RDC6-_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Meeting_Minutes.pdf

Pre-Solicitation Conference Meeting Minutes

Thursday, 02 May 2013

Regional Domestic Contract (RDC)-6 (Solicitation HTC711-13-R-W001)

1. The RDC-6 Pre-Solicitation Conference was held at Scott AFB, IL on 02 May 2013 from

0800 – 1100 (CDT) in the 932 nd

Air Wing Auditorium. The purpose of the pre-solicitation conference was to provide prospective offerors with an overview of the

RDC-6 Request for Proposal (RFP), discuss what shall be included in the written and electronic proposals, discuss the evaluation criteria, and give prospective offerors an opportunity to ask questions.

2. The following were in attendance:

Name Organization Name Organization

Mr. Bill Lindquist TCAQ Mr. Demitrous Blount SDDC G9

Ms. Dorothy Dailey TCAQ Mr. Jerome Colton SDDC G9

Mr. Doug Otten TCAQ Ms. Dawn Tompkins AKMR

Ms. Elizabeth Boulter TCAQ Mr. Ed Berti HRZD

Mr. Cale Ahle TCAQ Ms. Cheryl Murphy HRZD

Ms. Kelly Reyes TCAQ Ms. Cathy Pitt HRZD

Ms. Nicole Swoboda TCAQ Mr. Pat Nickens Five Mile Logistics

Ms. Jesika Wilhelm TCAQ Mr. Robert Gentzke Five Mile Logistics

Ms. Melinda Lewis TCAQ Mr. Mike Piercefield Five Mile Logistics

Mr. Robert Bowers TCJA Ms. Claudia Roberts TOTE

Lt Col Chris Budde TCJ3 Mr. Roger Deloach TRBR/WMSL

Mr. Roosevelt Mitchell SDDC G6 Mr. Fred Schloth YBRL/WMSL

Mr. Bill Patterson SDDC G8 Mr. Mike Garvin MATS

Ms. Kathy Kritikos SDDC G8 Mr. Steve Rubin MATS

Ms. Melissa Romagno SDDC G9 Mr. Jeff Olenick SDDC G9

Ms. Trina Ceglia SDDC G9 Mr. John Inman SDDC G9

Mr. Richard Smith SDDC G9 Mr. David Jones SDDC G9

Mr. Gordon Lowe SDDC G9 Ms. Shiva Thompson SDDC G9

Mr. Jay Brickman CPRC Ms. Margaret Groth PSHI

3. Ms. Dorothy Dailey opened the pre-solicitation conference by welcoming and thanking everyone for their interest in the RDC-6 program. Ms. Dailey gave the overview of the conference, explained safety plan detailing emergency exits, and gave administrative information for restrooms and vending machines. Mr. Bill Lindquist introduced the US

Government Team to the Contractors and discussed the role each member has in the procurement process. Contractor were also asked to introduce their company and staff.

Mr. Lindquist also requested any questions asked during the pre-solicitation conference be submitted in writing to Mr. Bill Lindquist and Ms. Dorothy Dailey so that all potential offerors have the opportunity to view the questions and answers on FedBizOpps

(www.fbo.gov). FedBizOpps will be the Government’s mean of communicating with

Industry so it is Industry’s responsibility to check for any postings and amendments to the

RFP on FedBizOpps. Mr. Lindquist emphasized that one of the most important actions that could be done by the Government and Contractors is to “Communicate, Communicate, Communicate.” The goal is to have all of the Carriers technically acceptable for this requirement.

4. Mr. Bill Lindquist presented the RDC-6 Solicitation overview.

a) Reviewed the RFP Exhibits and Attachments.

b) Reviewed what shall be included in the written and electronic proposals.

Mr. Lindquist emphasized that proposals will include documentation showing the

Carrier is a vessel owner or operator in order to be considered for award.

Proposals should include designated routes, non-designated routes, what type of vessel and its capacity, and keep the proposal basic without “fluff.” Do not assume that the evaluation teams will know you as a Carrier and what you do because you have a current contract. Proposals should be written as if you are introducing yourself to the Government for the first time.

Carriers should ensure that Reps and Certs, ORCA, and classification of small or large business is accurate and properly marked in your proposal documentation.

c) Reviewed the evaluation process and factors.

d) Reviewed the procurement milestones.

e) Informed Industry all amendments and correspondence relating to the RDC-6

RFP (Solicitation HTC711-13-R-W001) will be posted on FedBizOpps at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/oda/ustc/ustranscom/HTC711-13-R-W001/listing.html.

5. Mr. Bill Lindquist provided updates to the following pending requirements.

a) Carrier Analysis & Rate Evaluation System, Service Module (CARE II HQ) – We are hoping to open CARE within two weeks (20 May 13). Mr. Lindquist stated that CARE now has a new look and asked the Carriers to get familiar with the new formats before the RFP opens.

Mr. Roosevelt Mitchell from G6, and the CARE II HQ Systems Manager stated that if Carriers should discover that their accounts are locked due to non-use after

45-days, to unlock their accounts by answering the established security questions.

Should the Carriers need additional assistance, they can access the help desk POC located on the home page for CARE, or contact him personally.

http://www.fbo.gov/ https://www.fbo.gov/spg/oda/ustc/ustranscom/HTC711-13-R-W001/listing.html

Mr. Lindquist emphasized that Carriers bid $0 in CARE if they are providing any services at no charge. Leaving the item blank in CARE is stating that the Carrier is not offering the service. He asked Industry to ensure that they have CARE access and training completed in order to be able to add rates in CARE.

Mr. Gordon Lowe suggested that look at CARE now to address any issues because the CARE interface has changed.

b) Information Assurance and Industrial Security Plan (Cyber Security) – Lt Col

Chris Budde gave an overview of the new requirement and how to complete the

Cyber Security attachment to the PWS. He also disclosed that there were over 2K attempted hits made to the USTRANSCOM network. Lt Col Budde requested

ANY cyber incident get reported and USTRANSCOM will work with local enforcement agencies, and the FBI.

Mr. Lindquist added that although this is a new action for the transportation contracts, in the future there could be more stringent requirements recommended for Cyber Security based on the possibilities of threats and hackers. Right now this requirement is evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. He also stated the purpose of malicious Cyber attacks are to mirror or deny info to and from

USTRANSCOM and its Carriers. Mr. Lindquist further stated that it is important for the Carriers to notify USTRANSCOM as soon as possible if they even suspect that their systems were compromised.

c) Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) language –Ms. Trina Ceglia explained that

EDI comprises all shipments and recommends that Carriers take the necessary step to become fully EDI capable because ratings are based on timeliness and submission of transport info into EDI. Mr. Lindquist stated that part of the proposal narrative is to describe how Carriers will perform, plan, and implement

EDI.

6. Mr. Bill Lindquist discussed some of Industry’s top concerns received prior to the pre-proposal conference.

a) Invoicing and Payment- Received numerous questions regarding Attachment 4 and timely payments within the stated 30 days.

i. Mr. Bill Patterson from G8 summarized that FAR regulations require payment for services are made when rendered and not at lift.

Mr. Lindquist reiterated that interim payments were broached in the USC-

7 conference, and that OSD has challenged TCAQ on its authority to pay on lift versus pay on delivery. The Multi-Modal contract is currently using interim payments and that the future USC-8 contract will follow suit.

Instead of a total pay on delivery, USTRANSCOM has gone to payment as 80% at lift and 20% at delivery for the RDC-6 requirement.

ii. Current Contractors stated that because of the the per PFCN language added to Attachment 4 that payments aren’t being made within 30 days and have ranged up to 90 days. Mr. Bill Lindquist reassured Industry

“should” does not mean “shall”, and the Contractor does not waive its entitlement to payment for invoices received after 30 days. Mr. Patterson concurred that at the most payments are at 45 days (15 days late) and these are mainly payments for Riga or payments that required manual processing. Industry and Government agreed that documentation will be forwarded to Finance (G8) for invoices that are at the 90 day timeframe to investigate why payment has not been made.

7. Mr. Bill Lindquist opened the floor up to questions from Industry.

a) CPRC asked if the RDC-6 requirement will be LPTA?

1. Mr. Bill Lindquist replied that RDC-6 will be lowest price technically acceptable.

2. Encouraged Carriers to submit realistic pricing. Bidding too low will eliminate you from the competitive range. Creates competitive range by looking at high and low rate submissions. Government may provide an opportunity for one-on-ones with Carriers to discuss the Carrier’s submitted rates. The competitive range and other Carrier information will not be disclosed.

b) PSHI commented that they will be adding a new ship within the base year of

RDC-6. They are interested in bidding containers initially and would like to eventually add reefers. Questioned posed was can PSHI add rates in CARE based on this forecast?

1. Mr. Lindquist stated that Carriers should honor rates put in CARE that are based on their forecasting. Mr. Gordon Lowe also suggested that because of the uncertainty of timing of when PSHI will acquire the new ship, that the Carrier should consider adding the rates to the Base or

Option Years based on vessel completion.

2. Mr Lindquist also clarified that the Government does not like to offer an OTO because Carriers choose not to honor submitted and approved rates.

c) Mr. Lindquist states that no more than five past performance will be requested.

Asked industry to not ask him as a Contracting Officer to complete a past performance questionnaire, and to please not complete more than five. If you send more than five, only the first five will be considered.

d) MATS commented that ¾ of shipments are CONUS shipments and is is not understood why the change is going to interim payment. Is the intent to go to pay on delivery?

1. Mr. Lindquist replied that the intention is not to go to pay on delivery but that the Government is following the FAR which requires services to be paid once received.

d) PSHI asked how are they supposed to invoice with the split payment of 80-20?

Industry representatives asked if and how the transition from private security to

Afghan Protection Forces would impact USC-7 provisions regarding enhanced security.

i. Mr. Bill Lindquist said this is currently under review and will respond at a later date.

8. Closing Remarks: Mr. Bill Lindquist thanked everyone for participating in the pre-proposal conference and advised them to contact Mr. Bill Lindquist, Ms. Lisa Cahill and/or Ms. Tiffany Rogers if they have any questions. He also reiterated to the carriers to submit any questions asked today or in the future in writing so the US Government can respond and post the questions and answers on FBO.

DOROTHY DAILEY

Contract Specialist

Attachments:

Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing Slides