USC-9_Draft_PWS_Feedback_Matrix_(FBO).pdf

# PWS

Section Para # Question/Comment/Feedback Government Response

1 Exhibit 4 2(d) What is the difference between Lane Score (LS) and Worldwide Score (WS)?

Lane Score is the performance score for a lane, normally COCOM to COCOM (i.e.

NORTHCOM to PACOM) except for CENTCOM which is broken out by destinations/origins of PAKGLOC, NDN or the rest of CENTCOM. Worldwide Score is the performance score for all shipments.

The Government has clarified this in PWS Paragraph 3.A

2 Attachm ent 9

If we recently submitted the NIST 800-171 for POAM in July 2018, this would be the same information that we would submit during the USC-9 Solicitation? Yes, the cyber requirement is not changing from USC-8 to USC-9

3 Exhibit 3 7.C.2 Remove the word "to" before the word "port" in the first sentence. Accepted.

4 Exhibit 3 7.E.1.5 Remove the word "of" before the word "absence" in the first sentence. Accepted.

5 Exhibit 3 9.P.2 Add the word "that" before the words "a futile" in the first sentence Accepted.

6 Exhibit 3 11.A.2.1 If we recently submitted the NIST 800-171 for POAM in July 2018, this would be the same information that we would submit during the USC-9 Solicitation? Then update annually?

Yes, the cyber requirement is not changing from USC-8 to USC-9

7 Exhibit 3 11.E If Contractor is only a "domestic" carrier and does not service foreign countries, this section would not be applicable, correct?

This language only applies to foreign contractors or subcontractors. If the Prime contractor is a U.S. company and does not subcontract to any foreign entities, then this language is not applicable.

Does the Presolicitation posted as solicitation number HTC71119RW001 on FBO contain requirements similar to a existing contract or will this be a new requirement?

If possible, please provide the current contract number.

This is the Draft PWS only for USC-9, which is a follow on contract to USC-8. The Solicitation will be posted at a later date.

Att 3 Rate Rules

2.1.1

We request that you reinsert the language that general cargo can billed on a long ton basis if it exceeds the measurement ton revenue. This is a long-standing clause in USC and it was put in there to protect carriers against extremely heavy cargo. This is in line with commercial practice where the term is that rates apply to "weight or measure". This only comes up on the rare occasion but it has mutually worked for decades, is equitable and prevents the need for an OTO.

Accepted with language clarifications to 2.1.1

10 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B.1.2 Why was (prior to RDD) removed from government direct staging This reflects the current process.

11 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B.1.2 Remove "or authorized delay" at the end of the last sentence. Removed.

12 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B.1.4 How will Carriers be advised of the RDD Guidance that G3 maintains and updates into IBS and provides Direct Bookers? The Government used the Contractor's EDI transaction to develop the RDD Matrix.

13 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B We suggest a carve out of the TAN movements to whatever RDD Guidance matrix is created by SDDC Accepted.

14 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B.2.1.1 Is the EE transaction for all cargo or only specific cargo? If all cargo, this will present a challenge for Carriers. What is the goal of including this transaction?

The Government has removed the "EE" transaction from 3.B.2.1.1. as it will not be used in performance score calculations but no changes will be made to the language in Attachment 1 on the EE transaction.

15 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.B.2.3 Example calculation should show 50%, not 850%. Updated in the PWS.

16 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.E Quality Control Plan (do we still need to have this in the contract if one is no longer being requested or required) Removed.

17 Exhibit 3 PWS 3.F.5 Contractors in limited use will be offered bookings if no other carrier has equal or higher flag service. How is the fair and reasonable The Cargo Preference Act requires the use of U.S. Flag vessels unless those vessels are unavailable due to excessive or otherwise unreasonable rates.

Universal Service Contract (USC) -9 Draft PWS Feedback

18 Exhibit 3 PWS 5.C.3 Late Gate should read if mutually agreeable arrangements have been made with the

Contractor for a late gate prior to port cut off Carriers do not have to agree to late gates at any time including after port cut-off.

19 Exhibit 3

PWS 5.D.2.5

Carriers will need to validate all HAZ documents with HAZ departments/import country restrictions. As such, can we update "48 hours" to "2 business days". Our concern lies especially with the Middle East as they are on weekend Friday and Saturday and may miss to validate the documents in 48 hours.

Accepted.

20 Exhibit 3 PWS 6.B.4 Why are the (160 day recorders) needed in non-exigency areas The Government wants to set one standard across the world instead of creating many exceptions.

21 Exhibit 3 PWS 6.D. Chassis Requirement - On a door move who will be performing the stuffing/unstuffing operation if not the (by the Govt)

Sentence was changed because the requirement is that the Contractor provide serviceable chassis and the rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Further changes made to 6.D for clarity.

22 Exhibit 3

PWS 6.E.5

Believe the Government should be responsible for Detention on containers delivered to Pool locations until they Notify that equipment has been Emptied via an RA transaction. Carrier should not be required to submit RD when import cargo is dropped off at a pool location. (e.g. the Tracy pool where loads are being dropped at the pool location and not unloaded by the customer for several days/weeks)

Please see 7.A.2.1.2. SDDC will educate the shipper community on submitting RA transactions and on emptying containers in a timely manner.

23 Exhibit 3

PWS 7.A.2.1.2

We need some kind of recourse for when shippers are holding on to empty containers for too long. We recently had an example where a shipper held [carrier] containers for 6 weeks while they continuously rolled the booking to subsequent vessels. The contract should include a mechanism allowing to charge origin detention if containers are kept too long prior to shipping.

The current language provides a recourse.

24 Exhibit 3 PWS 7.A.2.2.3 Drop 'n pick service rate ($300) why is this not available for OCONUS areas where live load/unload is not being performed The government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

25 Exhibit 3

PWS 7.A.2.1.1

Carriers will have trouble adhering to the two business day policy of prior notification if a requested spot date cannot be met. Reason being, ad hoc issues can arise the day of the spot which we cannot foresee and notify of ahead of time (e.g.

trucker breakdown, weather, etc.)

The examples provided would still not allow reasonable time for notifying the shipper under the current language either. The intent is to mirror the amount of time the carrier is given in 7.A.2.3.4 and it allows the Government time to fill missed appointments and cancel/reschedule labor

26 Exhibit 3 PWS 7.A.2.4 Need access to the TFG Carriers can access the TFG through GFM which is a module that is requested through ETA.

27 Exhibit 3

PWS 7.C.2

When the Government is arranging inland deliveries and some form of Customs Clearance to be performed by the Carrier is required/requested the Customs Clearance rate should apply every time

The government does not agree to a language change at this time.

28 Exhibit 3

PWS 7.F.2.6

The AV transaction should not be invalidated if the container has already been delivered even if there is evidence of tampering. This is also in the Exigency Annex as well

The Government does not think a language changes is necessary.

29 Exhibit 3

PWS

Table 7.E.1

Suggest to clarify for Bulgaria on Table 7.E.1 that Carriers are allowed to charge the customs accessorial when the Carrier is handling the T1 process. We would appreciate clarification similar opt that for Turkey be written in.

An exception for T1 process was added to 7.E.1.4 in the PWS.

30 Exhibit 3

PWS 9.E.5 (2)

"In writing or " needs to be stricken from the language; Carriers should only be notified as empty via the RA EDI as outlined in section 9.E.7. Please confirm this applies to everyone (i.e. Prime Vendors, Direct Bookers, etc.)

The government does not concur with a language change.

31 Exhibit 3 PWS 9.N.2.1 Title should remain with the Carrier until both parties agree for the Government to purchase the container; then the title will transfer

The Government will clarify the language but will maintain that if a mutual agreement cannot be reached the Government will purchase the container in accordance with 9.N.2.1.

32 Exhibit 3 PWS 9.N.2.2 Suggest to remove "Automatic Purchase" from non-Exigency areas language. The Government non-concurs with removing "Automatic Purchase" language completely in non-Exigency areas.

33 Exhibit 3 PWS 9.E.8.6 We are not agreeable to the MAX Detention days or the inclusion of special equipment The Government non-concurs with removing the Max Detention Days. We will need more information to determine the exclusion of "special equipment".

34 Exhibit 3 PWS 9.H. We suggest adding language to the Driver Wait Time section outlining how TAN driver wait time is calculated.

Driver wait time is only payable at origin or destination. Any charges for driver delays that do not take place at origin/destination should be built into the Contractor's linehaul rates.

35 Exhibit 3

PWS 9.N.3

For Lost or Destroyed Containers, carriers should not be required to end detention on the date of Empty Pick-up Notification, as the equipment is not available for pick-

up. This should be amended to be through the date notification by the government that the container has been lost or destroyed, or an IP Date entered in PAT.

Additionally, we need something in the contract outlining what will happen to EDI submissions when we know a container will not be delivered. Sometimes Carriers are alerting the Contracting Officer (e.g. abandonments, cargo longstanding, etc.).

The government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

36 Exigenc y Annex A.1.3 Should read- Task Orders/Bookings with cargo in transit at time of declaration can be included at the discretion of the Contracting Officer upon discussion with Carrier The government does not support a language change at this time.

37 Exigenc y Annex C.7 Tarping Requirements - Pakistan/Afghanistan does not state, only if requested so does this pertain to all cargo?

The Government will verify the requirement with CENTCOM and update the PWS accordingly.

38 Attachm ent 1 Table 1

We suggest an IP Transaction be introduced, for its significance for Optional Container Purchase, and the Intent to Purchase Date. This is EDI generated by the Government, and is used to end detention calculations on Optionally purchased equipment

The Government will discuss with the IBS Program managers but any changes that will take considerable resources will not be made at this time.

39 Attachm ent 1

EDI- Additional Rules for SD/BD and A1/A2 - we're currently unable to have multiple D-RAPs open at one time. If the COR hasn't approved the first D-RAP because they have 10 days to do so, we'd have to wait to open another D-RAP until they approve the first. For example, if we enter a D-RAP because of a customs hold and it's not approved yet when customs is released, we're not yet able to submit the end date of the original D-RAP or submit an additional D-RAP for weather, if applicable.

The Government is exploring the ability to have multiple pending delays in D-RAP.

40 Attachm ent 3 1.4

Somewhat related to Single Factor Rates - currently, the escort and insurance costs for Italy cigarette shipments are rolled into the Single Factor Rate. We have both Single Factor and Multi-factor Rates on file and as such, based on the contract, we are billing the Multi-factor Rates as they are cheaper. When doing so, we are missing out on covering the escort and insurance costs. As such, would it be possible to separate these costs out and have them as separate accessorials?

The Single Factor Rate should be applied as it's for the commodity "Tobacco" and no other rates apply to this commodity.

41 Attachm ent 4

Suggest to update the following Korean City Groups:

ADD:

- Gyeongsan / Gyeongsangbuk-do to the Daegu City Group

- Pocheon to the Seoul City Group

MOVE:

- Pohang from the Busan to the Daegu City Group

- Muju from the Osan to the Kunsan City Group

- Paju from the Osan to the Seoul City Group

- Create a new City Group of "Samchok" to include Panmunri

The Government is reviewing this with personnel in theater and will make changes as necessary.

42 Attachm ent 8 1.6 (f) Attachment 8 Refers to PWS 3.G.4, 3.G.8 and 3.G.9 but cannot locate them in the

PWS References are updated.

43 Attachm ent 8

There does not seem to be much improved verbiage for how non-booked accessorials will be settled, or how Cargo ownership can be systematically identified to Carriers. The lack of clarification still leaves the onus on the Carrier and the PV to work out who pays and does not help clarify when/where the government is responsible for paying for any charges caused by authorized DRAP delays, or how the carrier can determine cargo ownership. This is a continuation of the same issues we've been facing since 2014.

The Government is currently working through the language for the Prime Vendor Cargo.

44 Attachm ent 8

We suggest to add language regarding payment of Prime Vendors; the contract needs to reflect what Carriers are paid by Prime Vendors.

The Government is currently working through the language for the Prime Vendor Cargo.

45 Exhibit 2 4.1 First Comment: I don’t understand insertion 4.1 under cargo claims. Question- what claims would the Contractor be asserting against the USG?

This paragraph was moved to be a stand-alone paragraph under the heading "claims timeline"

46 Exhibit 3 7.3

7.3 Contractor claims and requests for equitable adjustments shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for a decision within 3 years of the accrual of such claim, or the events providing a basis for such request for equitable adjustment, as applicable;

provided, that if, during this 3 year period, Contractor has a reasonable basis to believe that a claim or request for equitable adjustment will be filed at some point after the expiration of the 3 year period where the additional time necessary to file is not due to any fault or (in)action of the Prime Contractor, Contractor shall request an extension of this period as necessary to file such claim or request for equitable adjustment, which request shall not be unreasonably denied.

The language in paragraph 7.3 will remain as written.

47 Attachm ent 3 1.1.3

Would propose to update Attachment 3 Para 1.1.3 Hazardous Cargo to include “all cargo” (attachment 3Para 1.1.3). Hazardous cost have increased significantly since the creation of the USC terms and condition. Surcharges should reflect adjusted cost to include approval process, over the road permits, terminal handling cost and filing documents.

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

48 Would like the opportunity to review all fixed costs for the USC 9 contract so they are compensatory to the services rendered (to include hazardous mentioned above)

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

49 How will the carriers be notified regarding updated container pool requirements (Para 6.E.)

Container pool requirements will come from the OCCA/CORs for the AOR requesting the container pools. The Government is looking into an automated solution or it will be via email.

50 Attachm ent 6 D.3 Attachment 6 Para D.3 – suggest the addition of other charges like “dry run, port storage, blocking and bracing, and inspections” Blocking and bracing, and inspections was added. Dry run (futile trip) and port storage are already listed in the paragraph.

51 Attachm ent 6 D.4 Attachment 6 Para D.4 – update exchange rate to be used when the “expense occurred” Accepted.

52 Attachm ent 8 1.2.3 Attachment 8 Para 1.2.3 – reinstate entire clause Since Government responsibilities are discussed throughout the rest of the contract, including it here is repetitive and unnecessary.

53 Attachm ent 8 1.2.1

Attachment 8 Para 1.2.1 - Please clarify removal of language from the Prime Vendor agreement which enable the carrier to seek reimbursement for Government caused delays.

The deleted language from paragraph 1.2.1 specifically provided that the U.S.

Government "shall not be liable for loss or damage to Prime Vendor cargo" and for the Prime Vendor must work directly with the "USC Contractor for resolution."

54 Would propose acceptance of standard RDD calculation to avoid excessive countering of RDD at time of booking (example in Afghanistan)

The RDD Matrix is guidance to the shippers so they can plan for transportation. There will always be cases where these timelines are not appropriate, for instance unit move cargo.

55 Attachm ent 6 C.1 Attachment 6 Para C.1 – would like to maintain one process for break bulk invoicing regardless the number of TCN and preferred to have this processed through the IPP

The issue that drove summarization of breakbulk for PCFNs having more than 10 TCNs was twofold. First the government does not have staffing available to process required booking updates in TFMS since these are manual

56 Attachm ent 6 A.10 Attachment 6 Para A.10 – request review of the “First” and “Final” requirement as this will further delay invoices and proper payment.

This requirement was introduced to reduce incidence of post payment audit findings.

Carriers have the option to bill all charges at once when delivery of goods is complete which addresses the multiple invoice issue.

57 Attachm ent 6 C.2 Attachment 6 Para C.2 – please define “delivery date/proof of delivery” Delivery is defined as actual delivery -- for bookings to-port, this is the date of discharge of goods to port; and for bookings to-door, the date of actual delivery of goods to the to consignee

58 PWS 3.B.1.1

Please clarify when the CPP credit request must be submitted. Currently carriers have until the 8th calendar day of the subsequent month of the RDD. The revised language requires carriers to submit the CPP request 8 days after delivery of the cargo. If the language is the government's intent, will the CPP business rules be changed as well?

An RDD Credit can be requested any time after delivery (X1 is submitted) until the 8th calendar day of the following month.

59 PWS 7.B.3.1

Language presumes the carrier has received all cargo booking details 7 days prior to vessel load. Suggest language is changed to include a reference that the stowage space data is provided to the government 7 calendar days prior to load or within 48 hours after receipt of the cargo data from the government, whichever is later

The intent of this clause is to encourage the Government and the Contractor to begin dialogue early in the process and to provide guidelines on when/how this should happen. Language will be removed from the PWS but the Government will continue to encourage Contractors and Battalions to collaborate.

60 PWS 7.B.3.5.2 Reference to “paragraph 7.B.3.1.4.1” should be changed to “paragraph 7.B.3.1.5.1” References are updated.

61 PWS 9.D.3 Suggest changing the language to "….Contractor shall load cargo on the next scheduled sailing with available space after receipt of cargo…"

If cargo cannot be loaded on the next vessel due to capacity issues, the Contractor will need to address with the respective OCCA.

62 PWS 9.O.2 The heading has no associated text Headings are updated.

63 PWS 9.P.2

The language requires the BRT completed before a carrier can submit the invoice.

Carriers have no control on the government's BRT timeliness. Suggest the mandate for the BRT to be completed is removed.

The BRT request must be approved by an Ordering Officer before submission.

64 Attachm ent 3

3.1.6.3 (Rate Rules)

Reference to “Attachment 10" should be changed to “Attachment 12” References are updated.

65 Attachm ent 6 A.9

We would like clarity in the language in section A.9 related to invoicing upload / input. It seems to reference input and then upload, without being clear that either is an option. In addition, I would prefer that the clause indicates that invoices “…should be…” instead of “…will be…” created / submitted in T-IPP.

We have updated the document to remove reference to the TIPP invoice upload capability. Once we have breakbulk invoicing working well with manual invoice flipping we will begin looking at bulk file upload capability using prescribed XML file formats from TIPP. Verbiage regarding "will be" used is driven by a US government mandate issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

66 Attachm ent 6 A.9

The language is not clear as to how the invoices will be “uploaded” to T-IPP. We would like clarification as to whether .pdf invoices will be uploaded, or, if there are file formats that need to be uploaded.

We have updated the document to remove reference to the TIPP invoice upload capability. Once we have breakbulk invoicing working well with manual invoice flipping we will begin looking at bulk file upload capability using prescribed XML file formats from TIPP.

67 Attachm ent 7 BAF Please advise the status of the VOLPE study in relation to the ECA Zone changes in

January 2020 and subsequent changes to the technical factors for the specific routes. The VOLPE study is scheduled to start in September 2018.

68 Timeline

It will be very difficult to obtain competitive pricing from subcontractors for services in October 2018 for a contract beginning no earlier than September 2019 and even possibly the first quarter of 2020. The first CARE II rate iteration is too early. We understand the government requires additional time for proposal review and internal DOD approvals. However we suggest proposals are due and first iteration rates submitted end February 2019. Perhaps reduce the second iteration from a month two three weeks

The timeline will be revised.

69 3 3.B.2.1.1 EE (empty spotted) becomes mandatory EDI 315, this requires verification of current FIS tracking logic and eventual reprogramming. How will pool bookings impact this

The "EE" transaction has been removed from 3.B.2.1.1. as it will not be used in performance score calculations but no changes will be made to the language in Attachment 1 on the EE transaction.

70 3 3.B.1.1 RDD does not get extended automatically with approved Delay in DRAP. Requires additional workload with Carrier Performance / On Time Credit Requests in CPP

RDD extensions will no longer be processed in D-RAP and will have to be requested in CPP.

71 3 3.B.1.4 RDD Guidance : who will build this, what is carrier input ? The Government used the Contractor's EDI transaction to develop the RDD Matrix.

72 3 3.B.1.5 RDD on non work day - On Time Credit can we requested but creates additional workload

The Government will look at ways to automate in the future, however, the system (IBS) is not capable of doing this currently.

73 3 7.F.1.5 If the date the delivery requested is later than the RDD, the Contractor may request a delay in D-RAP in accordance with a RDD credit in CPP.

RDD extensions will no longer be processed in D-RAP and will have to be requested in CPP.

74 3 9.E.7

All notifications on containers being empty and ready for pickup will be documented in the Pipeline Asset Tool Container Return Management module. Contractor personnel will ensure necessary access to CRM. As described in Attachment 1, the RA EDI transaction will be auto-generated based on the date of notification, if the Contractor does not dispute availability within seven (7) days of notification

The language was updated from USC-8 for the current process.

75 3 11.E.1 Contractors shall submit a semi-annual report to the Contracting Officer for each first tier foreign transportation service provide. Correct.

76 Attachm ent 8

OPRAT's not longer included in this agreement. This is positive as it finally differentiates MRE's/HGR's from regular PV business Yes.

77 Attachm ent 1 contractor and OO's get 10 days to file Delay in DRAP The window was extended for processing D-RAP requests.

78 Attachm ent 1 Staging (HG & HR) : only in exigency area's ? Due to feedback from Contractors and internal stakeholders, HG/HR transaction will not be changed for USC9 (language will remain as it currently reads)

79 Attachm ent 1 For a shipment to be extended the contractor must submit required docs via CPP CPP will be used for processing on-time credit requests.

80 Attachm ent 3 2.1 If a government owned container rate is not available, the Ordering Officer may use the General Cargo Rate for Government Owned/Leased Dry Containers For breakbulk cargo, when a Shipper Owned 20' Container rate is not available, the General rate may be used.

81 Attachm ent 3 3.3

Rates will be applied based on the vessel sail date at the time of initial offer. If cargo rolls from one contract year to the next, the rates would remain for the contract year under which the cargo was initially offered. How about monthly rolls? Does the same criteria apply? BAF/CAF/FAF for the booked vessel month still apply?

BAF/CAF/FAF is addressed in the EPA language. No change was made to how that applies. It applies for the originally booked vessel's sail date.

82 Exhibit 4 Ordering Process for One-Time-Only Task Order/Bookings:

What's the driving factor behind an award ? RDD or Flag of service ?

What's the influence of BVN on awards ?

Per Exhibit 4, OTO criteria at a minimum includes technical, flag of service, domestic shipyard preference (when applicable) and BVN.

83 3 3.B.1.4 Will the contractors have access to the RDD Guidance? How will the RDD Guidance be formulated? Simple average of performance for a particular lane, port or point pair? This could limit the number of available carriers.

The Government used Contractor provided EDI to build the new RDD guidance. The Government plans to update the matrix annually or as needed. IBS will be updated as well. The structure is similar to the current RDD Matrix to allow it to be programmed easily in IBS.

84 3 9.N.2.1 Suggest exigency comments be limited to the exigency section. The language was left here because it is a change to the process but maybe removed in future iterations.

85 6 6.B.4 Checking with Sensatech for the ability of 160 days recorders. We currently have 120 day recorders.

We have updated language to reflect the more modern digital recorders that support longer timelines.

86 7 7.E.1 A separate Cargo Clearance Accessorial specifically for cargo of certain high value amounts - FMS cargo

Because of the issues the Government has with identifying the value of cargo at the time of booking, we do not think that a Cargo Clearance Accessorial would be appropriate.

87 8 8.F Chassis sustainability for long term usage in Europe has been an issue. The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

88 9 9.e.7 PAT - Container Return Management Module. Will this be for carrier's accessibility and update?

89 Exhibit 3 1.4.2 Calculations to quarterly vs monthly updates The Government will not consider this change at this time because of the limits in our ability to make changes to the system in which BAF/CAF/FAF is currently calculated in.

90 Exhibit 3 2.3 Calculations to quarterly vs monthly updates The Government will not consider this change at this time because of the limits in our ability to make changes to the system in which BAF/CAF/FAF is currently calculated in.

91 3 3.B.2.1.1

EE event, empty spotted event. We do provide other customers with this event, it is triggered off the Gated Out Empty epos. Many of our customers have shipper pools and this will be a difficult to report the EE as there will be no Gate Out Empty trigger. Question is why would this event be required for shipper pools? If this is a requirement we will have to find a way to report.

The Government has removed the "EE" transaction from 3.B.2.1.1. as it will not be used in performance score calculations but no changes will be made to the language in Attachment 1 on the EE transaction.

92 Exhibit 4 2.D

The numerical cost of the task order still applies for 50% of the BVN score. The Composite score should carry more weight than 50% of the BVN calculation.

Carriers with low composite scores could still have the higher overall BVN due to lower numerical costed task orders. BVN should be performance based.

The Government does not want to put any further emphasis on performance over price. Analysis shows this is sufficient balance between performance and price.

0 Exhibit

3 PWS

& 6 Attachm ent 6

1.B.

Purpose & A.2 Invoicing and Payment

Paragraph 1.B. states "USC is the primary contracting tool for moving DTS cargo when movement by ocean is required". Paragraph further states that DTS cargo consists of military equipment and related supplies including commodities shipped by DECA, merchandise shipped by AAFES and NEXCOM, supplies shipped by DLA and GSA, and mail shipped by MPSA. Paragraph A.2. states "Direct Bookers require carriers to be Third Party Payment System (TPPS) capable. TPPS is an electronic freight transaction tracking and payment system. Current TPPS Contact information will be provided to carriers following the award of the contract. Booking data will be made available in Syncada for carrier billing once the Lift On Board notification has been provided for the associated cargo". Request clarification if DECA, AAFES and NEXCOM cargo that is currently direct booked will continue to be direct booked using Syncada under USC-09.

No changes to direct booking invoicing procedures for USC9

94 CLINS added to all downloads and rate reports The Government will discuss with the IBS Program managers but any changes that will take considerable resources will not be made at this time.

95 Separate CLINS for different Ports (specifically for Linehaul rates) The Government will discuss with the IBS Program managers but any changes that will take considerable resources will not be made at this time.

Exhibit 3, Section 4.E.

4.E.3.1 IBS OCI - Carrier's rates to appear in the Booking Requests The Government will discuss with the IBS Program managers but any changes that will take considerable resources will not be made at this time.

97 EDI - CARE II rates to downloaded via EDI The Government will discuss with the IBS Program managers but any changes that will take considerable resources will not be made at this time.

98 10.B.3.2

POV Processing Service in Kodiak: The vehicles being shipped to or from Kodiak are for the USCG. These members are on the cutters and are out to sea for periods of up to 4 months. The cars sometimes sit in the Kodiak yard for 2 to 3 months, waiting for the member to return to land. Some of the members are single and don't have a family member on island who can pick up the cars for them. The length of time that these cars are stored are a hardship for the carrier as it takes up valuable port space. We request the ability to bill port storage beginning with the 22nd day that the car has been available at our terminal.

There is currently a process for requesting port storage reimbursement in the contract.

99 11.E The requirement seems very onerous for carriers. Request that the requirement be narrowed down; it is very broad. This requirement will not be changed. It is a matter of National Security.

100 3.B.1.4.

G3 will maintain RDD Guidance and transit time guidance that is based on competitive schedules offered by carriers on the lane (port pairs) and carriers historical movement data updated each 6 months. The guidance will be incorporated to Direct Bookers. We strongly believe RDD should not be the single factor for cargo performance. There are other factors which should be included in the performance measure. These would include real transit time. From pickup to X1.

Transit reliability. Other elements would include rolling containers, availability of container equipment, late gates, timeliness of response, accountability to take corrective action, late gates or receiving, rolling containers from accepted bookings, asking for changes to RDD, service or schedule change notice and timeliness, sailing day of the week reliability, billing accuracy. Not all these factors may be included but these could be distilled into a short survey done by ordering officers. We suggest weighting the additional transportation/supply chain factors equal to meeting the RDD. This would equate to a composite score denominator of 20% EDI, 40% RDD, and 40% carrier performance factors.

Due to systems restrictions, the Government is unable to automate this at this time and are unwilling to take on the additional manual process this would require.

101 3.B.2 3.B.2.3 [carrier] does not agree with EDI timeliness changing from 20% to 50%. This was updated because of feedback received from other stakeholders and we think it is the appropriate weight.

102 4.B. Carriers serving Guam should not continue to absorb Guam customs levied on the cargo

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

103 4.C. Customer Service Assistance should be a component of Carrier Performance and calculation of Composite score used to calculate BVN

Due to systems restrictions, the Government is unable to automate this at this time.

The Government won't be adding an additional manual process at this time.

104 5.D.2.3. first sentence, if the container booking is received no less than 3 days before local cutoff The Government does not support a language change at this time.

105 6.B.3. the cognizant COR and ordering officer (direct booking) Since this is a performance issue, the cognizant COR would be the correct contact.

106 6.E.2.

second sentence strike disestablishing pools. Carriers pay drayman based on round trip movement. Empty out load in. Inland loading locations requiring pools can be $300 to $500. Carriers have to bear the round trip cost of disestablishing pools with no revenue offset.

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

107 7.A.2.2.

2. $300 for drop and pick is not compensatory The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

108 7.A.3.1 another service factor that should be considered in transportation performance and

BVN

Due to systems restrictions, the Government is unable to automate this at this time.

The Government won't be adding an additional manual process at this time.

109 8R The Guam inspection Fee for fruits & vegetables hasn't changed in years. It should be updated to match current costs or the carrier should be allowed to set the rate.

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

110 9.H.4. If government set rate not compensatory The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

111 9.H.7.

government set rate in CONUS not compensatory 4 hours free time excessive reduce to two hours. Note that the ELD law has impacted motor carrier rates and trucking costs have increased in CONUS.

The Government will need more information to fairly evaluate how to handle the request.

112 9.k.1. Another element transportation service that could be evaluated and included in composite score and BVN

Due to systems restrictions, the Government is unable to automate this at this time.

The Government won't be adding an additional manual process at this time.

113 C.7 Tarping Requirements - Can Naha be added to this Requirement? We are still experiencing issue where Tarping is not being approved/paid for when it is a Naha requirement.

A CLIN is already established for Far East Tarping.

114 Section

Exceptions to normal service these items also have potential to be included as components of carrier performance

Due to systems restrictions, the Government is unable to automate this at this time.

The Government won't be adding an additional manual process at this time.

115 Exhibit 3 3.B.1.4 Where is the historical data coming from that G3 will use to create their guidance an how will carriers be advised of updates? The Government used the Contractor's EDI transaction to develop the RDD Matrix.

116 Exhibit 3 7.B.3.5.2 Paragraph referenced 7.B.3.1.4.1 doesn't exist References are updated.

117 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.4 For CAS appointments, some sites require information that is not always provided to carriers such as NSN's or model #'s. Can CAS require that sites only require the information provided in bookings?

CAS does not require the NSN or model #. This would be a site by site requirement and cannot be addressed in CAS.

118 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.4 Who is responsible for updating the TFG and how often is it updated? TFG is updated by the installations themselves. They should update as changes occur.

119 Exhibit 3 5.D.2.5

Carriers will need to validate all HAZ documents with HAZ departments/import country restrictions. As such, can we update "48 hours" to "2 business days". Our concern lies especially with the Middle East as they are on weekend Friday and Saturday and may miss cutoff to validate the documents in 48 hours.

Accepted.

120 Attachm ent 1

SD/BD/A1

/A2

TRANSA

CTIONS

EDI- Additional Rules for SD/BD and A1/A2 - we're currently unable to have multiple D-RAPs open at one time. If the COR hasn't approved the first D-RAP because they have 10 days to do so, we'd have to wait to open another D-RAP until they approve the first. For example, if we enter a D-RAP because of a customs hold and it's not approved yet when customs is released , we're not yet able to submit the end date of the original D-RAP or submit an additional D-RAP for weather, if applicable.

The Government is exploring the ability to have multiple pending delays in D-RAP.

121 Attachm ent 1

SD/BD/A1

/A2

TRANSA

CTIONS

If DRAP does not adjust RDD then what is the purpose of using? Would an RDD extension request be made through CPP or BRT?

DRAP will still be used to process invoicing and notify shippers of delays. Requests for RDD credit would be processed through CPP.

122 Attachm ent 1

SD/BD/A1

/A2

TRANSA

CTIONS

On PAKGLOC how would CPP be handled as this cargo often has many delays.

Would contractors be required to ask for RDD extensions each month? If either credit or exclusion is requested via CPP a carrier will never receive a score on these lanes

If the non-Contractor caused delay causes the Contractor to miss the RDD, the Contractor may request an RDD credit via CPP after delivery but before the 8th calendar day of the month following delivery.

123 Exhibit 2 4.1 Unclear on the insertion 4.1 under cargo claims. Question- what claims would the Contractor be asserting against the USG?

This paragraph was moved to be a stand-alone paragraph under the heading "claims timeline"

124 Exhibit 2 7.3

7.3 Contractor claims and requests for equitable adjustments shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for a decision within 3 years of the accrual of such claim, or the events providing a basis for such request for equitable adjustment, as applicable;

provided, that if, during this 3 year period, Contractor has a reasonable basis to believe that a claim or request for equitable adjustment will be filed at some point after the expiration of the 3 year period where the additional time necessary to file is not due to any fault or (in)action of the Prime Contractor, Contractor shall request an extension of this period as necessary to file such claim or request for equitable adjustment, which request shall not be unreasonably denied.

The language in paragraph 7.3 will remain as written.

125 3 3.B.1.1

Where is confirmation that approved RDD BRT will extend upon request? The language would cause a secondary request even though there is a DRAP event and log. Suggest USG uses system log for DRAP event to calculate credits due to carriers.

CORs will have access to D-RAP. When approved, a BRT request updates the booking. There are no changes to BRT at this time.

126 3 3.B.1.4 Will the carriers have access to the historical data for awareness and review? Suggest this be made available to Industry. The Government used the Contractor's EDI transaction to develop the RDD Matrix.

127 3 3.B.2.3 [carrier] does not agree to % allocation and would suggest to keep 80 EDI submission / 20 timeliness as an alternate

This was updated because of feedback we received from other stakeholders and we think it is the appropriate weight.

128 5 5.C.2 [carrier] requests 1 extra day for cutoffs. Suggest 2 days before vessel arrival. Origin cutoff is before the port cutoff not the vessel arrival. The carrier provides the port cutoff in IBS.

129 7 7.B.3.1

Carriers should provide stow plan for their vessels as it affects crew safety, vessel stability, and cargo. [carrier] is concerned with timing, control, reasonableness, etc.

[carrier] has concerns based on the 7 day requirement for space allocations. This requirement does not take into account any commercial operation in that 7 day period which may alter the location of available space. Also carriers many times do not receive the model type breakdown prior to 24 hours before loading. This lack of key cargo detail limits the carrier in providing stowplan information before a 24 hour period. Suggest switching free ops to liner ops

The intent of this clause is to encourage the Government and the Contractor to begin dialogue early in the process and to provide guidelines on when/how this should happen. Language will be removed from the PWS but the Government will continue to encourage Contractors and Battalions to collaborate.

130 7 7.B.3.5.1 What constitutes "acceptable space" and can this be more clearly defined? 7.B.3.5.3 Updated.

131 7 7.B.3.5.3 Communication from Government would not be sufficient for example if they were unable to provide accurate cargo list to include model type. Language of what is sufficient of acceptable is otherwise vague.

7.B.3.5.3 Updated.

132 7 7.B.3.7.1 Do not agree with this paragraph. Would like to discuss in open forum The Government feels the language is necessary. As always, you can address this in any open forum.

133 7 7.G.2.3.1

Need to delineate the ending height and the beginning height for FBSDs and DDRGNs. Currently the language has a FBSD ending at 126" and DDRGN starting at 126". One of the two inches need to change to distinguish which truck should be used when. Currently if 126", it would be a DDRGN.

Updated in the PWS.

134 EDI

Additional Rules for

SD/BD/A1

/A2

Under new language OO now has 10 Days to review DRAP requests. DRAP will no longer recommit the Contractor to a new RDD. For shipment RDD to be extended, the contractor must submit required documentation via CPP. [carrier] note: Process needs to be further explained. If the DRAP is accepted then why does the carrier have to make a second request? 10 days for review is too long. [carrier] suggests a 2 business review in order to allow multiple delays to be submitted with in the movement timeline.

The Government is researching the ability to allow additional delay requests to be added in D-RAP while requests are pending approval. Yes. Contractors will need to submit any requests for RDD credit in CPP because D-RAP will no longer modify the RDD. RDD should only be extended if the Contractor misses an RDD because of a non-Contractor caused delay.

Att 2;

Op Reports

1 Cargo Lift Report and Pre-Arrival Notice: Want to ensure that the scoring metrics for EDI timeliness is based on date received not on sail date. USG to confirm The Cargo Lift Report is not used in calculating the EDI timeliness.

136 Exhibit 4 2.d

Best Value Determination: If Carrier X does not have that particular LANE, then Carrier X's WORLDWIDE (WW) score should be evaluated against Carrier Y's WW score. If three Carriers, X, Y, and Z are being evaluated and Carrier X has a WW score only, then Carrier X, Y, and Z should be evaluated based on their respective WW scores.

The Government disagrees. When LS is available, Contractors will be evaluated based on LS.

137 8 8.D Request that supercargoes have appropriate documentation to transit to final destination (i.e., passports)

The Government will address with internal guidance to the Battalions. The contractual language remains unchanged.

138 9 9.D.3 Is it possible for government to automatically roll cargo without Contractor submitting to BRT (if the roll is due to no fault of the contractor)?

If notified by the shipper that cargo has rolled, the Booking Office can roll cargo in IBS. If the Booking Office is not notified by the shipper, the Contractor will need to submit the request in BRT for the booking to be updated.

139 Att 7 1.3 Does this change in 2020 to reflect same as "US West Coast to Alaska" or Northern Europe (route 48) as an example (0% HSFO / 100%LSFO)?

USTC has commissioned a VOLPE study to address any changes to the BAF calculations. The study begins in September 2018.

140 Exhibit 3 Attch 6 C.1

For breakbulk invoices consisting of more than 10 TCNs allow carrier to upload a detailed rated TCN listing in T-IPP as backup in lieu of hardcopy invoices. That achieves the same goal G8 is striving for.

Accepted.

141 Exhibit 4 4.2 Add VISA Participant as one of the OTO Task Order evaluation criteria Accepted.

142 PWS 6.B.4

1. The manufacturer of Ryan-type recorders does not make a unit that can record for 160 days. The maximum number of days those units work for is 90 days.

Please see the 2 attachments of the Ryan-type recorders:

Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/Ryan_EZT_Food_0217.pdf < Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/Ryan_EZT_Food_0217.pdf > Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/Ryan_CR- 1_Food_0217.pdf < Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/Ryan_CR-1_Food_0217.pdf >

2. The other devices that the manufacturers supply are NOT continuous recording and are not Ryan-type (so that wording should change). The digital devices available (that are used for the longer transits today) use technology that did not exist when Ryan was in business. However the digital devices may be acceptable. They record data digitally – which means that there are distinct readings and not a continuous line. These devices have a memory size of 8,000 readings – which means that if one records 1 reading every 30 minutes – that equates to 2 readings per hour – which means 48 readings per day x 160 days = 7,680 readings and that is less than 8,000 readings – so that is possible. It is just not continuous and it is possible for the temperature to deviate during the 29 minutes between the 2 readings.

Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/TTDirect_Food_Web_0617.pdf < Caution-http://files.sensitech.com/sensitech/en/contentimages/TTDirect_Food_Web_0617.pdf

We have updated language to support the more modern digital recorders that provide longer timelines.

143 PWS 3.B.1.1

Section 3.B.1.1, states “the Contractor may request an RDD credit via the Carrier Performance Portal (CPP) after delivery but before the 8th calendar day of the month following delivery.” This time frame is extremely restrictive as it will change the available time for us to raise a credit each month. During the Carrier Meeting in May, the Government mentioned a willingness to extend the CPP window if we were to not use DRAP to request RDD extensions; as such, we’d like to suggest the following change:

“the Contractor may request an RDD credit via the Carrier Performance Portal (CPP) after delivery but before the10th business 8th calendar day of the month following delivery.”

The Government will monitor CPP requests for the first three months of contract performance and, if required, we will update timelines at the first quarterly language modification.

Draft PWS