Multimodal Industry Questions on 2nd Draft FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 88 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Multimodal Transportation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-12-R-R003
About this file
Per carrier request attached is an excel version of the Q A from the second draft RFP.
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-Feb-12 | 82 | 1.1.3 | If NTE pricing per pound remains as an evaluation criteria/pricing element by the government, industry suggests the government consider accessorial charges similar to other contracts utilized for all potential modes of transport covered under the multimodal program. The amount of pricing elements that need to be taken into account for this contract are too many and too fluid to consider a blanket NTE per pound rate without the benefit of accessorial charges. | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. All other costs should be included in the NTE rate. | |
| 2 | 28-Feb-12 | 5 of 2nd draft | 1.8.1.6 | The RFP needs to address compensation issues associated with staging at various nodes (port storage, container detention, warehousing, idle assets) and base gate delays (driver wait time). The RFP also needs to address equipment delays in CONUS (e.g., detention). | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. All other costs should be included in the NTE rate. | |
| 3 | 28-Feb-12 | Multiple pages | 1.9, 1.13-1.15 | The PWS notes a number of services to be provided including tarping (1.9), cargo washing (1.13), cargo handling services (1.14) and “Other Services” (1.15). Are these services to be priced separately or are they to be included in the price per pound? | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. All other costs should be included in the NTE rate. | |
| 4 | 21-Feb-12 | 92 | 1.13 | Reference: Section 1, Page_92_, Paragraph_1.13, Cargo Washing Service. Who currently performs this service? Since the government requires each contractor to perform this, the government will not gain the benefits of scale since each contractor will have its own vendors to perform this service. Has the government thought about contracting this separately to realize a savings? Will a similar statement be placed in the multi-modal solicitation? | Accessorials | The contractor currently performs cargo washing services. The Government believes the acquisition strategy will meet the requirements and provide the best value. | |
| 5 | 13-Feb-12 | 92 | 1.13 | If washing services are required or not required can affect price of the move. Will the contract take this into account by having this fee separated from the transportation cost? | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. All other costs should be included in the NTE rate. | |
| 6 | 28-Feb-12 | 7 of 2nd draft | 1.14 | Is it the government position that washing costs are to be included in the per pound rate quoted or will washing costs be the subject of an assessorial rate? | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. | |
| 7 | 28-Feb-12 | 7 of 2nd draft | 1.14 | Cargo washing requirements should be consistent with USC-7 and be limited to exterior of unpackaged cargo. | Accessorials | See revised PWS in the solicitation. | |
| 8 | 28-Feb-12 | 7 of 2nd draft | 1.14.1 | Draft washing requirement is obsolete. Needs to be revised to reflect current USC practice. Associated regulations are out of date with current combat equipment and lacks specifics to meet USDA requirements. | Accessorials | See revised PWS in the solicitation. | |
| 9 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What are the allowable accessorial for air, ground and Ocean are to be considered in the NTE pricing? E.g.. oversize, over dimensional, arms and ammo, haz mat, special handling equipment (Crane for loading due to broken equipment) | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. All other costs should be included in the NTE rate. | |
| 10 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Under what situations will additional incurred charges be billable to the government outside the NTE? | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment will provide examples of pass through charges. | |
| 11 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will language be added for delays, standby, and detention? | Accessorials | The Government has identified applicable accessorials under this solicitation. Reference Attachment 4. | |
| 12 | 28-Feb-12 | 10 of 2nd draft | 1.17.5.1 | The government will see the vessel booked within IBS for sea moves, how does the government plan to monitor use of CRAF airline assets during performance of awarded task orders? | Booking | CORs will monitor the contractor in accordance with the QASP. | |
| 12A | 16-Mar-12 | 64 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.17.5.1 | Government Response to Item # 12 in relation to 1.17.5.1, USG refers to the fact that COR's will monitor the contractor in accordance with QASP. Industry recommends that reference to this system be elaborated on in the Multimodal Contract. The Draft RFP does not provide any detail as to what QASP is, nor what Contractors are required to update in that system. | Booking | The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government document to assist the CORs in monitoring performance and is not part of the contract. | |
| 13 | 28-Feb-12 | 13 of 2nd draft | 2 | How will the bookings work in a spot bid process since the "booking" will effectively be the Government's acceptance of a particular carrier's spot bid? The PWS contemplates a "USC" like booking process, but USC does not use spot bids. It is unclear how a USC-like booking process will work in a spot bid environment. | Booking | IBS will be used to book all shipments. | |
| 14 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Not clear how systems will work. RFP contemplates spot bids, but then also provides for cargo bookings and schedule maintenance. Will IBS be the booking system? | Booking | Yes. | |
| 15 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | How will IBS support the Spot Bid Process? IBS only supports Fixed Rates and Schedules | Booking | TCAQ will conduct Best Value Determinations for awards on bids received via the spot bid process. IBS will be used to book all shipments. | |
| 16 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Must vessel schedules for this contract be input into IBS in addition to vessel schedules for USC? | Booking | Yes. | |
| 17 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What entity will actually book multi modal cargo, SDDC, AMC? What is the role of CENTCOM in booking cargo? | Booking | SDDC will book the cargo. CENTCOM is the requiring activity. | |
| 17A | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Will Airlift Schedules need to be input for any portion of the IBS schedule, or does TCAQ/SDDC expect only the vessel schedules to be input? | Booking | Only vessel schedules will be input into IBS. | |
| 17B | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | How would these Bookings/offers effect current EDI Logic - i.e. POL/POD is currently mapped however since these will be routed per our discretion how will this affect EDI logic? | Booking | The Government requires further clarification of question. | |
| 17C | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | How will these multi-modal bookings differ from current bookings? What more/less information will Carriers be provided? | Booking | The Government will provide all information the contractor needs to provide a spot bid. Some of this information may include weights, declared value, pick up and delivery information, dimensions, RDD, etc. Attachments L-1 & L-2 provide examples. | |
| 17D | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Do we lose the right to counter if booking differs than the awarded bid? | Booking | The booking constitutes a task order and must be accepted. | |
| 17E | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Customs Documentation - need contract to reflect shipper is responsible for the timely submission of customs docs and the accuracy of the same. | Booking | Customs procedures will be accomplished in accordance with the PWS. | |
| 18 | 8-Feb-12 | 86 | 1.10 | Clarify that a bidder; Must be CRAF or VISA (Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement) carrier in good standing throughout term of contract. In particular – can a CRAF carrier submit a proposal utilizing ocean rates from VISA carriers or would the CRAF carrier need to team with a particular VISA carrier to submit an acceptable bid. In addition would a responding VISA carrier need to have a CRAF carrier as a team member – if the VISA carrier was the Prime in a submission? | Clarification | So long as the prime contractor is a VISA or CRAF carrier, subcontracting the air or sea portion to a CRAF or VISA carrier, no formal teaming arrangement is necessary. Prime contractors are not restricted to any one particular subcontractor so long as the subcontractor is a CRAF or VISA carrier on any particular movement. IDIQ proposals should state and demonstrate prime contractors will subcontract either air or sea portions with either a CRAF or VISA carrier. The solicitation contemplates prime contractors utilizing multiple CRAF or VISA carriers to achieve the best value for the Government. | |
| 19 | 28-Feb-12 | 10 of 2nd draft | 1.17.5.1.2 | Is the CRAF Carrier responsible for completing the safety and audit oversight program for non-DOD approved subcontracted air carriers? | Clarification | See PWS Para 1.17.5.1.2 | |
| 20 | 28-Feb-12 | 10 of 2nd draft | 1.17.5.2 | Please clarify “The contractor… may not use a lower VISA priority without approval of the Contracting Officer” on how the procedure works? Please confirm that a contractor must be approved every time in order to use a lower priority. | Clarification | See revised PWS Para 1.17.5.2. | |
| 21 | 28-Feb-12 | 5 of 2nd draft | 1.6 | Since there may be some redesign of the cargo from its initial tender Customs clearances may not be as simple as when a through/intact shipment occurs. There may be some requests for additional documentation from the USDOD that normally are not required. As example; if there are 3 shipments picked up from DDSP, DDJC, and DDWR going to Bagram AB, each shipped separate from the U.S., then decontainerized at Jebel Ali and some of shipment #1 and some of shipment #2 are in a newly created air shipment to Bagram, the original consignment has been altered and the original documentation does not match the export shipment. This can be completed without an issue, again it may cause some new or additional paperwork from the USDOD. For fully intact shipments to "pass through" and | |||
| covert to air there is no issue. | Customs Clearance | The government will take this into consideration when refining the requirements. | |||||
| 22 | 28-Feb-12 | 5 of 2nd draft | 1.6.3 | Can we expand on this process as customs clearance usually takes between 8 and 72 hours depending on location? At what point does the 24 hours start counting? | Customs Clearance | From time of detainment, the contractor has 24 hours to notify the Government. | |
| 23 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | If contents are not allowed to move onward due to customs regulatory issues, where are the items to be transported to and whom are the items to be turned over to for change of custodianship? | Customs Clearance | This will be worked on a case-by-case basis. | |
| 24 | 28-Feb-12 | 13 of 2nd draft | 2.1 | Airlift EDI messages are normally provided to the GTN via EDI 214 formats. Will this be acceptable? | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 25 | 28-Feb-12 | 13 of 2nd draft | 2.1.6 | As 304s are not used in the USC can the EDI requirements be expanded? | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 26 | 28-Feb-12 | 13 of 2nd draft | 2.1.7 | Assume this will also include 214 for airlift? | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 27 | 28-Feb-12 | 13-14 of 2nd draft | 2.2.2 | Can we add the EDI 214 messages and remove the APOE/APOD for the 315 messages? | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 28 | 28-Feb-12 | 16 of 2nd draft | 2.6 | What is Section 2.6 intended to cover? Does conveyance refer to the mode of transportation or the container/pallet? How is this different from Daily ITV? | EDI | PWS Para 2.6 is removed. | |
| 29 | 28-Feb-12 | 17 of 2nd draft | 3.3.2.1 | We see container operations have 9 differing 315s and bulk operations have 8. However with vessel transshipment and air operations I, AE, VD, VA, UV, OA may be submitted multiple times. Will these multiple transactions be entered into the performance objective EDI score? | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 30 | 13-Feb-12 | 99 | 4 | Please confirm EDI 304s will be transmitted to the contractor. | EDI | See revised EDI language in PWS. | |
| 31 | 10-Feb-12 | 109 | 7.2 | Is the government willing to provide GPS and satellite tracking in CONUS/OCONUS as well as the transmitter to enable the satellite tracking of ammunition line hall as outlined in the RFI? | EDI | No, the contractor will provide GPS and satellite tracking. | |
| 32 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will the government provide information on the Defense Transportation Electronic Data Interchange (DTEDI) approved Implementation Convention for the ANSI X 12 300, 301, 303, 304 and 315 transaction sets? | EDI | Request more detailed and specific question be submitted. | |
| 33 | 14-Feb-12 | 122 | Addendum 52.212-2 Para (4) Part IV | The paragraph states “Part IV - Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent past performance efforts. The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. “ The way this is written, there are only 3 contractors that have past performance experience performing this requirement. Would the government consider rewriting this to read… Part IV - Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on similar past performance efforts with either government or commercial customers. The Government will consider similar past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. | |||
| Evaluation | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | ||||||
| 34 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | An evaluation factor to receive a contract award is that an Operational Plan must be submitted and rated on a scale; however, there is no identifiable benchmark for comparison purposes to assign strengths or weaknesses to unless you possibly consider the delivery time (faster better); therefore, thinks this should not be a factor for an award, nor should its submission be required, since Past Performance would be the best evaluation factor for determining operational capacity and meeting stated delivery outcomes/goals. | Evaluation | At this time, the Government intends to evaluate both technical and operational plans and seek to ensure offerors have the capacity and strategy to effectively meet stated requirements and outcomes | |
| 35 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will proposed hubs be rated differently for evaluation and award purposes? | Evaluation | The Contracting Officer will make a best value determination in accordance with the evaluation criteria in revised draft solicitation. | |
| 36 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Clarify Past Performance Reference Submission Quantity | Evaluation | See revised addendum to FAR 52.212-1. | |
| 37 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What are the goals for the Subcontracting Plan and what percentages would be considered as "unacceptable"? | Evaluation | TRANSCOM has organizational Small Business Goals; however, the subcontracting plan metrics submitted by offerors do not specify a specific percentage as being unacceptable. Each offeror will have to be reviewed and discussed based upon each offeror's specific business status. TRANSCOM's organization small business goal is 15% | |
| 37A | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | If USTC’s small business goal is 15% and a contractor’s goal is 10% to small business, how will USTC evaluate this differing approach? We understand this is a pass fail requirement. | Evaluation | The small business subcontracting plan is no longer a requirement in the RFP. | |
| 38 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will an offeror be required to bid on a certain number of lanes to be eligible for an award or to remain eligible for spot bids? | Evaluation | Offeror is required to bid rates for all zones/lanes listed in the attachments, however, offeror is not required to submit a bid for all spot-bid requirements. | |
| 39 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What is meant by non-cost factors are "approximately" equal to price - this is not specifying "how" you will evaluate and also non-cost factors being equal to price does not meet the definition of "trade off" | Evaluation | The FAR allows for this type of evaluation and award decision making. | |
| 40 | 28-Feb-12 | 119-124 | N/A | In the Pre-Solicitation Conference, it was cited that USTRANSCOM was revising the Proposal and Contract Evaluation and Award terms (pages 119-124) yet no changes were provided in the recent documents. When can industry expect to see those changes? | Evaluation | The solicitation is being revised and changes will be posted when they are completed. | |
| 41 | 28-Feb-12 | 120-121 | N/A | Operational Plan Measures of Merit, Page 120-121. Offeror’s proposed Operational Plan includes detailed descriptions in paragraph format identifying and describing the following subjects in relation to the multimodal requirement: presence at the proposed transload locations, transportation lanes/routes to be used, customs clearances process(es), teaming agreements, port operations, airlift operations, ground movement, warehousing facilities, and trans-shipment. Offerors with teaming arrangements that provide for the movement of more types of cargo (reference PWS para 1.2.1) will be more favored. The proposed approach reflects a sound understanding of the requirements and provides adequate information to support the stated approach. |
| Will specific transload sites, airports, or seaports receive preference when the government grades offeror’s Operational Plans? If so, it is requested that USTRANSCOM identify the specific locations and their preference ranking. Will USTRANSCOM make awards to ensure that a variety of redundant supply lines are covered? In making awards, will USTRANSCOM allocate awards to various locations to insure that multiple supply lines are viable and available? | Evaluation | See revised Operational Plan language. | |||
| 42 | 28-Feb-12 | 124 | N/A | Basis for Award. Operational Plan is considered approximately equal to Past Performance. The non-cost factors, Operational Plan and Past Performance when combined, are considered significantly more important than price; however, the Government will not pay a price premium that is disproportionate to the margin of increase in operational plan and past performance ratings. |
| Please provide additional clarity describing how the government will judge whether or not a price is “disproportionate to the margin of increase in operational plan and past performance ratings.” Is the difference between a Low and a Moderate Operational Plan 33%? Is the difference between Relevant and Very Relevant Past Performance 25%? Previously awarded contracts and NTE air rates have shown that the government must provide better clarity on pricing to ensure they receive the best rates possible. | Evaluation | The Contracting Officer will make a best value determination in accordance with the evaluation criteria in revised draft solicitation. | |||||
| 43 | 28-Feb-12 | 123-124 | In the Pre-Solicitation Conference, USTRANSCOM stated the Basis for Award, pages 123-124 were being revised. When can industry expect to see those changes? | Evaluation | The solicitation is being revised and changes will be posted when they are completed. | ||
| 44 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Don’t understand the need for full-blown “best value” procurement for a multiple award contract with NTE pricing and no cargo guarantees. It would be simpler to award contracts to offerors found to be technically acceptable and reasonably priced, and have the spot bids be awarded on best value. Best Value appears to be an ‘auction and drive to the bottom’ for your carrier partners. | Evaluation | The Government believes utilizing a Best Value Source |
Selection is the best strategy. This approach allows the Government to evaluate the Operational Plan and Past Performance factors, which are important in determining a best value decision.
| 45 | 28-Feb-12 | 10 of 2nd draft | 1.17.5.1 | Use of CRAF Carrier. Currently the CRAF carrier is only allowed to operate into 4 locations (FOB's) and possibly 2 additionalones in this year. The type of equipment now being operated by CRAF carriers in the region is large, wide body cargo aircraft. This is not conducive to the lift requirements that will develop from this program. If an contractor has only several air pallets of cargo the cost to utilize a CRAF carrier aircraft is not feasible. Also, the CRAF carrier aircraft is not staged in the region for adhoc use. Even with the transportation horizon out 30 days the assets of the CRAF carrier cannot be committed to be in place at a certain time - their first obligation is to the CAT B missions. With very | |||
| few exceptions I do not see any CRAF carriers committing their metal to this program. As to a revenue stream, the CRAF carrier as the contract lead or as a team member would most likely receive a commission or a soft revenue stream for committing their CRAF status to a team or agent. | General | The government will take this into consideration when refining the requirements. | |||||
| 46 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | Attach 4, Estimated Cargo Types | Of the total number of units moved, can you provide the percentage breakdown by lane of the cargo type: containers, rolling stock, and pallets? | General | The Government intends to provide available historical data. | |
| 46A | 20-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | The columns named "Departure Date" and "Arrival Date", are they door departure and arrivals? Or are they vessel (port to port) dept & arrivals? | General | The departure dates and arrival dates listed in the historical shipment data are for the vessel. | |
| 47 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | Attachment 4 | Government needs to provide forecasted volumes. Will there be any guaranteed minimums? | General | The Government will provide available historical data. There is a $2500 minimum guarantee. | |
| 48 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | Attachment 4 | Industry needs ample time to review transit time matrix to ensure Technical Proposal requirements can be met. Request table be filled in with Transit times | General | See revised draft solicitation. | |
| 49 | 2-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Is this a new requirement or a recompete? If it is a recompete, can you also provide the previous solicitation #, the value of the award, as well as who the incumbent is? | General | An Unusual and Compelling Justification & Approval (J&A) was accomplished to add an air “mode” to the Universal Services Contract (USC) – 6 program (Solicitation HTC711-08-R-0011). The decision to modify the USC-6 contract was driven by the lack of time to develop and award a new, unrestricted contract. This modification to the applicable USC-6 contracts was established as an interim solution until USC-6 expires 30 June 2012. This contract will replace the multimodal portion of the USC - 6 program. Five (5) USC carriers partnered with CRAF carriers under the current multimodal requirement under the USC - 6 contract. | |
| 50 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What is the anticipated number of prime awards on multimodal? | General | The Government intends to award approximately four (4) IDIQ contracts. | |
| 51 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will the government provide performance metrics on current RDD and Transit Times in theater? | General | No. | |
| 52 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will the government provide any historical data on shipments moved in the last 6 months via commercial carrier and provide forecasts of future opportunities? | General | The Government intends to provide available historical data. The Government will not provide forecasts of future opportunities. | |
| 53 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | If the government is going to run a daily auction similar to THXI, what if the government has certain freight that no carrier wants to bid on due to cost of the move? What plans does the government have to address this? | General | This will be determined on a case-by-case basis. | |
| 54 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | With Third party local hires, what are the expectations by the government on % requirement in country? | General | PWS Para 1.17.5.3 has been removed from PWS. | |
| 55 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Please provide more information on the Contractor demobilization plan. | General | Request more detailed and specific question be submitted. | |
| 56 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | How many IDIQ awards will be made? | General | The Government intends to award approximately four IDIQ contracts. | |
| 57 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | If the USC 07 Award Date moves, will the award date for this contract also be moved? | General | Yes, the anticipated award date is now 1 Aug 12. | |
| 58 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will bid awards be publically announced or posted? | General | Contract awards will be announced in accordance with DFARS 205.303(a)(i). | |
| 59 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Can we have a 2nd Draft Document with another opportunity to provide comments prior to releasing the final RFP? | General | The Government anticipates posting another draft RFP 7 March 12. | |
| 60 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will the Questions and Answers from today be made available? | General | Yes, they will be posted to FedBizOps. | |
| 61 | 21-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Currently the AMC Threat Working Group and TACC provide a certain level of safety oversight with regards to operations in the theater with respect to threats. Can carriers expect some level of threat awareness when operating in this hostile environment? | General | No. | |
| 62 | 23-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Will USTC share the monthly and current total spend on the current multi-modal operations? | General | This data is not available. | |
| 63 | 23-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | With regard to cargo and weight, will USTC share the current shipment totals by month by zone pairs, weight and types of cargo? | General | The Government intends to provide available historical data. | |
| 64 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What is the approximate amount of cargo that will be transported inbound and retrograde? | General | The Government intends to provide available historical data. | |
| 65 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Has the contract award date or period of performance date (Base Period, 1 July 12 - 30 June 13) been changed from the original solicitation? | General | Yes, the anticipated award date is now 1 Aug 12. | |
| 66 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Multimodal Move: Being or involving transportation by more than one mode of transportation or type of Contractor during a single journey. A multimodal move occurs when two or more different modes such as rail, truck, barge, sealift and/or airlift are used to move cargo from origin to destination. Where multimodal service is required, the prime contractor maintains responsibility and liability for entire movement through delivery at final destination. |
| Clarification Required: To protect the government from contractors who have previously abused this loose definition, please define a multimodal move under this contract as a move containing both a sea leg and an air leg. Your definition creates ambiguity in pricing when there exists a cheaper option to truck cargo instead of air freighting it to destination as we believe the government requires. Will the government intentionally book a surface only or air only move under this contract? They should not and therefore they should not allow contractors the ability to define a multi modal move as a surface only movement which this definition allows. | General | The Government will not direct modes of transportation. | |||||
| 66A | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | We note the Government will not direct modes of transportation. Can cargo be booked if an air portion or ocean portion are missing? | General | Yes. | |
| 67 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | During the conference TCAQ advised it was contemplating limiting the number of awardees to four. Can you advise the reasoning? | General | The Government intends to award approximately four (4) IDIQ contracts in order to meet this requirement. | |
| 68 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | What is the NAICS code being used and how does this effect carrier's applicability to receive an award…A company must be registered under the NAICS code of the solicitation in order to be eligible for an award, per the FAR | General | The NAICS code does not affect the contractor’s ability to get an award. | |
| 69 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | You are not going to dictate hubs? | General | No, we encourage offerors to utilize their commercial network as applicable to include commercial hubs, ports, etc. | |
| 69A | 16-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | In the March 9th USG response to Item # 69, TCAQ states that they are not going to dictate hubs and encourage offerors to utilize their commercial network as applicable for air hubs, ports, etc. With that said, IBS vessel schedules are input and provide VISA Priorities accordingly and SDDC books through IBS. If an IBS booking comes to a carrier, it dictates which Port pairs must be used today. Will IBS be updated to only show a booking between Zone 3 to Zone 13 for example, and will not dictate ports or airports? The USG response does not seem to match up with IBS logic. Need clarification on the USG stating they will not dictate Ports, Air Hubs, etc. | General | Routing information from the carrier's Spot Bid proposal will be used in IBS. | |
| 70 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | How is the new reporting requirement differing from the current reporting requirements under the current MM program? | General | See revised PWS. | |
| 71 | 7-Feb-12 | 114 | Ordering Procedures | Can you provide sample copies of the documents which would be provided to a carrier for both an inbound and retrograde move? | General | The Government will issue sample task orders under this solicitation to include an inbound and retrograde move. The Government intends to provide the following information in the spot bid process: PCFN; origin address; origin city; origin state; origin zip; origin zone; consignee address; consignee city; consignee state; consignee zip; destination zone; if container movement, number of vans; van type; if breakbulk movement, number of pieces; cargo description, if available; movement type; available date; RDD; estimated weight; length; width; height; commodity type; HAZMAT; accessorials ordered; any additional instructions. | |
| 71A | 13-Mar-12 | 93 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch L-1 Addenda (i) | Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete blocks 13, 14, 15a, b, and c, 16, 17 and 18 of the SF 1449. Signature by the offeror on the SF 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. | |||
| Is the government requesting both a signed copy of the SF 1449 and SF 33? Normally USTC contracts only require SF 1449. | General | The signed 1449 constitutes an offer. See revised addenda to 52.212-1. | |||||
| 71B | 13-Mar-12 | 93 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch L-1 Addenda (3) | In the updated draft RFP, it states “Offerors shall prepare their Operational Plan(s) based on an estimated contract award date of 15 June 12”, however, the Q&A response to question #57 stated the “award date is now 1 Aug 12.” Please clarify on the award and effective date of this solicitation. | General | The anticipated award date is 1 Aug 12. However, this statement was removed from the Operational Plan instructions. | |
| 71C | 13-Mar-12 | N/A | Attach 6 - Security Controls Template | When is the Information Assurance Report due? It is our understanding that the most logical time to submit is between post-award and pre-execution of the contract? | General | Information Assurance is added as Technical subfactor 4. This report is due the same time proposals are due. | |
| 71D | 13-Mar-12 | 3-4 of 2nd draft RFP | CLINS | On pages 3-4 of the solicitation, are offerors required to submit formatted base year and option year pricing? Attachment 4 includes the detailed pricing matrices by location, weight, accessorial, etc. for the base year and both option years. | General | No, offerors are not required to submit pricing under the CLINS. | |
| 71E | 13-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | In cases of MHE breakdown or other extraordinary circumstances are contractors allowed to submit Transport Movement Requests (TMRs). Request further clarification. | General | TMRs and other requests for assistance are handled at the local level and USTRANSCOM has no influence on approval. | |
| 71F | 14-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Is the 10th still the proposed due date for the RFP or does TCAQ see this date moving due to other environmental factors (USC changes, several unknowns, limited window to form a response, etc.)? | General | Proposals are due 27 April 12. | |
| 71G | 14-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Will a proposal conference be held and when as the conference on 15 Feb was a V1 RFI conference? | General | A preproposal conference is scheduled for 10 April 12. | |
| 71H | 15-Mar-12 | N/A | Attachment L-4 | Would it be possible to have a Past Performance Questionnaire in Word format versus PDF? | General | Yes. | |
| 71I | 15-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Would it be possible to have the Historical Data in an excel format? | General | Yes. | |
| 71J | 15-Mar-12 | N/A | Attachment 4 | Are the “Weight Estimates” based on historical data or presumed future requirements? | General | The weights provided are estimates for the zone-to-zone pairs over a 12 month period of time. Historical data was a consideration in developing the weight estimates. | |
| 71K | 12-Mar-12 | N/A | Attachment 4 | Would you be able to provide a FOB identified zone map for AF? | General | No, contractors are required to deliver to all points located within the zones/provinces and the |
location of the FOB might change with time.
| 71L | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | How will USTC staff increase to manage the expedient processing of the bid / task orders? | General | TCAQ will adjust appropriately to administer this contract. |
| 72 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.2.1 & 1.2.3 | Use of Containers. Would USTC consider an allowance of 463L air pallets be set aside for this program? The FOB is best equipped to handle cargo in this manner rather than standard commercial air |
pallets. In addition, utilizing these pallets would not require the contractor to calculate in any container demurrage for containers not returned in a timely manner from the consignee. Plus most aircraft that
| operate in the region are equipped to handle the USAF 463L pallet. | GFE | No GFE is provided under this contract. | |||||
| 73 | 28-Feb-12 | 7 of 2nd draft | 1.13 | Fuel availability should be specified during spot bid process. | GFE | Fuel is not GFE under this contract. | |
| 74 | 28-Feb-12 | 2 of revised procedures | 2.4b | In order to ensure competitiveness between the CRAF and VISA carriers, will VISA carriers be granted LOA’s and land allocation under the contract in order to ensure competitive ‘airplane to door’ service costs? | GFE | LOAs may be issued on a case-by-case basis to all successful awardees. Land allocations are not GFE under this contract. | |
| 75 | 7-Feb-12 | 86 | 1.2 | Will lethal, sensitive cargo be shipped in this Contract? If so, please define lethal and sensitive cargo? If not, why is FAR 252.223-7007 included/listed (Page 41) and 952.225-0008 Shipping Instructions for Weapons (Page 53)? If Weapons are shipped, will the shipper provide the documentation required to comply with 952.225-0008 Shipping Instructions for Weapons (Page 53)? | HAZMAT | Lethal cargo will not be shipped under this program. Sensitive cargo is an option. | |
| 76 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3 | Hazardous Cargo - There needs to be a clause added for Shipper’s to ensure they provide both IMDG and IATA Dangerous Cargo Declarations | HAZMAT | The hazardous material will be certified in accordance with PWS Para 1.3.1. | |
| 76A | 13-Mar-12 | 55-56 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.3 | Hazardous Cargo -Recommend changing the word "will" to "shall" | HAZMAT | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 76B | 16-Mar-12 | 55-56 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.3 | Add clause 1.3.2, "The US Government shall provide accurate and timely hazardous cargo documentation in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Similar allowance provided in USC-07 and required to ensure safe carriage of Hazardous Materials. | HAZMAT | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 76C | 16-Mar-12 | 55-56 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.3 | Add clause 1.3.3 stating, "The Contractor may refuse to transport hazardous cargo by land, ocean or air, which does not conform in all respects to applicable laws and regulations. This refusal of transportation the hazardous cargo will be excluded from the provision in Clause 1.4.3" Similar allowance provided in USC-07 and required to ensure safe carriage of Hazardous Materials. | HAZMAT | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 76D | 16-Mar-12 | 55-56 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.3 | Add clause 1.3.4 stating, "The Contractor shall identify to the Contracting Officer any cargo precluded from carriage due to Contractor policy prior to contract award and further advise the Contracting Officer of any changes to such policy thereafter. The Contractor shall accept for ocean carriage all commodities listed in Attachment 'xxxx' not otherwise identified in this section when the commodity is packaged, labeled, and documented in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Similar allowance provided in USC-07 and required to ensure safe carriage of Hazardous Materials. | HAZMAT | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 76E | 16-Mar-12 | 55-56 of 2nd draft RFP | 1.3 | Need to provide an Attachment similar to Attachment 1 in USC-07 where Contractors can notify the US Government of their acceptance policy. | HAZMAT | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 77 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3.1 | HAZMAT must be packaged, marked/labeled and certified IAW with AFMAN 24-204. Per AFMAN 24-204, the procedures contained in that manual are only for shipments on military aircraft. International guidelines for shipping HAZMAT by air are contained in IATA Dangerous Goods Regulation (currently 53RD EDITION). Not all materials that can be carried in military aircraft per AFMAN-24-204 can be legally carried on commercial aircraft. | HAZMAT | See revised PWS Para 1.3.1. | |
| 78 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3.1 | USG shippers must be able to provide both surface and air hazmat documents at time of booking. A traditional HAZMAT accessorial would alleviate future pre-booking issues and provide expanded services for the USG. | HAZMAT | HAZMAT is not an accessorial. | |
| 78A | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Per Q&A # 78 we note that Hazmat is not an accessorial. However the NTE rates offered must include the possibility of transporting hazardous cargo. Can USTC confirm this is correct? | HAZMAT | Yes, this is correct. | |
| 78B | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Has the RFP limited the types of Hazards to be shipped? | HAZMAT | Cargo may include hazardous material Classes 2 through 9 as defined in the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulation. | |
| 79 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3.1 | Airlift Hazardous Materials will be prepared in accordance with AFMAN 24-204. Since Commercial Air operators are being utilized and the standard is IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations in the commercial world. Will the Military be providing Training on AFMAN 24-204? Would the Military consider utilizing IATA DGR instead? | HAZMAT | See revised PWS Para 1.3.1. | |
| 80 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3.1 | Will the details of the HAZMAT be disclosed during the spot bid process so that Contractors can price accordingly? | HAZMAT | Yes. | |
| 81 | 28-Feb-12 | 3 of 2nd draft | 1.3.1 | The first sentence to be revised to read that "The Government will package, prepare, mark/lable and certify all hazardous materials in accordance with . . . " Clarify that the Government is responsible for preparing hazmat for transportation. | HAZMAT | See revised PWS Para 1.3.1. | |
| 82 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Is the liability for the safeguarding arms and ammo the responsibility of the prime contractor or will the government providing the additional security? Can that additional security cost be billed to the government for the extra services? | HAZMAT | Lethal cargo will not be shipped under this program. | |
| 83 | 28-Feb-12 | 19 of 2nd draft | 3.5.3 | Is attachment 2 available? | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 83A | 19-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Attachment #2 is not located on the web. Can it be posted? | Invoicing/Payment | Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment is incorporated into the draft RFP on pages 81-84. | |
| 84 | 28-Feb-12 | 19 of 2nd draft | 3.5.3.1 | Timeliness of invoice submission will be measured documented and may be presented at senior level SDDC/Contractor forums. Invoices may be submitted only after services included on the invoice have been satisfactorily performed (Ref FAR 32.905). |
| Does the government consider the time of performance/freight earned as the cargo lift date by the first mode utilized? Because the transit times and government directed staging etc, utilizing the lift date provides timely payment for contractors and provides a clear delineator to apply effective dates of modifications, rates, contract periods, to moving cargo. Pay on lift is the commercial industry standard. | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |||||
| 85 | 7-Feb-12 | 105 | 5.5.4 | Please expand upon payment terms and when an invoice may be submitted as Attachment 2 is not available. | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 86 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | PWS requires contractor must obtain Govt. Signature for Acceptance and to ensure Payments. It is difficult to obtain signatures and sometimes out of the contractor's control. What will we do? | Invoicing/Payment | The Government requires signature upon delivery. | |
| 87 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | The invoicing process in current draft of PWS not clear | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 88 | 28-Feb-12 | 114 of 124 | N/A | Invoicing and Payment - there is no guidance in the document for invoicing and payment. Industry needs ample time to review as topic is complex in order to support MM contract. This section should include the 50% provisional payment provision as in USC-6 sea/air PWS D 1.1 | Invoicing/Payment | Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment will be incorporated into the final RFP. | |
| 88A | 13-Mar-12 | N/A | N/A | Recommend adding the 50% Dimensional Progress Payment clause similar to USC-06. | Invoicing/Payment | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 88B | 13-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment B.1 (i) | According to the current PWS, cargo will be weighed by the contractor prior to load at APOE. To expedite the retro-grade of cargo and need to have a joint weigh at the APOE, the contractor requests the language to be reworded to allow the contractor to obtain weight tickets at the transload location (i.e., Dubai or Kuwait) on commercial certified scales. This is especially important for retro-grade moves from AFG where US Forces do not have access to scales. | Invoicing/Payment | See revised Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 88C | 16-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment A.1 | USC-06 has a provisional payment clause allowing for "payment will be paid on expedited terms and no receipts will be required." Request TCAQ add clause allowing for this expedited terms payment timeline of 7 days. | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 88D | 16-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment A.1 | VISA carriers are entitled to Payment on Lift today under the USC-6 contract, and for linehaul/ocean on USC-07. Will a provision be incorporated to pay carriers on lift from SPOE any portion for cargo originating in Zones 1-11 but destined to Zones 12 & 13. This is outside of current payment terms under USC. | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 88E | 16-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment A.3 | Provisional payment of 25% of booked costs for loading in Zones 1-11 with destination of zones 14 through 36 should be increased to 50% to ensure adequate coverage of cost outlay. | Invoicing/Payment | See Attachment 2, Invoicing and Payment. | |
| 88F | 14-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment A.5 | Why are provisional payments of 25% of booked cost to OCONUS locations (SPOE) and 60% of booked cost to CONUS locations (SPOE) presented? The current standard for large companies in this space is 75% and the current contract is set at 50%. We respectfully request the provisional payments be raised to 50% at a minimum regardless of the route. | Invoicing/Payment | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 88G | 16-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment | The Invoicing and Payment section in Attachment 6, requires Contractor representatives to include a signed certification statement which reads, “I hereby certify that the above bill is correct and just, and services were performed”. The invoicing procedures outlined in this contract allow for Payment on Lift allowing for Contractor to invoice for booked services upon its’ EDI submission of a vessel sail transaction as evidence of performance. This proposal is being submitted on the basis that when Contractor signs/provides this statement on our Invoicing to the US Government, the services are understood to not necessarily have been completed, on the understanding that Contractors are authorized payment on lift, and many times the ocean transport is underway, the airlift portion, customs clearance, destination linehaul and X1 may not necessarily have been performed, or are in the planning or execution stages. Please modify clause to allow a Carrier Representative to sign a statement which is correct and accurate. Current language is ambiguous and needs need clarification. | Invoicing/Payment | The cited statement is required for the final invoice after all services have been performed, not for provisional payments. | |
| 88H | 16-Mar-12 | 81 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment | Contract requires Invoices to be submitted within 30 days in various sections in Attachment 6. Request that US Government update language to state similar provisions that are in USC-07, for example, "However, the US Government will consider and process invoices submitted after 30 days so long as they are properly supported and the claimed services can be verified." Updated language required. | Invoicing/Payment | The Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 88I | 13-Mar-12 | 83 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment B.4 | Is it the intent that all booking will be billed through US Bank/Syncada (Powertrack)? Will a separate accessorial fee for each invoice billing be approved as an accessorial? Note fees could be up to 1-2% per transaction. | Invoicing/Payment | Payments will not be made through Syncada at this time. There is no accessorial for this service. | |
| 88J | 16-Mar-12 | 84 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment C.5 | Second sentence states: “Upon completion of reconciliation, US Government will make final payment on the invoice or the contract will reimburse the US Government for any charge invoiced above the reconciled amount.” Does this mean that no payment will be made at all until the differences between the invoice amount and the COR validated amount are resolved? Would suggest SDDC continue current method of payment of COR validated amount and then Carrier address' rejected amounts separately as is the case today for Manual Invoicing procedures. | Invoicing/Payment | Government's requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 88K | 16-Mar-12 | 84 of 2nd draft RFP | Attch 2 - Invoicing and Payment C.6 | Add Section: Request for Equitable Adjustment, FAR Clause 252.243-7002 similar to USC-07. "USC-07 Section Equitable Adjustment for US Government Directed Course of Action..." REA allowance. | Invoicing/Payment | The contract contains FAR Clause 252.243-7002 and will follow these provisions regarding REAs. | |
| 89 | 10-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | TCAQ requests carriers to secure cargo insurance, there is no recognition for commercial ocean industry practice with regard to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA limitations). | Liability | Refer to Liability Language in Solicitation. | |
| 90 | 28-Feb-12 | 5 of 2nd draft | 1.8.1.6 | What is the financial liability to the government if an aircraft or truck is dispatched to pick up cargo at or after ALD/RLD and the cargo is not ready or released? | Liability | Reference PWS Para 1.8.1.2. If the Government cancels less than 24 hours per scheduled pickup or departure and the contractor has incurred expenses in reliance on the pickup, the contractor may file an REA with the Contracting Officer. | |
| 91 | 10-Feb-12 | 34 | 52.228-9 | The solicitation also contains a place for the contracting officer to insert the required amounts of cargo insurance; however, this amount has not yet been inserted. Will this be included in the RFP? | Liability | Refer to Liability Language in Solicitation. | |
| 92 | 13-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Recognizing that one aspect of the transportation leg is ocean transportation we could not locate any of the standard Maritime Clauses required for a contract of this nature. Can you advise how COGSA and other clauses will be addressed? | Liability | Refer to Liability Language in Solicitation. | |
| 93 | 13-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | How will War Risk insurance be addressed? | Liability | War Risk Insurance, if necessary for a particular proposal approach, should be bid into IDIQ NTE and spot bid rates. | |
| 94 | 14-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | War Risk Insurance is extremely costly, how will we mitigate? What about Liability Insurance; will there be any stated limits? | Liability | War Risk Insurance, if necessary for a particular proposal approach, should be bid into IDIQ NTE and spot bid rates. Refer to Liability language in solicitation. | |
| 95 | 21-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | With the international airlift contract, there are several references to insurance. | |||
| Ref HTC711-11-R-C002, Page B-3, (i) (1), states “The Contracting Officer may also preapprove extraordinary insurance costs applicable to a pending mission when in the best interest of the Government. These costs will be reimbursed under SLIN 0001AA, Reimbursables.” Will a similar statement be placed in the multi-modal solicitation? | Liability | Refer to Liability Language in Solicitation. | |||||
| 96 | 28-Feb-12 | N/A | N/A | Cargo insurance for goods in transit/transported worldwide are governed by terms and conditions of the transit documents (bills of lading, airway bills etc.). | Liability | Refer to the liability language in the solicitation. |
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 .