MLC_Q&A_round_1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Master Lease Contract (Formerly Container Management Streamlining Contract) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71118RR007
About this file
This document contains questions and answers from an industry day held in relation to a Master Lease Contract solicitation issued by the United States Transportation Command. Key details include that the solicitation is for container leasing services to support transportation requirements globally, with an estimated total contract value of $97 million over five years. Security requirements and inspection processes vary across locations. The incumbent contractor has consistently exceeded the established small business subcontracting goal of 41%. Offerors must propose small business participation goals and dollar values for the base year and each option year using an estimated annual contract value of $3.9 million divided among five offerors.
Solicitation Q&A, Round 1 - 06 Sep 2018
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Synopsis_of_Award_MLC.pdf | ||
| HTC71118RR007_0005.pdf | ||
| Amendment__4.zip | ZIP file | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_7.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment__3.zip | ZIP file | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_6.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Provision__&_Clauses__References_by_Full_Text.zip | ZIP file | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_5.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment_2_Zip_Files.zip | ZIP file | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_4.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MLC_Q&A_Round_2_Posted_14_Sep.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment_0001_Zip_Files.zip | ZIP file | |
| Preproposal_Conference_MLC_2.PPTX | PPTX presentation | |
| PPC_Sign-in_Sheet_30Aug.pdf | ||
| Atch_2__Agenda.pdf | ||
| Atch_1_MLC_Pre-Proposal_Conf_Directions.pdf | ||
| Pre-Proposal_Conference_Instructions_for_FBO.pdf | ||
| Official_Sol.zip | ZIP file | |
| Synopsis_of_Solicitation_HTC71118RR007.pdf |
Show all 20
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
| MASTER LEASE CONTRACT RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ROUND 1 | |||||
| Section | Page | Paragraph | Question | United States Government (USG) Response | Industry Response during Pre Proposal Conference |
| 1. Will the chassis for OCONUS be a requirement? | No, chassis are CONUS delivery and redelivery only. | ||||
| 2. Will there be any forecasts for requirements? | No, by the time the notification goes to the contractors the requirement is fully funded. | ||||
| 3. Is it possible that one contractor (at task order level) could get all awards? | Yes, but not likely | ||||
| 4. Referencing the SF1449, must a contractor complete Block 12, Discount Terms? | This block should reflect the prompt payment discount offered to the Government, if any. If "Net 30", it should state so, this indicates no discount was offered. | ||||
| 5. Is there a security standard for all depots? If not, how do we address security changes which will cause driver's denial to base? | Security requirements vary across locations. The commander of each location has the authority to institute security measures based on their specific mission and operations tempo. The Government relies on the customer to advise of any short notice changes. | ||||
| 6. Is the depreciation schedule in Attachment E for reference purposes only? | Yes, based on historical data. | Tank containers with “in-service inspections” are not typically conducted. This is not in line with commercial best practices. More efficient for both parties to off-hire the tank container and replace with a fresh tank container. | |||
| 7. Referencing the Inspection and Rejection process, How often do rejections occur? | The United States Government (USG) does not have this data. | ||||
| 8. Referencing the Inspection and Rejection process, when rejections occur, what rectification options are there? | DFARS clause 252.243-7002 is included in the contract, if claims are required. | ||||
| 9. What is the turnover rate for inspectors? | The information is not tracked by the USG. | ||||
| 10. Are there any opportunities to meet inspectors prior to inspection? | Although this is not a common occurrence, meetings between inspectors could possibly be arranged. Additionally, the USG has held joint inspections to rectify any issues. | ||||
| 11. Regarding equipment pools; how would contractors be compensated for the setup of these pools and how would contractors set these up to begin with? Would they find adjacent locations or would they be allowed to setup pools on Government installations? | This is a contractor business decision. Contractors will not be compensated for proposed equipment pools. | ||||
| 12. Referencing Attachment 1a, what is the intent of the tables? What must the contractors do with the tables? | The intent of the table is to ensure that cyber security requirements are being met. The self assessment must be performed by all offerors per PWS section 6.2. | ||||
| 13. What fuel adjustment mechanisms are in place? | Allowing annual rate re-pricing is the mechanism intended to mitigate risk associated with fuel price fluctuation. | ||||
| 14. Per PWS 1.3.2.4.1 Expedited Delivery Surcharge, what is the significance of the 5 days/15%? Is the %/days is adequate? | The USG would consider revising the current language should industry provide data which substantiates the need for revision. Data can be submitted to the USG in accordance with the procedures identified in the RFP for submission of questions or this issue could considered any time post award. | Two companies thought the percent was low due to the amount of work required | |||
| 15. Per PWS Section 7.0, subcontractor suitability, how did this requirement originate? Is there a list of banned subcontractors/foreign carriers? | Foreign Entity Vetting (FEV) language is required for all USTC contracts which include OCONUS contractors. The list of unsuitable contractors will be provided prior to the proposal due date. Should an offeror have a question regarding a potential sub-contractor's suitability; Offeror's may submit the name to the Contracting Officer for vetting until the official list is released. | ||||
| 16. 40' Reefers are mentioned in the PWS/Pricing table, is this a requirement? | 40' reefers are obsolete, the intent is to remove 40' reefers from the pricing worksheet. | 40' Reefers are obsolete and should not be mentioned…….. | |||
| 17. Regarding small business goals, is 44.1% a reasonable goal? | The 41 % was based on historical data, the current contractor consistently surpassed established goals. Lastly the SB goals only applies to CONUS. | Some of the interested parties thought it was high, others noted it was a realistic goal | |||
| 18. Regarding small business goals, are offerors required to project a dollar amount for all 5 years at the time of proposal submission? | Yes, offerors shall submit a dollar amount AND percent for the base year plus all option years. For simplicity, each offeror shall use $3.9M annually for their estimated contract value. The value derived from the total estimated contract amount ($97M), divided by 5 offerors, divided by 5 years. Each offeror shall fill in the separate dollar and percentage goals using proposed goals listed in the Business Proposal section of the RFP. |
HTC711-18-R-R007
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .