USC-9_RFP_Q&As_(1).pdf

Solicitation: HTC711-19-R-W001

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

# Section Para # Question/Comment/Feedback Government Response

Is there a final red-line version of the attachments?

Looking to see a version to bridge the last draft with the final if possible.

There is not a track changes version of the final RFP;

the Government posted a track changes version of the draft PWS (19 July) and the draft RFP (12 Oct) for industry review.

2 Exhibit 3 11.G

This clause states that a contractor must have a valid Facility Clearance at the Secret Level. Many current contractors and potential offerors are not able to obtain this because DSS has determined that contractors should only have a Facility Clearance if they are handling classified materials. Several Jones Act carriers have either been unable to obtain an FCL or DSS has not renewed their FCL due to the reason. Additionally, this contract is open to non US Flag carriers and they also are not able to obtain a secret FCL.

The Government will change the language to reflect the FCL requirement applies to movement of sensitive or classified cargo only.

3 SF 1449 and Clauses 52.212-2 Section (iii) Price states that price will be evaluated on a by-lane basis. Please advise if USTRANSCOM will factor U.S. Flag service in its reasonable consideration provided that the offeror submits supporting documentation that it is providing U.S. Flag service on that particular lane.

Reference 52.212-2 Evalution (b)(iii) for U.S. Flag Consideration.

Guam customs charges are levied by weight. Commercial customers at Guam clear and pay the Guam Customs charges before they pick up or have cargo delivered from the port. Today the ocean carriers are absorbing these charges. This is something the SDDC detachment at Guam could do and potentially bill back your DTS shippers. The ocean carriers should not continue absorbing this charge. In USC 9 It should be a distinct pass through. Thank you for your review. To clarify. today Commercial customers are paying the Guam customs charges before the cargo is picked up or delivered by the carriers. Carriers are absorbing these charges for military cargo shipped by DTS shippers.

The Government is considering a language change to add customs levied on cargo going into Guam to be invoiced as a pass-through.

5 SF 1449 and Clauses 52.212-1 I didn’t see a requirement for Past Performance in the Submission of offers so can you confirm one is not being required this time around.

Past performance is not a technical evaluation factor.

No submission required.

6 Att 1 to Exhibit 1 Do we have the option of using the small business plan template or creating our own document or is the template included in the submission of offerors the preferred?

Contractors have the option of using the template, however it is highly recommended since it is a template which includes all fifteen required elements in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.704(a) that must be addressed in the contractor’s Subcontracting Plan.

7 DD 254

We believe that there may be a discrepancy and need clarification with block 10j and 11L regarding CUI. In blocks 11m and 13b, the security office is references to FOUO and DoDM5200.01 Vol 4 as the guidance; Vol 4 is the INFOSEC manual for CUI. our understanding is that blocks 10j and 11L should be checked if FOUO will be accessed.

There is no discrepency. The marking is consistent with DoD policy.

8 Attachment 4

Can Fort Lewis, WA to be its own named rate zone in the USC? Currently, it's lumped in with Puget Sound Zone 3. That zone is rather large. The freeways are terrible around here with bridges galore. Therefore, I have to bid that rate rather high to cover all cities in that zone. In reality Fort Lewis is right down the road from (Contractor)'s terminal. I'd like to propose a lower rate than we have file.

Contract language reflects the Government requirement. At this time attachment 4 will not change. However, the Government will consider for option period 1.

Universal Service Contract (USC) -9 Questions and Answers Matrix

9 1.1 last

As discussed in prior meetings, request that the last sentence be changed to read "However, the USC Contractor may submit claims to the US Government for issues arising out of the control of both the Prime Vendor and the USC Contractor."

This revision, adding the words “to the US Government” would clarify the Carriers rights and parallel the protection – right to file claims against the Government language in Section 1.1.3"

The Contract language has been synchronized with DLA PV language and reflects the Government's requirement. "U.S. Government" is understood.

10 2.1

As agreed, to fulfil COGSA, the carrier needs the stated value at the time of the booking. We will need to add language that will allow the carrier to decline the booking at the time it is offered or at the time when the carrier is provided the stated/declared cargo value. As an option, the government would be allowed to purchase additional insurance for "high value" cargo or allow the carrier to accept/decline cargo at their discretion. We can also review this for Exigency regions.

COGSA accurately reflects the Government's requirement. However, for High Value cargo in exigency areas, if the value exceeds exceeds $1.25M, the contractor shall contact the Contracting Officer for further instructions. This applies only to exigency areas.

11 DD 254 FORM DD254 is attached as part of the RFP, yet nowhere can I find the requirement to fill it out and submit with proposal. Please clarify whether we must fill out and submit.

The DD 254 reflects the contract security classification specifications for access to sensitive or classified information related to this contract. There is no requirement to fill out or submit this form with your proposal.

12 SF 1449 and Clauses 3(2a) “Provide one vessel profile….” Please elaborate on this requirement. A profile is a specific view on a ship drawing. Will a vessel General Arrangement (GA) that shows vessel profile (inboard profile and deck plan) meet this requirement?

This requirement is to ensure that offerors own/control a vessel to exclude freight forwarders or 3PLs from participating in the USC program.

Offerors shall either provide documented evidence of vessel ownership or control. Vessel profiles must include the name of the vessel, type of vessel, capacity of the vessel and the flag of registry.

13 SF 1449 and Clauses 4 (2b)

The RFP states: “Pursuant to DFARS 252.247-7026 U.S. Domestic Shipyard (applies to Jones Act trade only) information must be provided showing the overhaul, maintenance, and repairs for covered vessels, performed in U.S. and foreign shipyards, for the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission, and the preceding four calendar years. Offer shall use the Domestic Shipyard Report template at Exhibit 1, Attachment 2”. We are offering a new vessel that was delivered in 2017, therefore she has not been to a shipyard for overhaul, maintenance, or repairs. Please confirm that we can enter “Not Applicable” on the Domestic Shipyard Report Template.

If no overhaul, maintenance, or repair work has been performed on a ship during the reporting period, list the ship name in the "Vessel" column with "Not Applicable" in the following columns.

14 Attachment 8 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 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. Government Comment: 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 is involved IAW Exhibit 3, Performance Work Statement, Attachment

8. Attachment 6, PWS Exhibit 3 also provides invoicing and payment instructions. (Contractor) understands that Government is working thru the issues that Carriers have been experiencing with determining ownership of cargo Government vs Prime Vendor and (Contractor) requests that Government continue the discussions between DLA/Primes Vendors/Government and Carriers.

The contract language has been synchronized with DLA PV language and reflects the Government's requirement. No further changes will be made to Attachment 8.

15 Attachment 7 Section 1.1 Allowance

(Contractor) will be loading vessels with the lower sulfur fuel beginning September 2019 with an 8-10% threshold.

The Government acknowledges the information and will analyze data on the threshold pending the results of the Volpe study.

16 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? Government Comment: 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. (Contractor) is requesting that Government reconsider the two business day policy of prior notification for reasons provided.

The Government has reviewed feedback in reference to the requirement. The requirement will stand at two business days.

17 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. Can Government advise the reason why the amount was only raised to $450 (an addition of $150 over 12 years). This amount is too low.

Why only a $150 increase?

A 1.9% inflation rate was used, which is in line with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as the average of the previous 12 years (the beginning of USC5).

Since there had been a large spike in trucking costs in 2018, for the last year we added an additional 20% increase and it came out to ~$450.

18 Attachment 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. Government Comment: The Government is working a system change to allow multiple pending D-RAPs. Is there ay update?

The change will be made before the contract start date.

19 Attachment 4

Suggest to update the following Korean City Groups:

ADD:

- Create a new City Group of "Samchok" to include Panmunri Will a City Group for Samchok be created in the future

At this time, the Government is not using Panmunri.

The DODAAC is not loaded in the IBS database. We requested further information from the carrier on why this was a suggestion and did not receive further clarification.

20 Exhibit 3 3.B

We suggest a carve out of the TAN movements to whatever RDD Guidance matrix is created by SDDC.

Government Comments: Government is 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. Is there any update?

The RDD Matrix is still in development. TAN routing will be considered in the Matrix.

21 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 (Contractor) 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.

Gov't believes the current language provides a recourse but what would it be? How would we get "a Government-approved compensated delay" if we cannot raise a DRAP because we don't have possession of the cargo? Would we simply send an email asking for approval and if so, how would we go about being able to charge detention? We suggest clear language advising how Carriers can receive detention charges.

For operational issues such as the one described, the carrier should notify the Ordering Officer immediately for resolution.

22 Exhibit 3 Table 7.E.1

Suggest to remove Kuwait from Table 7.E.1. as we as the Carrier are performing Customs Clearance.

Government Comment: Request carriers submit a summary of the actions they are performing in regards to Cargo Clearance and the Government will evaluate the request further. (Contractor) provided a summary of the actions we are performing but not clear on Government's intentions.

The Government is researching the cargo clearance process in Kuwait. PWS language meets the Government's current requirement.

23 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) Government Comment: The Government non-concurs with removing the Max Detention Days. We will need more information to determine the exclusion of "special equipment". (Contractor) request that Government reconsider based on comments provided regarding specialized equipment.

The Government reconsidered and non-concurs. The section 9.E.8.6 table accurately reflects the Government's maximum daily detention.

24 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. Has there been any update?

No updates. The Government did not receive information to support a change to TAN Driver Wait Time.

25 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. Government Comment: Government needed to address with the IBS Program Managers has this been done and when can we expect any changes to be made.

The Government reviewed and considered. The EDI table 1 accurately reflects the Government's requirement. The Government does not support adding an IP transaction. No changes.

26 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. Government Comment was that more information is needed to fairly evaluate this request. Can you elaborate on the type of information you would need to make an evaluation.

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.). Government Comment: More information is needed to fairly evaluate this request. Can you elaborate on the type of information you would need to make an evaluation.

The Government reviewed and considered. 9.F.3 accurately reflects the Government's requirement.

The Government does not support adding an IP transaction. No Changes.

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

There is not a paragraph 4.1 under section 4 cargo claims. Section 4 refers to Government asserted claims against the Contractor.

28 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 Government reviewed and considered. The contract language accurately reflects the Government's requirement. No change.

29 Attachment 7

1. Bunker reimbursement to begin 1 September 2019 in preparation of shift to 2020 IMO Low Sulfur Compliant Fuel

2. RDD relief or extension due to speed restriction (20+% reduction in speed efficiency) caused by utilization of 2020 IMO Low Sulfur Compliant Fuel which limits commercial viability (i.e. fewer port calls for commercial cargo due to increased time in ocean transit)

3. No re-base lining until USC-09 OY2

4. Government/Contractor threshold for reimbursement reduced to between 8-10% to match commercial market standards

1.The Government acknowledges the information.

To synchronize with the IMO 2020 open ocean sulfur cap effective date, the Government will begin utilizing low sulfur fuel (0.5%) in the BAF formula in November 2019 for vessel sailings starting 1 January 2020.

2. RDD timelines are based on Government requirements and we will contract for services to meet those requirements.

3. The Government intends to rebaseline for OY1.

4. The Government acknowledges the information and will analyze the data on the threshold pending the results of the Volpe study.

30 Attachment 6 C.5

Consider revising language to remove 30-day time constraint on billing (Att. 6 - Inv and Payment (C.5 Kuwait Landing Fees))

1. Currently all landing fees are submitted within 90 to 120 days minimum

2. Kuwait Port Authority does not provide required documents for months and booking issues in IBS limit Carrier ability to invoice

The Government will make language changes to Attachment 6 to reflect current process.

31 Attachment 6 F

Consider revising language to remove 30-day time constraint on billing (Att. 6 - Inv and Payment (F. Pass Through Charges))

1. Currently all pass through invoices are submitted when all documentation is available and timeline varies depending on incident/circumstances

The Government will make language changes to Attachment 6 to reflect current process.

32 CARE

CARE II Ocean lists container and breakbulk volumes for numerous routes. However, CARE II has no volumes for Alaska (Routes 82 & 91) and Puerto Rico (Routes 18, 37, 42 & 84). Can USTRANSCOM provide volumes for the above Alaska and Puerto Rico routes?

The volumes listed in CARE are not up to date and the Government does not have current volumes broken out by lane to provide.

33 SHARP

1. Is (Contractor) to report any sexual harassment or sexual assault events, even if they are internal (i.e., (Contractor) office incident)?

2. Can you go into more detail regarding the Afghanistan policy?

a. (Contractor) does not have direct employees in Afghanistan, but we do have various subcontractors.

(Contractor) plans to send our subcontractors the SHARP policy and add to our basic ordering agreement.

Would that suffice?

3. Contractor shall notify its employees of, The DoDs policies (reference 3.B.1). Are there other DoD policies relating to SHARP that we need to advise our employees of?

4. Can you go into more detail regarding the “Uniformed Military Justice Violation” (reference 3.A.4.4)?

1. See Paragraph C.8. in the Exigency Annex.

2. This is a CENTCOM requirement for all contractors operating in the region. Contract language reflects the Government requirement.

A. See paragraph 5 in Attachment 14.

3. See Paragraphs C.8.4. and C.8.5. in the Exigency Annex. Also see Paragraph 2 in Attachment 14.

4. The CENTCOM POC for this requirement is CENTCOM Bagram. Email: centcom.bagram.usfor-a.mbx.parc-mailbox@mail.mil. Contract language reflects the Government requirement.

34 RFP I was hoping one of you could please give me a quick call to recap all the required items needed for proposal. I just want to be 100% clear I am to find the RFP requirements listed under “Solicitation1” posted December 18, 2018, correct? Then posts 1 through 24. Correct?

The RFP contains the requirements. Specifically, the instructions and evaluations of proposals are listed in the 1449, clauses 52.212-1 and addendum, and 52.212-2.

35 SF 1449 and Clauses 52.212-1

The Submission of Offeror’s section does not mention any requirement to submit a completed Attachment 9 NIST SP 800-171 Self-Assessment documents. (Contractor) submitted these documents back in July 2018 for the USC-8 and of course we will need to submit for USC-9 contract but my question here is – Is this a requirement for the USC-9 Proposal submission due January 30, 2019 and if so can you submit an amendment to the RFP. Appreciate your confirmation.

The requirement is listed in the Cyber Security Section of the PWS (Section 11), it's not part of the proposal submission.

36 Do we need to provide updated/completed forms for the Yubikey Issued List and the NIST.SP.800-171 POAM? We have completed and previously submitted both, however I want to determine if these documents also need to be uploaded via the ARL Secure Access File Exchange with our submission.

The Yubikey Issued List and NIST POAM are not required at the time of proposal submission.

37 CARE

If we do not bid on something or enter a rate for a specific lane during the initial contract bid in USC09, would we allowed to enter new rates for a lane that we previous had no rate file for during the annual rate refresh for option year 2 of the USC09?

Yes, you can add rates to any requirement in CARE during the option year rate refresh, even if you do not currently have a rate on file for that CLIN.

USC-9