Questions-Comments_-_Master_Working_Matrix_as_of_03_Jun_13.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-13-R-W001
About this file
Question and Answer Matrix from the Regional Domestic Contract 6 (RDC-6) Pre-Solicitation Conference.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Question and Answer Matrix
| Topic, Section, Page Number |
| Industry Question/Comment |
| Industry Position |
Government Position/Comment
| 1 |
| General – Draft Memo of RFP, Page 1 |
| Is it safe to presume that since we are discussing a single RFP that all services will be reconsolidated into a single contract for containers, breakbulk, and RO/RO rather than the two contracts that exist for RDC-5 and RDC-5S today? |
| Preferred single contract |
| The RDC-6 contract will be one combined contract including containers and breakbulk. |
| 2 |
| Section Title, Sec. 7.D, PWS Page 50 |
| The Section Title “Application of Ocean Rates – Container and Breakbulk” seems to be a misnomer for the items discussed in the following two paragraphs - 7.D.1.1 and 7.D.1.1.1. Will this be changed? It seems misleading since it deals only with mileage sources for computing inland freight charge components, but no Ocean Rates at all. |
Language will be changed to read “Application of Mileage Rates – Container and Breakbulk.”
| 3 |
| Section 3.A.11.3, Page 11 |
| Request that language be amended from “The Contractor shall submit all reports within 24 hours of accomplishment …” to “The Contractor shall submit all reports by the end of the next business day after accomplishment …” |
Language will not be amended. The US Government is paying for ITV as it occurs not just during business days.
| 4 |
| Section 3.A.9.1.2 |
| These two clauses appear to be duplicates and I believe one should be removed. |
Section 3.A.9.1.3 has been removed.
| 5 |
| Section 3.A.9.1.3 |
| These two clauses appear to be duplicates and I believe one should be removed. |
Section 3.A.9.1.3 has been removed.
| 6 |
| Section 3.F.11.2 |
| Container Type Purchase Price - Why have the majority of these purchase prices decreased compared to language in RDC-5? |
These are the same rates that were established and accepted for USC-7.
20 Ft Dry: $2,800 20 Ft Flat: $4,500 20 Ft Reefer $28,350 40 Ft Dry: $4,590 40 Ft Flat: $6,300 40 Ft Open Top: $5,850 40 Ft Reefer: $31,500 Genset: $9,900
| 7 |
| Section 9 Security |
| Security Requirements - Is this section stating that any employees involved in any aspect of this contract (whether it is taking a booking, rating a bill, collecting money, etc) are required to have these security requirements in order to be involved with any aspect of this contract? This could ultimately result in many employees. |
Yes, as per Section 9 of the PWS, all employees working on this contract are required to have clearance.
The Carriers in the Puerto Rico Market have been tasked by the Puerto Rico Port Authority to collect on their behalf the charges for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority Enhanced Security Fee (a PR government regulation established October 2011). This charge came into effect after the RDC-5 and RDC-5S were executed. As this charge is a required charge for any cargo destined to Puerto Rico, will an accessorial charge be established under the RDC-6 to account for this charge?
Include charges in the ocean rate. PRPA rates have been established. Accessorial rates will not be added since this applies to every piece of cargo. New PWS language will be added to request adding charges to the ocean rate.
Since the execution of the RDC-5 and RDC-5S, there could be new accessorial charges that have been implemented by the Carriers (ie: Chassis Usage Charge) that may need to be added to the RDC-6 that wasn't previously covered under the RDC-5 and RDC-5S. How should these new accessorials be accounted for in the RDC-6?
Any new or increased costs to the Carriers should be submitted to AQ and SDDC with documentation detailing exact amounts and/or percentages of increases to be determined if adding accessorials or surcharges are applicable.
| 10 |
| Scanning fees |
| It is our understanding that scanning fees for Puerto Rico would be added to the ocean rate for RDC6, but there is not mention in the PWS. |
| It is our position that this fee be added to the ocean rate or, alternatively, the USG should seek an exemption for these fees in PR. |
| Scanning fees will be added to the ocean rate for Puerto Rico. Language will be added to the RDC-6 PWS to reflect scanning fees being added to the PR ocean rates. |
| 11 |
| Invoicing- one PCFN per invoice |
| With the recent slow down in payments due to this same change made to the USC-7 contract, what assurances can be made that this change to RDC will not further slow down payments, and more importantly, how does the government intend to rectify this situation going forward to ensure that payments are processed within the mandated 30 days from receipt. |
| Our company believes that the one PCFN per invoice change should be delayed at least until the government has proven that it is able to manage the additional workload and paperwork already caused by this change to USC-7. |
Billing delays are being worked out by Finance and will be current before the start of RDC-6. The biggest help to this situation is the ensure accurate LOBs.
| 12 |
| Invoicing- 80% interim financing |
| Is this term for all container shipments paid thru US Bank? |
| Our company believes this payment term further burdens the carrier, in light of the fact that payments for breakbulk cargo are already experiencing lengthy delays. |
| Break bulk is not seeing any more delays than the container carriers. These will be current before the new contract is in place. The biggest key is accurate LOBs. |
| 13 |
| Security Clearances |
| As this is a new requirement for RDC-6, would like to know what company personnel would be expected to hold a Secret security clearance. |
Per Section 9, all contract employees associated with RDC-6 are to have clearance.
| 14 |
| Carrier Performance Objectives |
| The new guidelines include grades, but we do not see any guidelines as to what these grades mean, i.e. effect on booking preferences, etc. |
Grades are used as an evaluation factor in the best value determination aspect of booking cargo under Exhibit 2 Ordering Procedures.
| 15 |
| BAF and FAF |
| With the VOLPE study not yet complete and changes based on this study not yet announced, how are carriers to determine their rates? |
The VOLPE study is still being conducted. Completion of the study will be done before the solicitation closes, and an amendment will be issued to provide for any changes to fuel level factors.F
| 16 |
| C.2.1.1 Waiting time |
| Our company is given two hours in CONUS and Puerto Rico. The 4/6 time in this item is not compensatory. |
The PWS states time as 4 hours in Section 3.F.5. Any different time with charges will need to be provided and verified.
| 17 |
| C.2.2 Overnight |
| Present draft is $150. Given present cost and possible future increases, it is suggested that the $150 be raised to $ 170 and that the cost be subject to a refresh. |
Will not increase costs from $150 to $170 due to possible future increases until information is provided that demonstrates costs are not in line with what’s occurring. Finance has not been made aware of any invoices being received that demonstrate that overnight charges have been billed under the current RDC5 contracts.
| 18 |
| 3.6.1.2 Pooling arrangement |
| It is understood that the carrier and the shipping party have to come to an agreement. However, it seems that there should be a rule that says that once an agreement is reached for "x" amount of equipment the shipping party has the obligation to use all of the equipment in the pool. It is very expensive for a carrier to have to return to pick up empty equipment. |
There is no change to the language for Sections 3.A.18 Equipment Pools (Container Only), and 3.C.1 Providing Empty Containers to Shippers. We are assuming these are applicable sections because the stated section 3.6.12 Pooling arrangement is not in the PWS.
| 19 |
| 5.A.2.1 Performance |
| We have found that the change in the trigger points has caused an inordinate cost in IT work. All problems are still not resolved and it is questioned if all the trigger points are needed and if the reporting times could not be more than 24 hours. We find ourselves in a position of operationally getting the job done but because of the reporting requirements not having this adequate reflected. |
If a carrier does not submit EDI for performance then this cannot be reflected. It is required for all carriers to do so. As a reminder per the contract, EDI is required for all cargo shipments.
| 20 |
| 6.A.4.7 Storage of arms |
Does this mean that arms could not stay at an ocean terminal overnight?
Language will be changed to “without prior US Government approval”.
| 21 |
| Inland cost |
| Inland cost continue to rise. Holding inlands for a year period is proving difficult or impossible. |
The RDC-6 contract will be priced up front for the base and option years. The concept to refresh rates annually has not been approved.
| 22 |
| Negotiated inlands |
| Regional carriers simply have very different cost structures from larger international carriers. Much of this is driven by the number of container pools which a carrier has. I understand that this is a difficult problem. We either find another way to approach or find that carriers will either have to not accept some contract negotiated rates or not have approved rates which will increase the demand for OTOs. |
The container pool language is the same for RDC and USC. If carriers choose not to provide rates in the base, then the rates cannot be added for the options.
| 23 |
| Port Groups |
| Jacksonville is not in one of the port groups. As one of the principle ports for Puerto Rico it seems that it should be listed. |
The port groups paragraph (7.B.2.1.3.2) is for when multiple ports in close proximity of each other are grouped together for simplicity. Jacksonville is not in close proximity to any other port utilized for RDC traffic on a regular basis, therefore there are no other ports to group it with and the customer feels it does not need to be listed in this section.
3. A.13.4.1 Expedited Origin Linehaul
How is this service ordered?
Expedited origin linehaul is ordered at booking as an accessorial in IBS.
| 25 |
| 3. F.11.2 and 3.F.12.1 |
Pages 26 and 27 Container Type Purchase Price
Container Type Purchase Prices not compensatory for highway trailers
| Replacement values should be included for highway trailers, trailers exceeding 40’, and Insulated trailers used for KFF services. |
| These sections mirror USC-7, and will not be changed at this point. |
| 26 |
| 3.G.1.3.1 |
Stopoff Service in Transit
| If a trailer is booked with one stop in the first city and three stops in another city, the overnight would occur after the first stop. Would the charge for the fourth stop double in this case? |
| The charge for the fourth stop should double for any trailer with more than three stops if the inland provider goes into overnight to make deliveries. |
| The fourth stopoff would be double only if the service provider has to go into an overnight status to make the 4th stopoff. |
| 27 |
| 3.G.1.3.1 |
Stopoff Service in Transit If a trailer is booked with three stops in the first city and three stops in another city, does the charge double for all subsequent stopoffs after the third stop and if overnight service is required, or only the first stopoff after the overnight service is provided?
Per 3.G.1.3.1 of the PWS, stop off payment doubles after the third stop if the provider goes into overnight to make the next delivery.
| 28 |
| 3.G.10 |
Forty-five foot containers
| The surcharge is stated to apply to 45’ (or greater) containers |
| Separate surcharge percentages should apply to 48’ and 53’ containers and highway trailers. This application is consistent with the extra length charge for roro (7.C.3) cargo and the additional charges for overdimensional cargo (7.B.3.2). All of these take additional room on the vessel and displace slots. |
| Please refer to sections 3.G.13, 3.G.10, 7.C.3, and 7.B.2.3 for applicable language for various sizes. PWS language will remain the same. |
| 29 |
| 3.G.16 |
Page 31Percentage Differential for Refrigerated Cargo
| Does this percentage differential apply to single-factor rates? |
| 3.G.16 |
Page 31Percentage Differential for Refrigerated Cargo Single factor rates are all inclusive from Origin to Destination.
| 30 |
| 6.B.1. |
Keep From Freezing Service
| Paragraph states that a KFF service differential will apply to linehaul rates. |
| Is this a new accessorial rate line? |
| Yes, KFF service will be charged at the applicable general cargo rate plus the KFF service rate set forth in the Accessorial Rate Tables. |
| 31 |
| 6.B.4.1 |
Less than containerload/trailerload service
| Contractor single factor rate is used as the basis. |
| There needs to be additional single factor rates that apply only to LTL shipments. |
| There is no change to the PWS language for section 3.A.17 Less than Container Load (LCL) Container Services. |
| 32 |
| 6.B.4.1 |
Less than containerload/trailerload service
| Separate Formula application is stated for 20’, 45’ and 53’ container/trailer. |
| Currently the ocean rate is the same for 45’ and 53’ trailers. We have asked for consideration on this point. However, if the ocean rate is the same for trailers 45’ or greater, then the LTL formula should also be the same for 45’ and 53’ trailers. |
| There is no change to the formulas, the PWS language will remain the same. |
| 33 |
| 7.D.1 |
Mileage Source
| Our company use PC Miler V. 26.1. We are getting different miles from that source than what the payments are based on, both on a zip code and city point basis. |
| Please see attached spreadsheet for examples. |
| SDDC Bookers and Finance use mile rates from ETA Defense Table of Official Distances (DTOD). |
| 34 |
| Section 9 |
Security
| Do these provisions apply to everyone who has anything to do with the contract, which would include most personnel? |
| Limit application to certain types of cargo which can be booked, rated, delivered and collected by a limited group of personnel |
| Same answer as questions 7 & 13. See Section 9 – Security; addresses question of employees involved in the contract and security requirements, overall security classification for RDC-6 is SECRET. |
Suggest an annual refresh in lieu of two option years. This is consistent with USC approach and reflects conditions closer to the market at the time.
RDC-6 will continue with pricing the base and two option years upfront.
The RDC BAF needs to consider the conditions for short sea domestic operations. Ships are smaller and trades are only one way. The fuel level factors need to be adjusted to coincide with the realities of the domestic trades not the larger international trades.
The VOLPE study is still being conducted. Completion of the study will be done before the solicitation closes, and an amendment will be issued to provide for any changes to fuel level factors.
Request that the EDI and Powertrack matching process be simplified. Today we need to match on 8 edi events for each shipment, resulting in thousands of records that have to match each month. We have to review to make sure each edi event is closed, which may include any incomplete or inaccurate information sent in by SDDC or direct shippers. We are responsible for fixing all errors to ensure our scorecards and all individual transactions are complete. Carriers and SDDC personnel spend hundreds of man hours to complete all transactions. We understand the importance of the X1’s to confirm cargo delivery but do we need all the other information for domestic shipments?
Yes, all EDI information is required.
Request that Hazardous Cargo be re-defined in RDC. Currently we can assess the hazardous surcharge only on cargo that must be loaded on-deck per USCG regulations. Regardless of on-deck stowage, we still have segregation issues with stowage of hazardous cargo.
The Government’s requirement remains unchanged at this time.
Request that separate accessorial charges be set up to handle port wharfage, terminal charges and other port mandated surcharges. These charges are paid by the carrier to the ports or terminal operators, and these charges are passed on to commercial customers.
Carriers are asked to include the charges in the ocean rates and an update to the PWS language will reflect this in RDC-6.
Request that radioactive cargo be part of “excepted cargo” in that we must obtain separate insurance policies to cover cargo and crew when moving radioactive cargo on our ships. The premium for this additional insurance is very expensive.
This suggestion is already in process – CLINs being built and language drafted for inclusion into RDC5/5S and RDC6.
Request that Fuel Adjustment Factor on inland charges be adjusted on a monthly basis, like it is handled in the USC. Currently FAF is fixed at the beginning of the Base or Option years in RDC.
FAF will be calculated monthly as it is for USC. The OYs are awarded upfront, thererfore, FAF will not be re-baselined for the OYs.
Request that the definition of live-load be changed to 2 hours free-time, to match industry standard. Currently RDC defines live-load as 4 hours free-time in CONUS and 6 hours free-time OCONUS.
The current PWS language will remain the same for RDC-6.
Request that a tolerance of $25 be added to the matching module in Syncada. Invoicing and Payment, attachment 4.
For those on matching model, a tolerance will be determined by the G8 analysis of invoices and is reviewed each year at the individual carrier level.
Request that Port Storage be handled as an Accessorial Charge. The way some ports or States handle billing of storage fees is complex. Thus, issuing the billing to the Government on a pass-thru basis with exact costs is challenging.
Accessorials are services that are ordered to be performed by the contractor. Port storage is not a service, but a fee that is incurred due to the fault or request of the US Government. It is not known at time of booking when port storage will be incurred. This charge will remain as a pass through which requires supporting documentation to show the US Government was at fault, or requested the delay of shipment which resulted in port storage. Therefore, port storage will not be an accessorial charge.
| 45 |
| Attachment 2 City Groupings |
| Chino, CA – Is in Box Springs and also listed as a standalone city location. |
Chino, CA will stay in the Box Springs city group, and will be deleted as a standalone city location.
| 46 |
| Attachment 2 City Groupings |
| Ontario, CA – Is listed in Box Springs, Pomona Group as well as a standalone city location. |
Ontario, CA will stay in the Pomona city group, and will be deleted as a standalone city group and Box Springs city group.
| 47 |
| Attachment 2 City Groupings |
| Moreno Valley, CA is in both Box Springs and Riverside groups. |
Moreno Valley will stay in the Box Springs city group, and will be deleted from the Riverside group.
| 48 |
| Attachment 2 City Groupings |
| Tracy, CA is a standalone location as well as listed in the San Joaquin group. |
Tracy, CA will stay as a standalone location; it will be deleted from the San Joaquin city group.
| 49 |
| DRIVER WAIT TIME RATES |
PWS Pg. 24 3.F.5.5
| Why is Free Time being increased to 6 hours? |
| Current Free Time in RDC-5S is 4 hours Driver Wait Time. We see no reason for this to be increased to 6 hours. Carriers in Hawaii make appointments with the Shipping Activities prior to pick up and delivery. An increase to 6 hours would require us to build that cost into our rates when these conditions generally don’t apply. |
| If the condition doesn’t apply then additional costs should not be billed into the rates. |
| 50 |
| LINEHAUL FOR BB & OOG CARGO |
PWS Pg. 35 3.J.1.1.4 and table at 3.J.1.3.1
| Why does the width go up to 11’ when standard trailer widths in CONUS are 8’6”? Even a wide Flatbed trailer is 9’ in width. |
| 11’ cargo width will require permits in all 48 states and Hawaii. A wheel base wider than 8’6” requires special equipment. These have to be factored into all our OOG prices, adding cost when these conditions generally don’t apply. |
| In order for the Bookers to apply the Breakbulk Flatrack OOG rate, the cargo must exceed 8’5” but not exceed 11’. These are the dimension ranges that the booking system recognizes. |
| 51 |
| FUEL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (FAF) |
PWS Pg. 53 7.F.2.1 Since the baseline FAF will be re-calculated at the beginning of OY1 and OY2, will the Carriers be allowed to refresh their linehaul rates accordingly?
The OYs for RDC-6 are awarded upfront, FAF will not be re-baselined for the OYs.
| 52 |
| PWS Section 9.2, Page 64 |
| Define “Personnel working this contract” so we will understand the limits of the personnel required to obtain an NACLC as described. |
Any and all employees performing any action on the RDC-6 contract will require clearance.
| 53 |
| PWS Section 9.2, Page 64 |
| Define “all contract employees supporting this this contract” so we will understand the limits of the personnel required to have secure, personal information submitted in JPAS and DOD TASS. |
Any and all employees performing any action on the RDC-6 contract will require clearance.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .