HTC71118RR003_Kuwait_Preproposal_Conference_Minutes.pdf

KUWAIT S&RTS HTC711-18-R-R003 Preproposal Conference Minutes – 05 June

2018@0700L

Attended by:

TCAQ / Tom Fee (Contracting Officer)

TCAQ / Emmanuel Hardrick (Contract Specialist)

Vendors:

- DeSutter, Kerr & Associates, Inc.

- El Hoss Engineering & Transport Company W.L.L. (HETCO)

- Agility

- Kanoo Shipping Group

- Al-Baker Petroleum General Trading & Contracting Co. WLL

- Inchcape Shipping Services

- Raith Engineering & Mfg. Co.

Mr. Emmanuel Hardrick began the meeting with attendance and setting expectation that meeting was solely to brief proposal submission. Questions regarding the requirement must be officially submitted via email to Mr. Fee, Mr. Hardrick and Mr. Smith. Conference generally followed the posted agenda and went over details of Addendums 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 as posted with the solicitation. Some particular focus areas included:

a. Mr. Fee made emphasis on any questions received later than 13 June 2018 will likely not be answered prior to solicitation closing date, 02 July 2018. Questions will be answered and posted to FBO around 21 June 2018. An amendment to the RFP will likely be included with any changes to the solicitation as a result of answers to submitted questions.

b. The solicitation overview was discussed establishing when proposals are due, and the type of Award (Single Award, IDIQ contract). Mr. Hardrick went over the Minimum

Guarantee and the maximum order.

c. The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors should submit their best terms as this is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection.

d. Mr. Hardrick addressed the anticipated award date, performance start date and RFP layout (attachments).

e. Proposals should be submitted in 3 separate emails and labelled accordingly.

f. All documents provided by email should be Adobe PDF files except the pricing and suggested that all contract documentation be in one (1) .pdf file for an easier read and clarity, while also avoiding too many separate attachments.

g. Mr. Hardrick discussed the appropriate documentary evidence for proposal submission, which include, proof of current Host Nation commericial registrations for shipping, freight forwarding, import/export of cargo, cargo handling or equivalent services, proof of authorization from the KPA (KPA letter tabled for yard management discussion), proof of current certification of at least 2 trained and tested personnel in handling

Hazardous Material, and proof of capability to perform customs clearance through a licensed broker or clearing agency.

h. Mr. Hardrick stated that proposals should list relevant contractual corporate experience performing S&RTS or comparable vessel services in a similar or greater scope, magnitude and complexity. Mr. Fee added that eligible corporate experience information has been changed from the previous three (3) years to seven (7) years, based on historical

S&RTS contracts establishing a duration of five (5) years .

i. Technical proposal cannot exceed 25 pages, not including Table of Contents and Cover page. Emphasis was placed on any excess pages exceeding the maximum limits will not be read or considered in the evaluation. Each proposal will receive a randomized number for evaluation purposes. Furthermore, Mr. Fee relayed the importance of addressing the minimum requirements as stated in the solicitation and advised offerors to not waste pages with excessive details in any specific area. An example of “describing details of the safety program” was used. It was advised to adhere to each individual companies ability to show its capability to perform duties for the five (5) the minimum requirements and that the primarily focus should be on describing how they will meet those requirements.

j. Reps and Certs: Mr. Fee discussed changes in SAM in reference to Reps and Certs. Reps and Certs must be submitted via SAM. Mr. Fee recognized that DLA has changed the process for companies registering for a CAGE code, so if a company is not currently in

SAM they may not be able to complete their SAM registration in the time the solicitation is open. In such a case, unregistered companies will likely be allowed to submit their

Reps and Certs via email while their SAM registration is being processed. It was also noted that the specific Reps and Certs required are identified in the solicitation. Mr. Fee advised offerors if they needed additional documentation for the new SAM registration instructions to reach out via email to himself or Mr. Hardrick with request, however the

SAM website is the best resource.

k. Vendors were informed that a compliance check will be conducted first to ensure that all proposals meet the minimum requirements. Attendees were notified that technical proposals will be evaluated first. Specifically, each factor listed in Addendum to 52.212-

2 will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

l. Mr. Fee discussed that price proposal analysis will be conducted as instructed in

Addendum 52.212-2. There should be no unbalanced pricing. All unit prices shall be filled out in available and open cells. Mr. Fee pointed out that each offeror will incorporate their own escalation rates on the Summary tab and will be evaluated for reasonableness. Mr. Fee mentioned the structure of the Schedule of Rates should auto-calculate the out years and will be displayed in the Summary section, while also calculating proposed escalation rates. A vendor asked whether additional price information would be allowable. Mr. Fee advised that offerors can include with the

SOR’s any additional information such as tariff rates or other documentation to justify how they came up with prices. Mr. Fee mentioned a standardization of the S&RTS

Schedule of Rates is being utilized for this acquisition and encouraged submission of questions or concerns to “better” the Schedule of Rates template. It was verbally noted that information submitted to supplement the Schedule of Rates will not be allowed to change the terms of the contract as represented in the Schedule of Rates.

m. Mr. Fee revealed the new 24/7 daily operational details for the yard management line item and its encompassing commodities at Port Shuaiba and the four (4) yards, therein.

Additionally, Mr. Fee made mention of needed proof of authorization from the Kuwait

Port Authority to perform the required services at all specified port locations, where applicable and that proof should be in the form of a written letter on official KPA letterhead certifying the company and its intended subcontractors authorization to perform services at the applicable ports. Mr. Fee noted that there are expressed concerns that the Kuwait Port Authority lacks documentation integrity and accountability, which is problematic to the Contractors, Subcontractors and the Government. TCAQ will review the submission requirements and address any necessary changes if it proves that KPA is completely unwilling to provide the appropriate documentation to all offerors. However, it was emphasized that the expectation is that a successful offeror should have a working relationship with the port authority and thus be able to meet this proposal requirement.

n. Mr. Fee opened the conference to questions. The primary questions were addressed above and all other questions related to the requirement were pushed to be submitted via email as an official question to be answered and posted around 21 June.

End of notes.