RDC6_Questions-Comments_Matrix_7-26-13.pdf

Question and Answer Matrix

Company Name and Point of Contact

Topic, Section, Page Number Industry Question/Comment Industry Position

AQ Position/Comment

1 Fuel Adjustment Factor

PWS, Page 54

7.F.2 Baseline

7.F.2.1 Second Sentence

Is this language correct? It implies rates in CARE II SA will be re-opened prior to commencement of Option Years 1 and 2, which we were told would not be the case.

The second sentence in7.F.2.1 of the PWS is deleted. The base and two one-year options will be priced upfront.

Question closed.

2 Fuel Adjustment Factor

PWS, Page 54

7.F.3 Fuel Adjustment Application

What is the formula for application of the fuel adjustment on the OCONUS inland portion?

There is no FAF for OCONUS. Question closed

3 Does the RDC-6 definition of CONUS and OCONUS apply to Classified shipments?

Yes, the definitions for CONUS and OCONUS apply for classified shipments. DTR Chapter 205 includes Alaska as

CONUS, but this applies only to this section. Classified shipments aren’t included for Hawaii at this time, and we understand that the previous classified shipment was a one time only movement. Question closed.

4 Invoicing and Payments, Attachment 4 In order to provide accurate invoices to the Military, we would like to request that clear and legible paper documents are received to CARRIER and that accurate dimensions are provided on TCMDs to avoid delays and additional work by the CARRIER.

J8 has noted your comment. Question closed.

5 Container Pools, Attachment 10 After reviewing the container pool attachment and the required container numbers for various shipper origins, we wanted to know if the container numbers provided represent weekly container volumes shipping from those origins. If the data does not represent weekly container volumes, how often will these containers turn?

In order for a carrier to justify the cost of a container pool the containers will need to turn frequently. Some of the numbers of containers in the attachment appear to be inflated. Positioning additional assets at a facility would be a waste of resources and have a financial impact to the carriers as well. Your assistance will help us get a better understanding of the container pools and consequently help us provide the most competitive rates for the requested lanes.

Containers turns vary for the container pools. Containers with perishable items turn over more frequently. The range of time for containers can range from weekly to monthly. Contractors are notified to pick up containers when containers are emptied. Question closed.

6 CARE II, Accessorials, Cargo Handling Export and Import

Are these charges specifically for LCL cargo? In reading the PWS, it states that this charge is shall be paid at the Cargo Handling rates listed in the Rate Guide for Less Than

Container Loads under Section 3.A.15. In reading further down through the PWS under

Section 3.G.6 this same accessorial is mentioned but does not state specifically for LCL nor does it reference the Rate Guide? Please confirm if this charge is only applicable to

LCL cargo??

No, the cargo handling accessorials are applicable to any loose cargo arriving at port that requires consolidation and vice versa for cargo handling import. Question closed.

7 CARE II, Accessorials, Tax Authority

Clearance

According to the PWS Section 6.A.1.1, the rate is to apply based on a Lump Sum amount per clearance, however when you look at CARE it shows this Accessorial as a Unit of “Percentage” and not as either “Per Occurrence” or “Per Clearance”. Please advise.

The Tax Authority Clearance accessorial has been changed in

CARE and the PWS to reflect the units of measurement as per container and per piece. Question closed.

8 CARE II, Accessorials, Protective

Weapon Service

It appears that this Accessorial shows up twice in CARE and I do not see any difference between the two accessorials…can you confirm if this a duplicate?

This is not a duplication, each accessorial is for either container or breakbulk. Question closed.

9 CARE II, Accessorials, Respot Service It appears that this Accessorial shows up twice in CARE and I do not see any difference between the two accessorials…can you confirm if this a duplicate?

Same as #8 above. Question closed.

10 CARE II, Accessorials, Flatrack Tie-

Down Equipment Surcharge

I do not see the option for Flatrack Tie-Down under Accessorials in CARE. Is this because this is further reference under Section 6.A.3 where it states that this will be the responsibility of the Contractor? This is a little confusing.

Tie-down and lashing only applies to PWS Section 6.A.3 for

Puerto Rico. This service is not an additional accessorial.

Question closed.

11 CARE II, Linehaul Rates, Pomona

California (City Group)

In CARE there is an option to add rates for an “Inactive” City Group for Pomona

California. Can these be removed?

“Inactive” City Group for Pomona, CA is deleted from

CARE. Question closed.

12 CARE II, Single Factor Rates, Northbound from Puerto Rico

In CARE we do not see any Single Factor rates for Northbound moves from Puerto Rico, but in looking at the Volumes shown on the Ocean Container section there is volume associated with Northbound Puerto Rico Routes but no Single Factor rates to complete in

CARE. Please advise if Northbound Single Factor rates will be added to CARE for completion?

Northbound from Puerto Rico rates will not be added to

CARE. Multi-factor rates will be utilized. Question closed.

13 CARE II, Single Factor Rates, Puerto Rico

Zone 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13

Under the last solicitation that was cancelled for door to door moves for Puerto Rico we were advised that per the request of the customer, please do not enter rates for Zones 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 that these zones are not being used for this requirement. Can you please confirm if this is the case under the RDC-6 or it all zones should be completed?

RDC-6 will utilize all zones, therefore rates are needed for all zones. Question closed.

14 Section 2.1, Exhibit 3 Section 2.1 of Exhibit 3 has been changed substantially. The original RDC-6 solicitation provided that "COGSA shall apply from the point of delivery to the Contractor to the point of delivery to the Consignee whether in connection with intermodal or ocean-only transportation under this Contract. Accordingly, COGSA shall apply in determining the limits of a Contractor's liability, as set forth above, for loss or damage to cargo booked under this Contract arising at any time in the custody of the Contractor."

In the latest version, a new section 2.1.1 has been added, which provides "Liability is governed by the applicable statute or multi-lateral international agreement based on the mode of cargo transportation (i.e. sea or land) at the location where the loss or damage occurred. ....COGSA...applies to all ocean transportation of cargo....Carmack Amendment applies to all land transportation of cargo."

This is a major departure from the liability provisions in place for commercial shipments.

The terms and conditions of Matson's bill of lading, as the bill of lading of most ocean carriers, contains a Himalaya clause the gives the ocean carrier's subcontractors the benefits of the defenses and limitations of liability enjoyed by the ocean carrier under COGSA. By issuing a through bill of lading, Matson becomes liable to the shipper for cargo loss and damage occurring during intermodal transportation while the cargo is in the possession of a rail or motor carrier. Section 2.1.1 of the RDC will prevent Matson from invoking the defenses that are available to it with respect to all commercial shipments and military shipments under USC-07.

Why was this change made and what is the basis for treating domestic military shipments different that international military shipments and commercial shipments?"

COGSA language has changed in Exhibit 3 to mirror the language used in USC-7. Question closed.

15 The pricing structure for RDC 6 is for three years: the award year and then two

“prepriced” option years. This is significantly different than for USC 7, which is three years but includes “rate refresh” for each option year. Matson has many variables in its costs that make bidding a three year contact (almost four if you consider the RFP closes on August 6, 2013 and a 6 month extension can be requested to extend the contract to April 30, 2017) unacceptable. These costs include fuel (which has varied from a fuel surcharge low of 15% to a high of 47.5% for commercial shippers in the last four years and remains 2/3 of our vessel operating expense); terminal handling expenses (which have resulted in a 30% increase in the terminal handling charge paid by all commercial customers in the past three years) and will be affected by a new ILWU contract in 2014);

purchased transportation expenses (which include rail movements and the trucking at each end of an intermodal movement); and Port mandated changes in wharfage (which are unpredictable and uncontrollable). We are a prudent business that vigorously manages its controllable costs but asking us to accurately predict where these drivers will go over the next three to four years is unrealistic.

Concerns were voiced to AQ regarding pricing RDC6 similar to USC7 with rate refreshes at the option years. We have taken all concerns and comments under advisement. We are looking into this action for the future because this change will require system changes. So in order to start the RDC6 requirement on time, we will move forward with pricing

RDC-6 totally for the base and option years. Question closed.

16 6.B.4.1 Commingling of US Government

LCL Cargo

As a full truckload ocean carrier, we are not able to provide transportation from origin to destination for part of a trailer. We do not have any commercial cargo to match with the Government cargo from origin to destination.

Ocean carriers should provide transportation of LCL cargo port to port only.

Delivery of LCL cargo should be done by a company at destination who can efficiently accomplish this service. Alternatively, the Government can contract with a company who can perform this service from origin to destination.

Your comment has been noted but the Government’s requirement for this service is unchanged. Question closed.

17 3.G.10 Forty-Five Foot Containers The RFP states that a surcharge of 12.5% of the basic rate for a 40-foot container shall be applied for use of any 45-foot (or greater) container.

The accessorial rate table in CARE II has a 48 foot and a 53 foot container differential.

Will the contract be amended to reflect the accessorial table?

There should be a differential for 48’ and 53’ containers since pool locations require these and they displace slots on the ship just as other oversize cargo displaces slots. The custom of the trades is to charge different differentials for different sized equipment.

The accessorial table in CARE has a Government set rate of

12.5% for the 48’ and 53’ containers. Question closed.

18 4.A.1 Shipments of Privately Owned

Vehicles

Will all POVs be shipped by the Global POV Contractors? Will we bill the rates in this contract to the Global POV Contractor or to SDDC, or is some other arrangement intended?

Most POVs will be shipped via the GPC, however, situations arise where POVs may be booked directly by SDDC with an RDC Carrier. Question closed.

19 EDI Requirements – Technical Proposal

(Exhibit 4)

Please clarify the mandatory EDI interface requirements and the Optional EDI requirements.

Optional is removed from Exhibit 4. Question closed.

20 Single Factor The Door location referred to as “Oahu, Hawaii [City Group][Door]”, Attachment 4 does not contain the definition for this city group. Please define this city group and/or add to Attachment 4.

Please define Oahu Hawaii

City Group Door

Oahu CLINs are deleted. Question closed.

21 Single Factor The Door location referred to as Puget Sound city Group under the Single

Factor section, please define which Puget Sound zone is included in this city grouping or is this referring to both Puget Sound city groups/zones?

Please specify which Puget

Sound Zone is being referred to in this section.

Applies to all location in the Puget Sound city group.

Question closed.

22 Single Factor There are multiple Honolulu Zone/ Pier locations per Attachment 4. Under the single factor rates how is Honolulu [Zone][Pier] defined? Honolulu only?

Please define Honolulu

[Zone][Pier].

Honolulu Zone/Pier is defined as port code XE1/Honolulu.

Question closed.

23 RDC-6 PWS You define Hawaii as the following:

Hawaii: Includes all Hawaiian ports: Kauai, Kure Island, Lanai, Mainland Hawaii, Maui, Niihau, Oahu and Tern Island.

Please explain what location(s) are referred to as “Mainland Hawaii”. Also we currently do not service Kure Island, Nihau, or Tern Island however you are asking us to place bids on CLIN’s to/from “Hawaii”. We service a majority of these locations however not all of them. Will we be required to move freight to locations we do not service if we place bids on these?

We do not service Kure

Island, Niihau, or Tern

Island as referred to in the

“Hawaii” grouping.

Mainland Hawaii is defined as “the big island”. You will not be required to move freight to locations you do not service.

Question closed.

24 Accessorial Requirement Define the Nuclear Liability Insurance Accessorial Unable to locate the definition of this accessorial in the PWS.

An amendment to the solicitation will be made to add the nuclear liability language to Section 3.G.17 of the PWS.

The language is as follows:

Cargo shipped as radioactive break bulk shall be freighted as the commodity type, e.g. general cargo or 20' shipper owned etc. Cargo shipped as a radioactive container shall be freighted as the container type, e.g. 20'or 40' etc. In addition, the contractor's radioactive accessorial will be added to the total cost for shipping this cargo.

The contractor's radioactive accessorial shall include the additional cost needed to maintain the appropriate level of insurance required to ship this type of cargo on a per occurrence basis.

Types of cargo may include but are not limited to; radioactive cask on 48'shipper owned trailer, 20' and 40' radioactive shipper owned containers. Question closed.

25 EDI Please advise what D-Rap System is? Unable to locate the definition of this accessorial in the PWS.

D-RAP refers to the Delay Request and Authorization Portal.

It is an auto generated portal for reportable shipment status events. The explanation for D-RAP starts on page 11-13

Section 3.A.11.3.1 Table of Reportable Shipment Status

Events of the RDC6 PWS. Question closed.

26 52.212-3 OFFEROR

REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (DEC 2012, Page 10 of 44, first paragraph

From what we can determine, the ORCA website is no longer in existence or accessible.

Links that are attempted through the www.acquisition.gov webpage as referenced in this paragraph do not function. Please confirm that all references to ORCA and to the CCR website should be superseded by appropriate reference to offeror electronic Representations and Certifications that have been submitted and updated in the System for

Award Management (SAM) Website

AQ confirms that Representation Certification Application

(formerly ORCA) and Central Contractor Registration are now officially on System for Award Management (SAM). The website is www.sam.gov. this is the site used to update and retrieve Reps and Certs, Excluded Parties Listing (EPLS), and

CCR. If you are able to access www.acquisition.gov, the SAM site is listed on the page. Question closed.

27 52.212-3 OFFEROR

REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (DEC 2012, Page 14 of 44, PARAGRAPHS (b) (1) AND (b)(2)

With the repeated references to “the ORCA website” in these paragraphs, please confirm whether this reference is now obsolete. If not, please provide specific guidance as to how to access the ORCA Website.

Same as #25 above. Question closed.

28 252.212-7000 OFFEROR

REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS- COMMERCIAL

ITEMS. (JUN

2005), Paragraph (c) (2), Page 35 of 44

Please confirm that carriers performing under this contract are expected to certify that carrier “Does not anticipate that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from this solicitation,” as was the case in the previous contract cycle.

AQ confirms that Carriers check “Does anticipate that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from this solicitation” in Paragraph (c)(2) of DFAR 252.212-7000. This is also supported by DFAR clause 252.247-7023 Transportation of

Supplies by Sea which is included in DFAR 252.212-7001.

Question closed.

http://www.acquisition.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.acquisition.gov/

29 252.225-7039 CONTRACTORS

PERFORMING PRIVATE SECURITY

FUNCTIONS (JUN 2012), Page 38 of 44

Please explain why this clause is included in the solicitation. Under what conceivable scenario would a TSP performing under this contract be acting in the role of a private security provider to the government?

This clause is deleted. Question closed.

30 Exhibit 4 Addenda to FAR Provisions, page 4 of 10, Section (c.)(5)

Pricing Proposal Narrative is listed as Volume IV in this section, but based on the information provided at (c.)(1)(iv) it seems that this is a mistake and Volume IV should be renamed Small Business Subcontracting Plan with a new section (c.)(6) to identify the

Pricing Proposal Narrative. Please confirm.

Exhibit 4 is amended. The Small Business Plan will be included in Volume II Technical Proposal instead of Volume

IV. Volume IV will remain as Pricing Proposal Narrative.

Volume IV will only include the Tariff information because all rates will be entered in CARE. An amemdment to the solicitation will be posted on FedBizOpps denoting the change to Exhibit 4. Question closed.

31 Exhibit 4 Addenda to FAR Provisions, page 2 of 10, Section (c.)(1)(v)

Please explain how the requirement for “VOLUME V – Pricing Proposal (Submit original and two copies).” can be reconciled with the requirement at Section (c.)(5) (i) which states

“Proposed rates shall be submitted using the CARE II HQ system. Pricing information shall not be included in offeror’s written technical proposal.” What should be included in

Volume V?

Refer to the answer for #29 above. Question closed.

32 CARE II HQ Functionality At the time that the RFP for RDC-5S was opened in the CARE II HQ website, there were provisions made for copying data from the RDC-5 contract and avoid duplicating text entry for certain items like Vessel Lists,, Service Strings, and other things that may not have changed from one contract to the other. Will there be any similar utilities available when RDC-6 becomes accessible in CARE II HQ?

As we combine the data from the two individual contracts

(RDC5 OY2 and RDC5S OY2), we will make all attempts to maintain carrier data including vessel lists, vessel profiles, and service string information. Inherently with all data manipulations such as this one, some inconsistencies can occur, and adjustments to the information captured may be necessary. Question closed.