7/12. I still don’t see where it has been posted on FBO.gov under response date and wanted to see if that 5/7/12 was firm. | General | The proposal due date is in the RFP, not on FBO. | |
| 13 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | I did not ever see an attendee list from the last meeting on 4/11/12. | General | The attendees list was posted to fbo.gov on 4/19/12. | |
| 14 | 28-Mar-12 | 69 | Para 12 | The Proposal Preparation Instructions identifies Part V as a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that applies to large businesses only. The instructions for submitting Parts I through VI do not include instructions for preparing Part V. In addition, there is no evaluation criteria identified for Part V. Can you please confirm whether a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required, and if so, what are the instructions for submitting as well as any page limitations? | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 15 | 30-Mar-12 | 69 | Para 12 | (12) (I) (e) lists Part V – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. However, in the instructions for submitting Parts I through VI, there is no mention of the Subcontracting Plan. Also in the Q&As, the government stated the requirement for the small business subcontracting plan would be deleted. Please clarify. | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 16 | 6-Apr-12 | 69 | Para 12 | The Question & Answers released the end of March state in Q37A that the Small Business (SBSP) Subcontracting Plan requirement has been removed but there remains some language regarding a SBSP within the Proposal Preparation Instructions (52.212-1). Please confirm. In association with this, if SBSP is removed, the numbering of the Proposal Sections should be Part I through Part V – correct?) | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 17 | 9-Apr-12 | 69 | Para 12 | (e) Part V - Small Business Subcontracting plan, please confirm that "Small Business Sub plan" is still a part of the requirement | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 18 | 6-Apr-12 | 69-70 | Para 12 | Section 12, Page 69/70, Subfactor 2 – EDI under Part III-Technical and Section 2 EDI Transaction of the Performance Work Statement: The Proposal Preparation Instructions references ‘Optional EDI requirements by the start of contract performance’ including discussion of inability to provide any of the optional reports and stating specific optional reports that cannot be provided; however the EDI section of the PWS does not list any optional reporting elements or discuss this requirement. Can you clarify this requirement? | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | Answer will be provided in the next round of Q&As. Any changes will be provided in Amendment 0003. | |
| 19 | 2-Apr-12 | 70 | Part III (d) | For our RFP proposal Part III Technical, Sub factor 4. Information and Cyber-security. Current requirement limits us to 15 pages. Do you only want the Prime or do you want us to include the sub’s information as well? If you do, the SANS 20 questions can easily take us over 15 pages if you want both prime and Sub. | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | Submission of Subfactor 4 - Information Assurance and Cyber Security applies only to the prime. | |
| 20 | 6-Apr-12 | 75 | Para (i) | The evaluation section states that offeror must submit a statement that transit times can be met for each zone-pair. Is that all your request, a statement confirming or do you want to see description information on how we have ascertained we can meet the transit times? The last sentence of that paragraph states that ‘Information submitted confirms that the offeror will meet all requirements of the solicitation.’ Is this just a confirmation of the offeror’s statement that we will comply with all requirements of the solicitation or indicating you expect to see additional information on how we will meet the transit times? | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | A statement is sufficient. No additional information is required. See revised Addenda 52.212-2 in Amendment 0002. | |
| 21 | 9-Apr-12 | 71 | Part VI (c) | Will bidders be required to certify that the pricing offered is for US Tail aircraft? | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | No, however, the contractor is required to meet all requirements of the Solicitation. | |
| 22 | 9-Apr-12 | 72 | Para (c) of FAR 52.212-1 | Holding prices for 180 days is often not a reasonable possibility. Would the Government change the firm offer hold time to 60 days? | Addenda 52.212-1&2 | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 23 | 9-Apr-12 | 52 | 1 | Recompetition: What is the justification and rationale for this language? This proposed language contradicts the standard Contractor Protection from Competition clauses and exposes Awardees to new bidders after awards and prices are revealed. | Additional Language | The Government has the right to anticipate and plan for unknown requirements. The Government will only release information subject to applicable statutes and FOIA. | |
| 24 | 9-Apr-12 | 52 | 1 | How is the Government’s best interest defined and determined? Who will make this determination? Will a written justification – D&F be prepared and subject to review? Why would new bidders be allowed to then compete for all future work rather than be limited to the task that “necessitated” the reopening of bids? Will the new bidders/awardees be ranked behind the original awardees? Will the original awardees be dropped from future task ordering? | Additional Language | The Government reserves the right to reopen the competition under this solicitation if there is shortfall in meeting the requirements among the existing IDIQ contract holders or if it is in the Government’s best interest to add new contractors to the original pool of IDIQ contract holders. The Government will document any exercise of this clause accordingly. Original awardees and new awardees would compete for all task orders fairly. | |
| 25 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.1 | Please provide specifics as to USTRANSCOM's metrics for satisfactory performance as noted in Section A.1, page 1. What metric(s) will be utilized? If more than one metric, what weighting factor(s) will be applied? How should each metric be quantified? | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Invoicing & Payment procedures describes what the Government requires contractors to submit invoices for payment. | |
| 26 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.3 | Can the Government please provide an timeline of events for a payment process including Financing Payments, payments for the "First Invoice" where it is not marked "final", and invoices marked "final"? What interest payment would apply for late payments as defined by the Prompt Payment Act? Comment: Paying "as soon as possible" does not work. The SDDC Accounts Payable department must have accountability. The Prompt Payment Act only applies to "final invoices", however, invoices for a percentage of cargo have no exact timeline for payment. Please consider revising this section. | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government's requirement remains unchanged and is adequately described in Attachment 2. | |
| 27 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.5 | Suggest to modify Interim Finance Payment be increased to 50% on all Routes; regardless of direction due to cost outlay for the various modes of transportation and the expenses incurred. | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government has assessed risk and established percentages appropriately. | |
| 28 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.5 | This item as written is inconsistent with the rating approach. Suggest adding the words ”scale or” before the word “dimensional” in the first and fifth lines. | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Governments requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 29 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.5 | What is the rationale for the varying percentages of interim financing? Why not pay 60% both ways? | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government has assessed risk and established percentages appropriately. | |
| 30 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.5 | In accordance with current practice, will the SDDC provide for 50% of "First Invoices"? | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government has assessed risk and established percentages appropriately. | |
| 31 | 16-Apr-12 | 1 | Para A.5 | Request the government reconsider their position of interim financing. In the proposal, air carriers are given 60% and sea carriers are given 25%. The DoD standard for sea is 50%. Air may be the larger component but it is also the fastest. The proposed approach places a penalty on the sea carriers since they are paid less and this is the longest part of the journey. If this is not adjusted, it will result in higher costs for the DoD for the sea component. | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government has assessed risk and established percentages appropriately. The interim payment percentage is determined by the direction (into theater or retrograde), not by the prime contractor (sea or air). | |
| 32 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para B.1.1 | "A proper interim financing invoice contains the following information: Port Call File Number (PCFN) (No more than 1 PCFN per invoice)." Since an interim invoice for advance payment of either 25% or 60% adds unnecessary administrative burden to the Government, would the Government consider revising Section B.1.1., page 2? | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 33 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para B.5 | Because use of a TPPS creates involves a required fee and adds additional administrative burdens on carriers and thus increases their overhead costs, would the Government accept the use of hardcopy invoices over the duration of this contract? | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | No, the Government will implement use of a TPPS when available. | |
| 34 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | The proposed invoice procedures are not realistic given the current operational environment in the theater of operations. Suggest these be adjusted to reflect current operations via USC06. | Attachment 2 - Invoicing & Payment | The Government requests clarification on this question. | |
| 35 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 1.1 | How will the OTO deal with cargo that is loaded but not booked to an ocean vessel. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | Only cargo that is booked should be loaded onto an ocean vessel, however, the Government will handle this on a case-by-case basis during contract administration. | |
| 36 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 1.2 | What party at TRANSCOM will limit competition? D&F determination? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | Unless it is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee, a J&A will be accomplished to limit competition for task orders. | |
| 37 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.2 | Will TRANSCOM make Multiple or Single awards per task order? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | A task order/PCFN will be awarded to one contractor. | |
| 38 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.2C | Will timeframe for deadline of rates submission constantly fluctuate or will it be set at 48 or 72 hours? Or longer? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government intends for contractors to respond to spot bids within 48-72 hours unless otherwise stated in the spot bid. | |
| 39 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.2C | What parameters can contractors expect to receive offers for spot bids? Will these be sent only Monday - Friday during US business hours? If offers for spot bids are sent on Fridays, will the response time be extended? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government intends for contractors to respond to spot bids within 48-72 hours unless otherwise stated in the spot bid. Weekends and federal holidays will be taken into consideration. | |
| 40 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.2D | Would the Government consider revising this period to 3-days duration (rather than 14 days) since it is not always possible for a firm hold where vessel departure schedules do not support this window? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | No, the Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 41 | 9-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.3 | Will excepted cargo be subject to NTE pricing? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | No. As stated in Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures the OTO process will be used for excepted cargo (as defined in the PWS). | |
| 42 | 19-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 2.3 | The OTO concept presented in the RFP is not clear. At what point does the cargo get categorized as OTO cargo? Is it when the awardees cannot perform at NTE rates? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | See revised Para 2.3 in Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures in Amendment 0002. An OTO will be accmplished for excepted cargo (as defined in the PWS), for requirements that do not have an established rate, and for special operational circumstances. | |
| 43 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para 2.4B | Last line, believe the letter “d” should be deleted and the number “1” inserted in it’s stead. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | See revised Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures in Amendment 0002. | |
| 44 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para 2.4B | Task Order Preference language – What will TRANSCOM do to verify that all Offers will provide air carriage by a CRAF Carrier than just “assume” this key requirement? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The contractor is required to meet all requirements of the solicitation/contract. | |
| 45 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para 2.4C(2)(ii)a | The formula in this section should reflect dimension or weight, “dimensional weight” is ambiguous. Suggest inserting the words “scale or” before the word “dimensional”. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The formula remains unchanged. Dimensional weight is defined in the PWS. | |
| 46 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para 2.4C(2)(ii)a | The evaluation formula calls for "spot-bid price per pound x estimated dimensional weight…", whereas, in the sample TO provided, both dimensional and scale weights are given. So can we change it to "the greater of the 2", which is consistent with the rating practice per the RFP? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 47 | 9-Apr-12 | 2 | Para 2.4D | What remedies will TRANSCOM employ if CRAF and VISA subcontractors are not utilized? Will non compliant awardees be banned from future task orders? What will be the impact on Past Performance scoring? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | As stated in the Ordering Procedures, "Contractors who fail to perform proposed carriage using stated CRAF/VISA carriers/subcontractors will be subject to contract remedies/adverse past performance ratings." During contract administration, the Government will assess contractor's past performance in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 42.1503. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to take all contractual remedies. | |
| 48 | 9-Apr-12 | 2&3 | Para 2.5 | Given that the government is making partial payments, and taking account of the fact that the contractor is required to submit actual weight and dimensional information with the invoice (Attach 2 Sec. B.1.1) we see little rational for this mechanic; the government will have actual information when the final invoice is submitted against which actual billings due can be submitted. The proposed wording is detrimental to accurate pricing and will result in contractors inflating prices to account for the potential loss of 20% on any given move. Suggest this section be deleted. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 49 | 9-Apr-12 | 2&3 | Para 2.5 | "If the scale or dimensional weight of the Task Order answer varies more than 20 percent above or below the estimated weight, an equitable adjustment…", suggest to change "estimated weight" to "greater of the estimated dimensional weight or scale weight". | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 50 | 9-Apr-12 | 2&3 | Para 2.5 | Variance : The weight variance language as drafted makes no sense. The Carriers are to be paid on weight. There should be no 20% waiver for variances and the Government should not be entitled to a windfall recovery for its failure to properly and accurately identify the task order weights. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 51 | 9-Apr-12 | 2&3 | Para 2.5 | If the Government requests an equitable adjustment, what provision is made for negotiation of the adjustment to the contract price? Can the variance of 20% be adjusted to reflect past performance variances or other basis for this percentage? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 52 | 9-Apr-12 | 3 | Para 2.6 | This should be qualified to take account of fact that not all air or sea carriers serve all lanes. Need to include something to qualify evaluation taking account of routes served vs. TOs bid. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | This solicitation requires contractors to bid on all zone-pairs and therefore service all locations. | |
| 53 | 9-Apr-12 | 3 | Para 2.6 | Competition What will be the impact on Past Performance scoring? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The impact to the contractor's CPARS evaluation will be determined by the Contracting Officer on a case-by-case basis. As stated in the Ordering Procedures, any such unacceptable trend, as determined by the CO, may result in the Government not exercising an option on the contract. During contract administration, the Government will assess contractor's past performance in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 42.1503. | |
| 54 | 13-Apr-12 | 1 | Para 1.2 | Will TRANSCOM please consider requiring that all Task Orders, including those that are not subject to competitive bidding (reference Attachment 3, 1.2 A-D), be distributed to all carriers? Additionally, will TRANSCOM consider citing the reason re Attachment 3, 1.2 Ordering: A-D and the Task Order awardee to the uncompeted but awarded task order so that all interested parties may have visiblity to the award process and can therfore ensure a truly competitive environment. | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | Unless it is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee, a J&A will be accomplished to limit competition for task orders. | |
| 55 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | It was verbally stated on the 10th that US tail aircraft (CRAF Carrier vs. CRAF Participant) are required for cargo that begins, ends or transits Bagram, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kandahar, Kabul, and Bastion unless due to technical reasons. Can the government confirm this point and update 1.21.2? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 56 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | When US Tail is required and available, will the government always select regardless of price? Will some price reasonability threshold be established and provided to the bidders? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | The Government will determine the best value offeror based on the ordering procedures. | |
| 57 | 19-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | TCAQ requires use of US Flag CRAF operated airplanes. However a significant percentage of the breakbulk cargo offered for transportation today under USC requires AN124s or IL76 that can be arranged through a CRAF provided but are NOT US FLAG. How will TCAQ manage these requirements? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | As stated in PWS, para 1.21.2, “If technical requirements exceed (cargo size and weight) aircraft available by any CRAF carriers, the contractor shall only use carriers capable of performing the service and, at a minimum, comply with the technical requirements identified in the CENTCOM Safety and Audit Oversight Checklist.” | |
| 58 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Given the US CRAF conveyance requirement for the five major airfields, what is the approval process for non-oversized cargo that will utilize a foreign flag in the event US CRAF aircraft are not available to meet the RDD? Given the significant amount of cargo and air shipments under the solicitation, how will the government monitor adherence to the US CRAF requirement? Will there be penalties for non-adherence to the requirements? What are the contemplated penalties? | Attachment 3 - Ordering Procedures | Non-availability of US aircraft to meet requirements for the five major airfields will be addressed by the Contracting Officer on a case-by-case basis. See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. As stated in the Ordering Procedures, "Contractors who fail to perform proposed carriage using stated CRAF/VISA carriers/subcontractors will be subject to contract remedies/adverse past performance ratings." During contract administration, the Government will assess contractor's past performance in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 42.1503. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to take all contractual remedies. | |
| 59 | 5-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Please have the Excel table reviewed. The formulas in the “TO 1” and “TO 2” are not right. | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | The Government has reviewed the excel spreadsheet and did not find errors. Please submit a more detailed and specific question and reference which task order scenario the error was located, the PCFN, and whether it is in the base period, option period 1 or 2, or the 6 month extension. | |
| 60 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Please advise the supporting data source for the transit time matrix. Per the published historical Multimodal shipment, which only includes sustainment cargo, the average transit time is 68 days, however, the transit times matrix stipulates an average transit time of 40 days, which is far lower than historical. also, out of the 802 shipment noted, only 24 would have made the required transit times. furthermore, the zone to zone transit time going in both directions has exactly the same length of time required, which seems over-exertive for retrograde cargo to have such strict transit time requirement. Could transit times be adjusted so that 1. they are more reflective of reality for sustainment cargo and 2. retrograde transit is somewhat more relaxed? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | The Government has determined these transit times will meet the Multimodal requirement. The Government will consider any proposed changes to the transit times prior to the cut off for solicitation questions. | |
| 61 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Accessorials - When transporting cargo in Afghanistan, Tarping and Physical Security are necessary when trucking outside of FOBs. As these services may become required for some not all cargo, how will they be implemented? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | Concealment requirements will be identified during the spot bid process. The cost for concealment should be included in the offeror's NTE rate and the price proposed in the spot bid process shall be adjusted according to the requirements presented at that time. | |
| 62 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Transit times are outlined basis minimum requirements. The 38 to 54 day transit times between the USA zones and the zones within Afghanistan (door-to-door) may not be supportable for very large shipments. Would the Government consider target transit time for large vs. small shipments? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | No, the Government will not consider different transit times for large versus small shipments. | |
| 63 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | The proposed transit times are quicker than 98% of the historical data provided for the previous year. Where did these rates come from and would the government consider expanding these times to allow for alignment with existing service that has met the needs of the DoD? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | The Government has determined these transit times will meet the Multimodal requirement. The Government will consider any proposed changes to the transit times prior to the cut off for solicitation questions. | |
| 64 | 16-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Inclusive of the proposed transit times are components that are outside of the control of the contractor and are in the governments control. Items like DIP Notes, convoy/security service, radiation inspection and wait times at gates are outside of our control. Could the government please break down their proposed transit times to show on average how many days they are applying to these government owned functions so we can then apply our transportation times to determine the best route? Also, what happens when a government process slips? Will that slip be added to extend the RDD? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | No. The RDD will remain the same. | |
| 65 | 18-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | We are able to input rates into the yellow blocks for the NTE spreadsheet for all the zone combinations. However, for the Tab labled TO #1 and TO #2 which are the sample task orders, the spreadsheet is "read only" and does not allow us to input our rates in columns E, F, G and or H. | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | See Addendum to 52.212-2(5)(v). The total evaluated price will be determined using the NTE rates. | |
| 66 | 19-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | The zone pricing strategy equates to an NTE pricing that can include any FOB in the Zone. How will carriers be allowed to revise to price new FOB that gets opened in a Zone that may be more remote / costly to service? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | NTE pricing covers all points within each Zone. | |
| 67 | 19-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | The Equitable Price Adjustment (EPA) for option years does not work as services are across many modes and several countries and regions with varying economic factors determining economic factor adjustments This worldwide average has a strong possibility to adjust pricing that will not reflect the NTE forcing abandonment of the NTE pricing scenario. In this case will TCAQ re-procure? Or allow contractors to offer higher than their NTE? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | Based on Government analysis, the GII has been determined to be an accurate tool for the multimodal requirement. | |
| 68 | 19-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | How will accessorials be evaluated? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | "In order to be considered for award, all NTE zone-pair rates and accessorials must be determined fair, reasonable, and realistic." Prices will be evaluated using one or more techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Based on the sample task order scenario, Government |
requested accessorials will also be included in the Total Evaluated Price.
| 69 | 19-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Costs per pound to handle large cargo that does not meet the definition of oversized or excluded cargo will be considerably more than costs of smaller pieces. What steps will the Government take to ensure a | |||
| fair evaluation that NTE pricing that can accommodate these large pieces? | Attachment 4 - Zone Pair Pricing Matrix | Prices will be evaluated in accordance with the addendum to 52.212-2. | |||||
| 70 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | U.S. Zone 4 and U.S. Zone 9 cover many states / miles. Can the Government divide Zones 4 and/or 9 further? These zones cover many states and long distances that can materially impact pricing. | Attachment 5 - Zone Maps | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 71 | 9-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | Several areas within Afghanistan are not numbered zones. Is this intentional and are any FOB or airports located within the un-numbered areas? | Attachment 5 - Zone Maps | The locations the Government intends to utilize for this contract are identified by their zone number. PWS para 1.1.3 allows the Government to add zones to meet mission requirements. | |
| 72 | 9-Apr-12 | 6 | 52.222-41 | TCAQ has advised that Service Contract will apply, but they have not provided any additional guidance as to which Wage Classifications apply to this Multimodal Contract, the application of Collective Bargaining Agreements; nor has a Compliance Guide been issued in relation to this contract. Request review of SCA as it relates to this solicitation. We note that the Wage Determinations provided in Draft Presolicitation includes 306 Pages of determinations, and we need clarification on SCA which job titles/occupation codes are expected to apply to this Multimodal Contract; as well as a Compliance Guide. | Clause 52.222-41 | See revised wage determinations in Amendment 0002. | |
| 73 | 17-Apr-12 | N/A | N/A | With respect to Q&A # 178 and 179 in the matrix, USTC states “….Multimodal is not the CRAF contract and its requirements are different from CRAF. Multimodal is intended to carry cargo, not PAX, and operations under this contract will not require this clause” |
FAR 52.250-1 is for both cargo and passenger carriers and the Multimodal contract does require CRAF carriers to fly out of the locations in the solicitation and PWS which are the same for the current International airlift contract. Why is it necessary for one contract, and not the other, which has the same customer, carrying the same cargo from the same locations to include FAR 52-250-1?
| Based on the statement in question 179, “….Multimodal is intended to carry cargo, not PAX”, Can any CRAF Carrier participate or are only CRAF Cargo Carriers eligible to be a Prime or Subcontractor? | Clause 52.250-1 | Indemnification will not be included in the multimodal RFP. Any CRAF carrier is eligible to be a prime or subcontractor for this requirement. | |||
| 74 | 16-Apr-12 | 38 | EPA Clause | The GII for fuel is not an accurate tool for fuel pricing in the Afghanistan region as the index is: |
1) A global average that does not take into account the large regional swings in the theater
2) An average that is computed by quarter in a theater where things can vary greatly by day
| We understand the need for some measure but suggest the government use daily fuel prices by key locations in the theater on a weekly basis as an accurate measure or allow carriers to submit REAs. | Clause - EPA | Based on Government analysis, including consultation with DLA-E, the GII has been determined to be an accurate tool for the multimodal requirement. | |||
| 75 | 9-Apr-12 | 3 | Para 1.1 | Add Clause allowing for Damage to Contractors Equipment: The Contractor may be entitled to reimbursement for damages to Contractor owned equipment when such damage or loss is by act, neglect or failure to maintain equipment by the US Government, its agents, employees or Contractors (other than the prime Contractor) while such Contractor equipment is in the custody and care of the US Government, its agents, employees or Contractors (other than the prime |
Contractor). The US Government shall repair or reimburse the Contractor the least of the following:
1. The reasonable costs of repairs; or
2. The purchase price as stated at paragraph (####).
| The US Government shall notify the Contractor of damage to Contractor's equipment while in the US Government's care and custody immediately upon identification of the occurrence of said damage. The Contractor shall assign to the US Government any rights, causes of action, or other claims, which the Contractor may have against third parties with respect to such damage. | PWS | The Government does not anticipate the need for this language. Any instances will be handled on a case-by-case basis. | |||||
| 76 | 9-Apr-12 | 3 | Para 1.1.2 | What party will transport the Government cargo to and from the seaports? Will the transport be under USC-07? | PWS | Zones followed by the letter "P" will be a seaport booking and transportation to/from the seaport will be the responsibility of the Government. | |
| 77 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5 | How long must the contractor hold the documents? | PWS | See FAR clause 52.212-5. | |
| 78 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5 | Description of data points that need to be on a delivery receipt. Carrier, PCFN, IBS TCN, container number, Consignee DODAAC, final destination, truck number, driver name, date cargo arrived, time cargo ingated, time cargo offloaded, printed consignee name, consignee signature. This list includes 13 data points to be captured on the Delivery receipt which constitutes an administrative burden for all parties. What process will be used to minimize this impact and to facilitate efficiencies? | PWS | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 79 | 16-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5 | In light of the numerous problems and delays being encountered with container deliveries in Afghanistan - Main Bases and FOBs, TRANSCOM's delivery receipt process required data is unrealistic and impractical. Making copies, date tracking/recording etc is not possible with foreign drivers. The Delivery receipt has to be modeled on the USC-06 process. | PWS | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 80 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5.5 | Delivery Receipt – Who will sign the receipt for the Contractor? | PWS | As stated in PWS Para 1.5.5, the consignee or consignee's agent will sign to acknowledge receipt. | |
| 81 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5.7 | Clause states that, "If damage is later discovered, the contractor will be notified and requested to survey cargo." Does Contractor have the right to refuse a survey if we believe the cost is not justified? Who pays for the survey? Claims process should be REF: DTR Vol. 2 Exhibit 2 item 4. Survey of expected concealed damages to cargo. | PWS | If cargo is damaged, the contractor has the right to inspect/survey the damages. However, the contractor can waive their right to conduct the survey. | |
| 82 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5.7 | Does incorporation of DTR language confirm or contradict this statement? | PWS | The incorporation of the language is consistent with the DTR. | |
| 83 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5.8 | There are instances where Contractors cannot get an actual signature on a Delivery Receipt by the Consignee. What requirement is there from the USG that Consignee's are required to Sign Delivery Receipts? Request Government representative sign for all delivery receipts. Clean chain of custody at all times. | PWS | The requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 84 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.5.8 | Delivery Receipt information. The information requirements are not realistic. Drivers are the only partially allowed on the base. The drivers do not speak English and cannot fill out much of the data. | PWS | The requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 85 | 9-Apr-12 | 4 | Para 1.6.1 | The requirement that the contractor shall provide duty-free customs clearance processing at both military- controlled ports in and civilian-controlled ports…" is contrary to common practice, where the Government handles customs clearances at military-controlled ports. Would respectively ask the language be changed to the following: The responsibilities for cargo clearance under this contract are shared between Contractor and US Government. The US Government shall provide clearance services in 1. all United States territories and possessions; and 2. Kuwait. | PWS | Answer will be provided in the next round of Q&As. Any changes will be provided in Amendment 0003. | |
| 86 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.6.3 | Contractors performing Customs Clearance are operating under the same procedures in USC-07. In order to ensure strict compliance with requirements and local customs regulations, Industry suggests updating this clause as follows: "The Contractor shall promptly notify the cognizant COR and SDDC Battalion within 24 hours if cargo is held up by Customs, or if the local port authorities require direct US Government intervention for cargo customs clearance." | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 87 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.6.4 | The US Government should be the party responsible for coordinating with host nation. Military cargoes are unique and it's likely the contract can not get approvals to move USM cargoes through hubs not vetted and agreed to by the host nation and the US Military. | PWS | The Government will assist with coordination necessary however, the assumption is it is a contractor responsibility because this is a commercial contract where the contractor presumably already operates. | |
| 88 | 16-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1 | 24 hours is not enough time for cancellation. Suggest a change to something that allows for a longer period of time (seven days) and some provisional payment if cancelled within those seven days. Everything in this program calls for a tight alignment of supply (carriage) and demand (cargo). If this does not happen without some assurances of cost recovery, economies of scale/scope/density will not be realized and the government will pay more. | PWS | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 89 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | Language states that , "Large-scale cancellations or long term reduction of requirements will not normally be covered by this paragraph." If these instances are not covered by the 24-Hour timeline for cancellation, what happens if an aircraft has already arrived at the APOE? Request Government to expand with new language defining large scale cancelations. Example; How does cancelation process work (time line)? | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 90 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | What is the justification for no penalty if the Government cancels the booking? What happens if the cargo is subsequently moved? Will the task order awardee be given/ move the cargo? | PWS | The Government requires operational flexibility. Special situations will be addressed by the Contracting Officer. | |
| 91 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | How does the Government intend to mitigate the impact to contractors where a cancellation of cargo is done after flights are scheduled and committed ahead of the 24 hour cancellation window noted? | PWS | The Governments requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 92 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | Would the SDDC provide for a minimum of a 72-hour cancellation period in order to assist the necessity of making arrangements for the cargoes, managing storage space and the dealing with logistical impacts? | PWS | The Governments requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 93 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | Will bookings get decreased in a timely manner? What are the repercussions for the government if cargo is not canceled on time? | PWS | Special situations will be addressed by the Contracting Officer. | |
| 94 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | What would cover large scale cancellations? | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 95 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | What provision will the Government make to cover incurred expenses that were required to be made prior to a cancellation notification? How would the TO process allow re-staging into a local holding area for anything than an FOB cannot store? | PWS | In response to the first question, the Governments requirement remains unchanged. Please clarify last question. | |
| 96 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.1.1 | What is meant by "large scale cancellations"? If the contractor is engaged to make a large scale move where equipment and personnel are engaged prior to the cargo cancellation, who is responsible for the costs of such futile trips? Can the Government include language to ensure that the contractor will be reimbursed for all costs incurred prior to cancellation? | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 97 | 16-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.3 | Suggest the government revise the clauses on staging so that they are in alignment with USC (Section 3). | PWS | The Governments requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 98 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.3.1 | Staging One business day to commence movement is not realistic. Change to ….commence on-carriage within 3 business days. What is the daily compensation rate for Staging? What is included in the rate? | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 99 | 9-Apr-12 | 5 | Para 1.8.3.1 | One business day can often be too short a time to allow contractors to position trucks, particularly in Afghanistan and CASA locations. Can the Government extend this time? | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. There are no CASA locations under the current zone structure. | |
| 100 | 9-Apr-12 | 6 | Para 1.9 | How would the contractors conceal the cargo (including shapes) for a door-to-door delivery? Would contractors be obligated to conceal cargo in the USA zones? | PWS | Concealment requirements will be identified in the spot bid process. | |
| 101 | 9-Apr-12 | 6 | Para 1.10.2.2 | Drop and Pick – What should the Contractor not be compensated for this service? | PWS | Drop and Pick requirements will be identified in the spot bid process. | |
| 102 | 9-Apr-12 | 7 | Para 1.11.4 | Item says “When a GFC is booked as breakbulk”; what is intended/implied by these words. The contract by virtue of the rates requested is breakbulk rated in nature (per pound – weight or measure) the government has not requested separate container rates. (see also definitions question on dimensional weight). Under the rating mechanic, the box would/should move as by weight or measure. | PWS | The intent of the wording is to provide the Government the operational flexibility to ship GFCs that are improperly numbered or ones that do not comply with ISO, IMO and CSC standards. | |
| 103 | 9-Apr-12 | 7 | Para 1.11.4 | If Government cargo is booked as breakbulk, why would it be delivered in a improperly numbered GFC? Will the Contractor be compensated for the extra handling charges? | PWS | Cargo will be identified as breakbulk during the spot-bid process and handling charges will not be separately priced. | |
| 104 | 9-Apr-12 | 7 | Para 1.13.2 | If fuel is made unavailable for sale to the vendor (either by local suppliers or by the Government), would the Government agree that this would be the basis for suspending penalties or negative scorecard on performance? | PWS | This is situation dependent, see PWS para 3.3.1.1. | |
| 105 | 9-Apr-12 | 7&8 | Para 1.14 & 1.15 | Relative to rinsing and washing, please confirm if the government directs either to be accomplished at a place/facility other than the Contractors chosen facility that the government will be liable for reimbursement of any additional costs incurred associated with such direction. | PWS | When a specific wash/rinse place/facility is requested, this information will be included in the spot bid request and contractors shall bid accordingly. | |
| 106 | 9-Apr-12 | 7 | Para 1.14.4 | If cargo washing is performed at POE and approved by USDA why would the cargo be rejected by | |||
| USDA at the POD? | PWS | Address with the CO if the situation arises. | |||||
| 107 | 9-Apr-12 | 7&8 | Para 1.15 | Industry requests that Detention Charges be outlined in the contractual language. TCAQ has previously advised this would be handled on a case-by-case basis and that it is not expected to occur. In areas such as Afghanistan, those unexpected occurrences usually do come up and it would be in the best interest of both parties to outline this information at the start of the RFP stage prior to award. Request that detention provisions be added as an assessorial rate. | PWS | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 108 | 9-Apr-12 | 8 | Para 1.15.1.4 | Can this clause be modified to include a dependence on a wash order being placed by the Ordering Officer at booking? If the OO does not order the washing, the US Government is liable for washing and movement costs as well as potential related costs and delays impacting the contractor's movement. | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 109 | 9-Apr-12 | 8 | Para 1.15.1.4 | Language should be updated to state that the Contractor is not responsible for rinsing or washing of the following: (a) the interior of any cargoes; or (b) any areas that require disassembly of the cargo to perform the washing or rinsing services. Contractor shall re-wash cargo at Port of Debarkation if rejected by customs/agriculture authorities, but will only be responsible for the cost of the rewashing if the rejection is due solely to failing to wash exterior areas that can be washed to meet contract standards without disassembly. The US Government shall reimburse for the cost of rewashing if the rejection is due in whole or in part to dirt and debris in interior areas or in areas that could not be accessed adequately for washing without disassembly. Currently carriers are not authorized nor are they qualified to disassemble government cargo and request further clarification on areas of the vehicle that can not be reached. Requested updated washing guide. | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 110 | 9-Apr-12 | 8 | Para 1.15.2 | This is a new requirement and there are no defined standards to wash the interior of unpackaged cargoes, similar to USDA DTS Guidelines. Additionally, what provisions exist to hold contractor harmless if damage is caused to any equipment or electronics remaining inside the equipment. Request this requirement be removed from the RFP, and that USG performs this at Cargo Origin. This is a subjective "cleaning" and without well-defined standards of Interior Washing, Contractors cannot ensure full compliance to this requirement. Requirement added with no USDA Guidelines or specifications for interior washing Please expand on 1.15.2.1 with updated USDA guidelines. | PWS | See revised PWS, Amendment 0002. | |
| 111 | 9-Apr-12 | 8 | Para 1.16 | TDRs Who will issue the TDRs? Will copies be sent to the Contractor within 24 hours of issuance? | PWS | TDR procedures are outlined in the DTR. | |
| 112 | 9-Apr-12 | 9 | Para 1.17.4.3 | CAC Cards - The language as currently drafted is overly restrictive and ignores the ground situation in Afghanistan and other locales. Contractor personnel whether in CONUS or OCONUS and select foreign national need CAC cards. What will TRANSCOM do to address this real need? | PWS | The requirement remains unchanged, however, USTRANSCOM continues to consider this situation. | |
| 113 | 9-Apr-12 | 9 | Para 1.17.4.3.5 | Where the current CAC card does not work, what other method will be available for logical access to Government networks? | PWS | The requirement remains unchanged, however, USTRANSCOM continues to consider this situation. | |
| 114 | 9-Apr-12 | 11 | Para 1.18 | Was it the Government's intent to leave off the TCN as one of the required data elements? | PWS | Yes, the Governments requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 115 | 9-Apr-12 | 11 | Para 1.18.1 | Would the Government consider removing this requirement? These data are already provided in booking and invoice data. | PWS | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 116 | 9-Apr-12 | 11 | Para 1.18.1 | Would the Government consider revising this requirement? These data are already provided in daily ITV, either through CIET, daily emailed spreadsheets and EDI X1 transactions. CIET / EDI / ITV / Monthly reports are all redundant to each other. In the interest of lowering overall costs, would the Government consider reducing this reporting burden? | PWS | Answer will be provided in the next round of Q&As. Any changes will be provided in Amendment 0003. | |
| 117 | 9-Apr-12 | 11 | Para 1.19 | How extensive a response will the Government require for CONOPS reports to SDDC? What kind of report (type, format, detail level, etc.) is anticipated? | PWS | CONOPS requirements will be provided at time of the request. A CONOPS request will generally include mode of travel, route of travel, overflight, and other details critical to the success of the move. |
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 .