USC-9_Draft_RFP_Comment_Matrix.pdf

# Section Para # Question/Comment/Feedback Government Response

1 Exhibit 4 2c

NSHA kindly requests a review of the domestic shipyards requirement ordering procedures under USC-9 as a law of unfairly applied to single vessel liner service engaged in the Jones Act trade.

As a consequence, this rule strictly adhered , keeps us in a 'preference 2' position for the foreseeable future.

NSHA provides the only service to Puerto Rico from the Port of Houston.

End result is that cost is increased to government for cargo originating west of the Mississippi.

The larger carriers find a loophole in this requirement, as they have the luxury of dry-docking 'minor' assets in USA domestic yards to satisfy the domestic s/y requirement. The percentage used under the law does not take into account the above factors. There has to be a more equitable application of the law and evaluation formula to avoid excluding one vessel operator that has been supporting DoD requirements for over 10 years.

The current formula disadvantages NSHA as a single vessel liner operator.

SDDC is still booking to out service but we are concerned that the reason is that our competitors are full of don't publish their schedule on IBS. Our concern is that when our competitor's vessels lighten up next year that we will remain penalized and remain as a preference "2" carrier.

While we are not arguing the law, we are challenging the 'fairness' and application process for single vessel service providers.

We kindly request your review.

Per PGI 247.573(b)(2)(iii)(A) states " All solicitations within the scope of this section shall provide a preference for U.S.-flag vessels in accordance with the 1904

Act". USC-8 we established tiers of 15% (Base Year), 20% (Option Year 1) and 25% (Option Year 2). For USC-9 a Jones Act carrier will be required to have

15% (For the Base Year and each Option Year) or more of vessels serviced within U.S. Shipyards in order to receive a preference of "1" and 14.9% and below will receive a preference of "2".

2 SF 1449 & Clauses

In accordance with 48 CFR 19.1309(b), the clause FAR 52.219-4 shall be inserted in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition.

Questions:

1. Will FAR 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation of HUBZone Small Business Concerns be included in the final RFP and apply to all task orders?

2. Will a Small Business prime offeror have any evaluation advantage in the awarding of task orders, besides not having to submit a small business subcontract plan for an IDIQ contract award?

3. Will the Government consider subcontracting goals as total contract value instead of subcontracted value?

4. Will meeting small business goals in the prior year be a consideration of awarding task orders in the option years?

5. Will meeting or exceeding the small business goals be a requirement for award of an option period?

1. No, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns will not be incorporated in the Request for Proposal (RFP), therefore will not be applied to task orders.

Evaluation of price is completed at the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) level. All fair and reasonable rates/prices will be accepted. In accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 19.1307(a)(2), the price evaluation preference for HUBZone shall not be used where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted.

2. No an evaluation advantage will not be given. IAW FAR Part 15.303(a)(4), evaluation of proposals are based solely on the source selection factors stated in the RFP.

3. The Contracting Officer will not require large business concerns with Individual Subcontracting Plans to develop their subcontracting goals based on the total contract value. This contract is an IDIQ award with a minimum guarantee, therefore potential successful awardees do not know how much future business it will receive to formulate the dollars to be subcontracted.

4. Evaluation factors at the task order level remain the same throughout the life of the contract. Meeting small business goals is the prior year is not a factor considered at the task order level.

5. IAW FAR Part 17.206, option periods are evaluated at the same time as evaluating the base year, therefore meeting or exceeding the small business goals does not impact the exercise of an option year.

(ii)Electronic Proposals: Offerors shall submit signed and dated offers on or before 3:00 p.m. Central Time (CT), January 18, 2019. The entire offer shall be submitted via AMRDEC’s Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) Caution-https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe to the e-mail addresses listed above in paragraph (b)(i)(1). All Offerors shall save file names with carrier name as applicable per document. Proposals shall include the following completed documents as applicable: Please confirm if Business Proposals must be submitted electronically or if, as in the past, they may be mailed/Fedex to you.

All documents shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the RFP instructions.

Universal Service Contract (USC) -9

Comment Matrix

4 Attachment 7 1.3

BAF Table 1.3:

Reevaluate base line and technical factors. Specific example, will it change with the new IMO 2020 Sulfur Cap requirements to reflect same as "US West Coast to Alaska" or Northern Europe (route 48) i.e. (0% HSFO/100%LSFO)?

How will Low Sulfur be factored/priced? With transition to compliant fuels, if scrubbers are not installed, nearly 100% of the contract first year will be effected by the change on 1 January 2020, but there is no mention of the low sulfur global change in the contract language. Ship fuel costs will significantly increase with this new regulation. How do US carriers receive immediate adjustment for this expected spike in fuel costs?

We are currently working draft language. Final language will be incorporated into solicitation.

Draft section 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 changes are below.

1.1. Allowance

An allowance for fluctuations in marine fuel prices shall be paid to the Contractors or to the US Government in accordance with the following:

a. The allowance shall be paid per freight payable unit of cargo. For containerized goods these units are 20-foot and 40-foot containers. For breakbulk cargo, they are measurement tons.

b. The BAF is zero unless the one-month average fuel price is at least 20% higher or 20% lower than the baseline average fuel price. No bunker adjustment is payable on the routes not included in BAF Table 1 below.

c. The compensation per freight payable unit shall be calculated as follows:

[(Monthly Avg fuel price of MGO x route specific percentage + Monthly Avg fuel price IFO 380 x route specific percentage – annual baseline fuel price) x BAF Technical

Factor] / 6.50 (Conversion factor, metric tons to barrels)

d. On November 1, 2019, BAF will no longer be tied to the IFO 380 fuel type but to the new low sulfur fuel used worldwide to be in compliance with the IMO 2020 regulations. The calculation in paragraph c. above will change to:

[(Monthly Avg fuel price of MGO x route specific percentage + Monthly Avg fuel price of open ocean 2020 compliant fuel x route specific percentage – annual baseline fuel price) x BAF Technical Factor] / 6.50 (Conversion factor, metric tons to barrels)

1.2. Baseline Fuel Price

The baseline fuel price shall be re-priced annually prior to contract award and the award of each option year if exercised. The baseline fuel prices shall be based on the average fuel price over a three month time frame for Norfolk and Los Angeles. The three month period will be based on the three months prior to the month the Request for

Proposal is issued. In the case of the Option Periods, the three month period will be based on the three months prior to the month that CARE II is available to the Carriers to input rates. The established baseline at time of award shall consider the fuel types outlined in paragraph 1.1.c., the baseline for each subsequent option period, if exercised, shall be calculated using the fuel types in paragraph 1.1.d.

1.8 Changes to BAF Fuel Mixtures and Technical Factors

USTRANSCOM has commissioned a study to be conducted by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. The study shall analyze and refresh the BAF to reflect updated market conditions. BAF updates include potential revisions to technical factors, fuel mixtures and the effects of the IMO 2020 on BAF calculations. After completion of the study, but before the rate refresh opens for Option Year One, the Government will modify BAF based on the results of this study. The updates will take effect 1 September 2020 in line with the start of OY1. This also answers number 19,51 and 66.

5 Exhibit 3

Rec. #1: 3.A

Rec #6: Att2, Op

Reports, 1

3.A:

#1. Evaluate scores Lane v. Lane. If a carrier (who has not carried in a particular trade) only has World Wide (WW) score, than it should be evaluated against the greater of a carrier's (who routinely carry in this trade) Lane or WW score.

Attachment 2:

#2. Cargo Lift Report and Pre-Arrival Notice: Want to ensure that the scoring metrics for EDI timeliness / LOB submission is based on date received from SDDC, not on sail date.

When Lane Score is available, Contractors will be evaluated based on Lane Score. EDI Timeliness is based on the day the Carrier submits in the EDI transaction.

LOB submission is based on the vessel sail date.

6 Attachment 1 Additional Rules for SD/BD/A1/A2

DRAP Rules:

EDI; Additional Rules:

Must allow multiple delays for an individual TCN to be submitted with in the movement timeline. Additionally, at a 10 day timeframe, the Government cannot postpone / suspend an auto-acceptance.

The Government is working a system change to allow multiple pending D-RAPs.

7 Exhibit 3 3.B.1.1 In the event the RDD falls on a non-work day for free cargo terms, carrier should be able to postpone operations to a working day and RDD extended. Carriers should not be forced to absorb costs for operating in a non-work day / time for free cargo terms.

Per 3.B.1.4, the Contractor shall be given an RDD adjustment for RDD that are scheduled on non-work days. Language was removed that entitled the

Government to charge the Contractor for work scheduled on non-work days (reference 7.B.3.6) at Government operated terminals.

8 Attachment 2 5

5. Notice of Arrival Report

LGL requests language to be changed to Pre-Arrival notice in an acceptable format to include an excel workbook.

The Ocean Bill of Lading is also a sufficient document. Requirement has also been scoped to be only cargo imported through commercial terminals where customarily required.

9 Exigency Annex B.10:

Recommendation #1: Inland Transit Security Incident reports must include only what information the contractor knows at the time. The final report will have these required documents, however, the initial report should be limited based on availability of information.

Incident reporting requirements also updated in section C.6.5. Language would need to be adjusted in both section B.10 and C.6.5.

Updated.

10 Attachment 3 2.1.1

Previous contract allowed for invoicing the greater of Meas. Ton (MTON) or number of Long Tons (2,240 lbs) for all cargo types (gen, LV, HV, helo). New language limits this provision to only general breakbulk cargoes. What is the intent behind the change? In the definitions section, MTON is defined by the greater of the measurement ton or the long ton and does not have restrictions by cargo class. We agree with the definitions section. Additionally, commercial practice is "weight or measure", defined as the greater of the volumetric weight or long ton.

Current contract states: Only General Cargo shall be rated on a weight or cube basis. (1.2.1 of the Rate Rules Attachment). The language was updated for USC9 for clarity.

11 Exigency Annex C.7.1

Tarping Requirements - Pakistan/Afghanistan:

Some FOBs or ports do not allow tarping at FOB / port location. In these cases, tarping can only be done once cargo has left the FOB or port location. For example, you cannot tarp in the port of Karachi and you cannot tarp in FOB Bagram.

Language to be adjusted to fit operational reality.

Per OCCASWA tarping is only required to be removed while transiting through ECPs. It is allowed on the FOB and can be retarped in the soak yard. They have also confirmed that tarping is allowed at Karachi and Qasim after inspection by the Customs and Monitoring Agency.

12 Attachment 8 1.1

Paragraph 1.1 includes new language as follows: “However, the USC Contractor may submit claims for issues arising out of the control of both the Prime Vendor and the USC Contractor.” Note: This language is inconsistent with FAR

52.212-4(d), FAR 52.233-1 and the Contract Disputes Act at Title 41, USC Chapter 71. Under these authorities, the

USC Contractor may submit a claim to the Contracting Officer for any “non-routine” request for payment reflecting additional costs or charges incurred by the USC Contractor for which the USC Contractor is not responsible under USC-

09 terms. The language above is not consistent with these authorities as it implies that the USC Contractor Officer may limit or abrogate the USC Contractor’s administrative and/or legal rights to submit claims directly to the USC

Contracting Officer based on the ownership of the cargo being shipped. We disagree with this position, as the ownership is ultimately irrelevant to the relationship between the shipper who has ordered the services (i.e., US Government) and the carrier performing the service (i.e., USC Contractor) under this Government contract. Consistent with this position, reference the deletion of the following language at Section 1.1.3: “Notwithstanding the provisions of 1.2.2 above, the

USC Contractor may pursue any rights it may have under this contract and may file a claim with the USC Contracting

Officer where allowable under the terms of this contract in connection with the transportation of Prime Vendor cargo.

An example of such a situation could be where Government action harms the USC Contractor with respect to Prime

Vendor cargo transportation and some other part of this contract provides a remedy.” Comment- regardless of this language (or its deletion), and consistent with the comments above, Attachment 8 does not change, alter or modify the

USC Contractor’s substantive rights to file contractual claims against the US Government. As a result, the deletion of this language has no effect on the substantive rights of the USC Contractor to assert claims against the US Government under applicable authority.

This contract is subject to 41 U.S.C. 71, Contract Disputes Act. Failure of the parties to this contract to reach agreement on any request for equitable adjustment, claim, appeal or action arising under or relating to this contract shall be a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.233-1, The Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any dispute arising under the contract. Experience has demonstrated to the

Government that certain matters are properly handled directly between a Prime Vendor and a USC Contractor (the real parties in interest) where non-Government cargo in involved. The contractual intent is for the Prime Vendor and the USC Contractor to address/resolve such matters directly with each other.

13 Attachment 8 1.1.1

Paragraph 1.1.1 includes language as follows: “The U.S. Government shall not be liable for loss or damage to Prime

Vendor cargo.” COMMENT: in certain cases, cargo loss is directly attributable to border closure or other acts of a sovereign government, preventing the USC contractor from delivering the cargo. The result is that the food cargo may expire prior to delivery. In such cases, under USC-09 terms, the U.S. Government may be liable for the loss. Request clarification.

See Exhibit 2, paragraph 6.3

14 Attachment 8 1.1.1

Paragraph 1.1.1(d) and (e) states that the following are the responsibility of the USC Contractor and any costs associated with their failure to provide these services…shall be borne by the USC Contractor:(d) “Providing an accurate Bill of

Lading (B/L)”. COMMENT: the USC Contractor’s ability to provide a B/L is contingent on receiving accurate and timely shipping instructions from the US Government (See Section 1.1.3(b)). As a result, the previous language should be amended as follows: “Providing an accurate Bill of Lading (B/L); provided, the Government supplies accurate and timely shipping instructions in accordance with USC-09 requirements.(e) “Notifying the Government within 24 hours of discovering a seal on any until of cargo has been broken and/or replaced” COMMENT: In certain cases, the Prime

Vendor has asserted the right to reject an entire container based on a broken or replaced seal. This “Force Protection” provision is inconsistent with COGSA and the Maritime Clauses at Exhibit 2, which requires evidence of cargo loss or damage for the payment of a claim. This provision needs to be clarified- if the USC Contractor fails to notify the US

Government on seal issues, does USTRANSCOM take the position that the USC Contractor is liable for the destruction of the contents of the entire container?

The USC Contractor is required to provide an accurate Bill of Lading IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work Statement, Attachment 8, paragraph 1.1.1(d). The

Government may be responsible for any costs associated with its failure to provide accurate and timely shipping instructions IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work

Statement, Attachment 8, paragraph 1.1.3. The USC

Contractor is required to notify the Government within 24 hours of discovering a seal on any unit of cargo has been broken and/or replaced and is responsible for any costs associated with the failure to provide notice IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work Statement, Attachment 8, paragraph 1.1.1(e).

15 Attachment 8 1.1.2

Paragraph 1.1.2 states that the U.S. Government shall not be liable for certain USC Contractor claims against the Prime

Vendor. Note: Consistent with the Note 1 above, we believe this language is inconsistent with FAR 52.212-4(d), FAR

52.233-1 and the Contract Disputes Act at Title 41, USC Chapter 71.

This contract is subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, Contract Disputes. Failure of the parties to this contract to reach agreement on any request for equitable adjustment, claim, appeal or action arising under or relating to this contract shall be a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.233-1, The

Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any dispute arising under the contract. Experience has demonstrated to the Government that certain matters are properly handled directly between a Prime Vendor and a USC Contractor (the real parties in interest) where non-Government cargo in involved. The contractual intent is for the Prime Vendor and the USC Contractor to address/resolve such matters directly with each other.

16 Attachment 8 1.3

Former) Paragraph 1.3 has been deleted. This paragraph stated that the Prime Vendor “will execute a minimum level agreement which can be accepted or expanded by negotiation.” Similar language referencing an agreement to be executed by the Prime Vendor was also deleted at Paragraph 1.7. Note: with these deletions, the US Government is no longer making any representations that Prime Vendors will sign direct agreements with USC contractors; however, Attachment 8 clearly requires USC Contractors to settle certain claims directly with the Prime Vendors. Under past USC contracts, Prime Vendors have refused to address claims with USC Contractors based on the absence of a direct contractual agreement. As a result, and consistent with the comments above, USC Contractors will retain the right to assert claims directly against the US Government with regard to costs or charges incurred on Prime Vendor-owned cargo, notwithstanding language to the contrary in Attachment 8.

Experience has demonstrated to the Government that certain matters are properly handled directly between a Prime Vendor and a USC Contractor (the real parties in interest) where non-Government cargo in involved IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work Statement, Attachment 8, paragraph 1.1.This contract is subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, Contract Disputes. Failure of the parties to this contract to reach agreement on any request for equitable adjustment, claim, appeal or action arising under or relating to this contract shall be a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.233-1, The Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any dispute arising under the contract. DLA's Prime Vendor contract requires the PV to enter into at least one PV agreement with a USC contractor.

17 Attachment 8 1.2

Paragraph 1.2 includes language as follows: “The USC Contactor is required, after notification of an award of any route for Prime Vendor cargo movement, to enter into a written agreement with the Prime Vendor which should, at a minimum, use the Prime Vendor/USC Carrier Agreement to define procedures to submit and process claims and resolve disputes arising in connection with U.S. Government ordered transportation services for non-Government owned cargo.”

Question: What happens if the USC Contractor is unsuccessful in executing this written agreement? It is clear that the award cannot be rescinded, as this would contradict the Ordering Process at Exhibit 4, as well as potentially violate

Cargo Preference laws, VISA priorities and the “fair opportunity” provisions at FAR 16.505(b)(1). We also disagree with this language as it effectively gives Prime Vendors leverage to extract unduly favorable terms in direct agreements between USC contractors and Prime Vendors. We recommend that the language revert to state that the USC Contractor is “encouraged” as opposed to “required.”

DLA's Prime Vendor contract requires the PV to enter into at least one PV agreement with a USC contractor. All task orders will comply with USC-9 Fair

Ordering Process IAW Attachment 4 of the PWS, the 1904 Cargo Preference Act, VISA preferences, and other contract terms.

18 Attachment 8 1.1.2,1.1.3 and

1.1.4

We suggest to strike 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4 in their entirety and proceed with the following language:

"The Carrier shall submit any claims directly to SDDC. SDDC will submit payment to the Carrier and, if needed, discuss any refund of payment to SDDC caused by Prime Vendor fault with the Prime Vendor or respective Government

Agency."

Reason being, there is no way to delineate who caused the issue resulting in charges, SDDC or the PV. Additionally there will be instances where both are at fault for delays, in those cases we as the Carrier are NOT in agreement to split bill.

Experience has demonstrated to the Government that certain matters are properly handled directly between a Prime Vendor and a USC Contractor (the real parties in interest) where non-Government cargo in involved IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work Statement, Attachment 8. Attachment 6, PWS Exhibit 3 provides also provides invoicing and payment instructions.

19 Attachment 7 EPA

BAF Language has not been updated and Industry is waiting for the results from the VOLPE Study. There are serious concerns with the change in the 2020 fuel changes and how it will effect the increased cost of fuel come January 2020.

Will address further Industry's concerns in White Paper to follow.

Noted. Please see response to number 4.

20 Exhibit 3 3.B.1.1

We believe the timeframe available to request an RDD credit via the CPP needs to be extended as there will be many more CPP requests given the new set up. We would suggest 10 business days from the first day of the month instead of the 8th calendar day.

SDDC G3 does not intend to change the timeline for the credit and exclusion process, however, we will monitor how the new relationship between DRAP and

CPP affect the CPP process and if needed will make adjustments.

21 Exhibit 3 3.B.1.3

How will Carriers be advised of the RDD Guidance that G3 maintains and updates into IBS and provides Direct

Bookers?

What is the historical timeframe used by the Government to establish the RDD Guidance? (i.e. Is it the past year, the last

12 rolling months, 90 days, etc.). Additionally, it is not clear if it will be using calendar days based on SD to SD versus will it simply use business days post discharge? We would suggest a standard approach of using business days post discharge on a Place of Delivery City basis as this would provide the cleanest approach. Government used the

Contractor's EDI transaction to develop the RDD Matrix, is there any update?

As discussed at the pre-solicitation conference, G3 will send a copy of the new RDD guidance to all carriers for review. The new document will include only the top 80% of lanes by volume. The intent is to use 3 years of historical EDI to develop the RDD guidelines with a refresh taking place 2 times per year. The RDD matrix will drive the RDD timelines in IBS, but is not a guarantee of transit time. RDDs will be established based on BDs, and the contract will include a provision that states RDDs that fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday will be extended to the next Government business day; credit will be given via CPP.

22 Exhibit 3 5.D.2

We suggest language is added advising EDI Counters are considered as approved or accepted if no response is received from SDDC. Recently we've seen CORs requiring RDD adjustment counter approvals in order to grant approvals in

CPP.

RDDs should not be extended without the approval of an OO. If a counter is submitted via EDI then the booking (ETR) would be updated when accepted by the

OO. The Government non-concurs with this language change. Please send SDDC examples of the issues you are having so we can try to address the problem.

23 Exhibit 3 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.). To leave "in writing or" in this clause is contradictory to the new changes in 9.E.7. This was addressed in an earlier matrix but would like to readdress at this time.

The government does not concur with a language change. In writing will be an acceptable method of notification as some customers don’t have access to Pipeline

Asset Tool (PAT).

24 Exhibit 3 9.N.2.2

Suggest to remove "Automatic Purchase" from non-Exigency areas language. Optional Purchase would still be available for the Government; thereby reducing admin for both Government and Carriers and protecting Carrier assets by removing Automatic Purchase from non-Exigency areas. This was addressed in an earlier matrix but would like to readdress at this time.

Optional Purchase does not address what happens when either the Carrier or the Government cannot agree on purchase of the container. The Automatic Purchase addresses when containers have been in the possession of the Government and has exceeded the maximum detention days.

25 Exhibit 2 2.1.5

Due to (i) disagreements (and the resulting uncertainty) between USC carriers and the US Government on the application of the COGSA package limitations during inland transportation and (ii) the inability of carriers to protect themselves from substantial liability based on (undisclosed) high value container cargo, we proposed the following:

Absent the shipper choosing the option for increasing USC carrier liability for high-value cargo (i.e., the Increased

Liability for Lost or Damaged Cargo, at Exhibit 2, Additional Clauses, paragraph 2.1.5), recoveries for container cargo damage or loss should be “capped” in all cases to the lesser of (i) the traditional COGSA valuation of $500 per package and (ii) $50,000. Language to this effect can be added to Exhibit 2, Additional Clauses, paragraph 2.1.5 to ensure shippers are on notice of the limitation, and may plan accordingly.

USC-9 COGSA language provides a defined liability scheme in which liability for cargo loss or damage is equitably shared by the Government and USC contractors. The USC-9 COGSA language is unchanged from USC-8 and provides the USC contractors the same statutory exceptions for cargo liability.

26 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.2.1

We suggest the drop and pick service is updated to be the linehaul amount on the requested lane. $300 does not come close to what Carriers are paying truckers to go pick up the container. Additionally, the $300 was introduced in USC05

BY (2006) and is not aligned with market levels.

The Government is analyzing data provided by the Carriers with the intent of updating rates for drop and pick.

27 Exhibit 3 9.L.3 This is not possible in EDI; only the new container will be transmitted against the TCN. Additionally, what is an EDI

315A transaction?

The “A” of "315A" refers to the DTEB Implementation Convention Version. Updated to submit actual container number

28 Exhibit 3 9.P How do we account for futile trips for Direct Bookers since they're not in IBS and BRTs won't apply?

Invoices for direct booked cargo will be submitted IAW will Att.6 via IPP. The COR will determine if the charge is valid under the contract, and if so, forward the invoice to the direct booker for payment.

29 Attachment 1 Additional Rules for SD/BD/A1/A2

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. Government's comments in previous matrix is that they are exploring the ability to have multiple pending delays in D-RAP. Is there any update on this?

The Government is working a system change to allow multiple pending D-RAPs.

30 Attachment 4 City Groups

Suggest to update the following Korean City Groups: Government's comments in previous matrix was that they were reviewing this with personnel in theatre and will make changes as necessary. Is there any update on this?

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

Changes approved. We will update Attachment 4.

31 Exhibit 3 3.B

We suggest a carve out of the TAN movements to whatever RDD Guidance matrix is created by SDDC. In previous comments matrix Government agreed with this suggestion. Is there any update on this?

We are still working through the data on the RDD Matrix. Our intent is to treat TAN similarly to NDN and PAKGLOC and separate it into it's own lane.

32 Exhibit 3 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)

Don't believe this is resolved as 6.E.3 still mandates the "Contractor must submit an RD transaction for the TCN representing the delivered container" - we don't agree with this. Government's comments in previous matrix - 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. Is there any update on this?

Per Governments previous response: 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. No further update at this time.

33 Exhibit 3 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 Maersk 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.

34 Exhibit 3 Table 7.E.1

Suggest to remove Kuwait from Table 7.E.1. as we as the Carrier are performing Customs Clearance. Request carriers submit a summary of the actions they are performing in regards to Cargo Clearance and the Government will evaluate the request further.

35 Exhibit 3 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 to that for Turkey be written in.

While we appreciate the addition of 7.E.1.4, we would rather have a note on Table 7.E.1. as bookers cite the table.

We've had instances where we raise a BRT to add the customs accessorial and we get into a discussion with the booker because they hold firm that Bulgaria is on Table 7.E.1. For this location, we'd appreciate if the table can be updated to read "Bulgaria (except cargo with final destination Plovdiv, Bulgaria via Bremerhaven)"

G3 concurs that when a T1 is issued a carrier should be compensated by applying the cargo clearance accessorial. G3 disagrees that the note in the contract should be to a specific location. TCAQ and G3 will discuss an additional provision that outlines the concept that is addressed in the first sentence of this response.

36 Exhibit 3 9.E.8.6

We suggest Max Detention Days be updated to 365 for ALL equipment types and the removal of special equipment from the Max Detention Days (i.e. flat racks and open tops as these are specialized equipment for Carriers and not easily replaced)

The Government non-concurs with changes to the Maximum Detention Days.

37 Exhibit 3 9.I.

We suggest adding language to the Driver Wait Time section outlining how TAN driver wait time is calculated.

Carriers are not able to input driver delay costs into linehaul rates as the rates would be inflated to account for delays not necessary incurred on each movement; additionally the rates would be higher than market levels - this would not be workable. We would suggest adding some kind of account for truck detention suffered on the TAN Routing.

The Government sent out an RFI regarding TAN Driver Wait time and is awaiting industry response in order to evaluate this request.

38 Exhibit 3 6.B.1 How would the Carriers know if there is a deviation in temperature from the consignor's requested temperature and the temperature requested in the IBS booking if Carriers only receive the IBS booking?

The Contractor should be in contact with the consignor prior to picking up cargo. If the consignor is requesting a different temperature during these discussions, the Contractor should notify the booking office.

39 Exhibit 3 6.B.2

When the contract refers to maintaining a temperature within three degrees Fahrenheit for chilled cargo or 5 degrees

Fahrenheit for frozen cargo, are you referring to CARGO temperature or AIR temperature in the container? If referring to CARGO temperature, this is possible as long as the cargo is at those temperatures when stuffed into the container. If the cargo is hot stuffed, the recorders will reflect that. With current refrigerated technology, it is not technically possible to maintain these deviations in AIR temperatures as reefers have to go into defrost and be plugged/unplugged when loading/discharging cargo; +/- 5 degrees has been the manufacturing standard for several years.

This refers to the reading on the digital recorder referenced in 6.B.4.

40 Attachment 12 2

Due to variations of included ports regarding ocean transportation and services directly relating to ocean transportation, it is preventing us as a carrier to offer the best combination of costs and service to USC-09 contract partners. In particular, this is caused by groupings where costs can be substantially different among different ports in the same region

/ grouping. For the specific ocean costs this does not pose much of an issue and this comment is related directly to ocean-related accessorial charges, where the ocean component and accessorials will be combined (for multi-factor contract rates; this issue is not applicable for single factor rates).

While the goal to minimize the number of zones is fully understood, there are some areas where costs are so different that is causes us, as a carrier, to choose to either provide rates to cover cost at the highest cost port in the zone or to reduce costs below that, which could put us at risk of having to reject a booking at contract rates due to it not recovering our costs. This would not be an issue if the ocean made up for these costs, however we are doing our best to minimize the rate as much as possible in all areas, and by matching the accessorial region groups to that of the ocean groupings, thereby having more specificity on many CLINs, it will allow us to offer lower rates in lower cost areas and at the same time prevent us from having to reject bookings due to contract rates not covering costs.

It is thereby the proposal of MAEU to have a fixed set of location groups that would be used for all rate types (Ocean and Accessorial) at the current most granular level of detail. We do fully understand that this will require more work on our behalf as there will be more CLINs to submit, however the end benefit of reducing costs for the government, allowing use as a carrier operating in all lanes (excluding where we are restricted to operate by the Jones Act) to compete more fairly with carriers offering more limited ports of call and the reduction in OTO requirements will be worth this additional effort.

One such example would be in Section 2.1.2, to eliminate these groups and instead have all required rates applied to the groupings in section 2.1.1.

This would cause a huge increase in the number of rates on file and potentially the number of OTOs if not all new lanes were added in time. At this time, the proposed revised language does not meet the Government requirement. If you have specific lanes and justifications then we can look at the cost savings on a lane by lane basis.

41 Attachment 11 Hazardous Cargo

Hazardous Cargo: A hazardous substance or material including a hazardous substance, which has been determined by the Secretary of Transportation (Title 49 CFR Parts 171-180) or International Maritime Organization (IMO) to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety and property when transported in commerce. For purposes of applying Hazardous surcharges or the use of Hazardous commodity rates, Hazardous cargo is required to bestow on deck per United States Coast Guard Regulations. Commercially hazardous surcharges are applied to all hazardous cargo stowed on the vessel regardless if cargo is stowed on or under deck. Would like to have the hazardous surcharge applied to all hazardous cargo for USC-9.

The Government is analyzing data provided by the Carriers with the intent of updating Hazardous Cargo rates.

42 Attachment 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 proposed revision does not meet the Government requirement

43 Attachment 3 1.1.6 "Five Foot" and Greater Containers should be updated to read "Forty Five Foot"

Updated.

44 Exhibit 3 9.F.3

We suggest the language is amended to read through the date notification by the government that the container has been lost or destroyed, or an IP Date entered in PAT. The contract would read as follows:

"The Contractor will submit an invoice to the Contracting Officer for any unpaid daily detention charges accruing from the end of free time to the date of written notification to the Contractor or CRM-populated empty pick up notice an IP

Date is entered in PAT, plus the applicable purchase price in 9.F.4.

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 longstandings, etc.).

The proposed revised language does not meet the Government requirement.

45 Exhibit 3 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.)

What happens in the case of the examples of a trucker breakdown or weather delay? Will Contractors be penalized for not adhering to the two business day policy of prior notification?

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

46 Exhibit 3 9.H

We believe the “or RA” should be stricken as Empty notification would not be applicable in the case of Singapore lease as the Government is responsible to return the empty to the Contractor on these CY Singapore moves. Contractor also does not have access to retrieve the empty in Diego Garcia.

The Contractor is responsible for submitting the RD/RA transaction when the Government returns the container.

47 CLINS added to all downloads and rate reports in ETA-CARE

Please provide further information. We are unsure of which reports you are requesting we update.

48 Separate CLINS for different Ports (specifically for Linehaul rates)

CARE is not designed that way. Carriers can have multiple "via ports" per linehaul. This would require substantial resources to change.

49 Exhibit 3 4.E.3.1 IBS OCI - Carrier's rates to appear in the Booking Requests No changes will be made to IBS OCI at this time.

50 CARE II rates: Be able to download via EDI or Excel spreadsheet This is a system change request and will be worked with future iterations of IBS but will not be available for the USC9 recompete.

51 How will BAF and IMO 2020 be addressed?

Please see response to number 4.

52 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.2.1 drop and pick service. Government allows set rate of $300 per container. Some locations are very far away from the port. For locations more than 75 miles from the port, the drop and pick rate should be two times the drayage/linehaul rate.

The Government is analyzing data provided by the Carriers with the intent of updating rates for drop and pick.

53 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.3.1 live load service. Government contract seems to default to drop/pull service. For remote locations (for instance

Herlong CA) where the distance from the port is great and no pool exists at the location, the default should be live load/unload.

The default under the contract is live load. Shipper's loading requirements dictate the need for drop and pick.

54 Exhibit 3 7.E.1.1 Customs Clearance. Guam is not listed in table 7.E.1. Customs clearance is required at Guam Please provide further information to G3 so we can evaluate the need for a cargo clearance accessorial in Guam.

55 Exhibit 3 9.I.7

Free time and driver wait time compensation rates. Government set free time at 4 hours and over-time rates at

$60/hour, payable in increments of $15 per quarter hour in U.S. and Canadian locations. Commercial terms are mostly

2 hours free time, with $75/hour over-time, payable in increments of $18.75 in quarter hour increments. Government should permit carriers to provide service at 2 hours free-time, $75/hour o.t. payable in quarter hour increments.

The Government requires 4 hours of free time. Please provide further information about the cost charged to commercial customers for Driver Wait Time and the

Government will evaluate increasing the hourly rate.

56 Exhibit 3 11.E.1.1

Security Reports. Which parties are Carriers supposed to submit reports about?

First tier foreign transportation service providers within scope include, but are not limited to: foreign freight forwarders, foreign customs brokers, foreign stevedoring service providers, other foreign brokers, and foreign trucking companies.

57 There are port fees which are paid by the Carrier for which the USC does not list as reimbursable items. Examples:

Invasive Species Fee, Facilities Maintenance Fee, Crane Charge. Carrier requests a reimbursement mechanism.

For these three charges: Invasive Species Fee, Facilities Maintenance Fee, Crane Charge, the Contractor should include them in their ocean rate.

58 Exhibit 2 7

Government changed the maritime clauses so that it has to submit claims within 3 years instead of 6 as in USC 8. We are not sure what their new language “within 3 years of the accrual of the claim” means. Does it mean the same thing as

USC8, “from discovery of loss or damaged cargo." please confirm

“Accrual of a claim” means the date when all events, that fix the alleged liability of either the Government or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been known IAW FAR 33.201. The change in the clause reducing the period to submit a claim from six years to three years does not change when accrual of a claim occurs and is unchanged from USC-8.

59 SF 1449 & Clauses USC should be base year and 2 option years. The SF1449 shows base year and four option years. There may be substantive issues that arise during the course of the contract and these issues may not be addressed during a rate refresh.

This was addressed at USC-9 Industry Day and USC-9 Pre-Proposal Conference. There was consensus at the Pre-Proposal conference to change the contract to one base year and four option years. The Government will conduct periodic Industry Days in the future to address issues.

60 Exhibit 3 3.B.1.1 There should be a Credit given to carriers who deliver cargo before the RDD. Understand the negative impact of delivering after an RDD, but what about carriers who consistently deliver prior to RDD.

Not all shippers want the cargo delivered prior to RDD. In some places, trying to deliver prior to RDD could result in storage charges for the Government. The intent for the new RDD Matrix is to accurately represent delivery times so shippers can better plan RDDs.

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

A CLIN is already established for Far East Tarping.

62 Exhibit 3 10.C.2

The requirement for the Carrier to collect all of the documents (1384/TCMD, 2890/IMO, 2781/packing list) in order to facilitate "ok to lade" approval puts an unfair burden on the Carrier. Shippers don’t normally provide timely documents.

If Carriers have to collect documents SDDC needs to hold shippers responsible for providing timely documents and not hold Carriers responsible for missed RDDs due to OK to Lade delays.

There are contractual mechanisms available to Carriers when the government causes a delay.

63 Exhibit 4 2.2.

Request to add the following as the letter F - "Agency Shippers of retail merchandise, grocery, food and sustainment materials have discretion to book orders to carriers that best meet its supply chain requirements."

Current Ordering Procedures allow the shipper to choose the "other than BVN Carrier" for operational reasons. No change to Exhibit 4.

64 Attachment 6 C.5

The detailed excel spreadsheet rated and broken out at TCN level and cargo type is redundant and extremely time consuming. Why wouldn’t the KPA invoice + proof of payment to 3rd party + copy of port tariff + copy of the LOB as proof of booked and lifted cargo be sufficient? When we submit the invoice in PAT IPP there is another required template that needs to be uploaded at TCN level again. Suggest that the excel spreadsheet described in the 3rd bullet be removed from the required supporting documents and replaced with the LOB or the required detailed invoice template in PAT IPP.

The Government is evaluating the invoice validation requirements. If this change can be supported it will be included in the solicitation. However, if the change would cause invoice validation issues the language will remain as is.

65 SF 1449 & Clauses Order Limitations

52.216-19:

Request that TRANSCOM revise this entry from 24 to 48 hours to give APL the opportunity to review/verify its ability to carry Government cargo above 10%.

4 hour time period meets the Government's requirements and will not be changed

66 Attachment 7

In consideration of the current market conditions and future uncertainties coupled with the fact that the Volpe study will not be out until September 2019 (Post Award), there needs to be a contract provision that would give the Carriers the right to open the USC-09 contract for fuel discussions and as warranted secure a BAF adjustment effective September

2019.

Please see response to number 4.

67 Attachment 3 1.1.3 Request that the language be changed to “all hazardous cargo per IMDG” as there is cost to carrying hazardous regardless of stowage.

The Government is analyzing data provided by the Carriers with the intent of updating Hazardous Cargo rates.

68 Exhibit 3 7.A.2.2 drop and pick service. Government allows set rate of $300 per container. Some locations are very far away from the port. For locations more than 75 miles from the port, the drop and pick rate should be two times the drayage/linehaul rate.

The Government is analyzing data provided by the Carriers with the intent of updating rates for drop and pick.

69 SF 1449 & Clauses 2.1

The present circumstances confronting the USC Carriers warrant a review and change to the current USC COGSA provisions. TRANSCOM is unable to provide actual cargo values at the time of booking.