MM-3_Draft_PWS_Feedback_Matrix_(FBO).pdf

Multimodal (MM)-3 Draft PWS Feedback Please note, until the formal solicitation is released, the Government reserves the right to continue to modify the PWS to reflect requirements.

Co PWS Section Para # Question/Comment/Feedback Government Response

Attachment 1, PWS

1.1.1

Recommend deleting "mode agnostic" if the government wishes to direct cargo through certain airfields/sea ports. Directing the use of an airport or seaport appears to be in direct conflict with the concept of the contract being mode agnostic to the government.

Updated. The Contract permits the use of multiple or single modes, including airlift, sealift, and surface linehaul, and does not dictate a specific mode for a transportation solution.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.2

Participation and good standing should be limited to a Carrier with Multimodal contract experience or if no experience, a new participant must provide a complete operations plan prior to being accepted into contract per the normal USTRANSCOM evaluation process. Additionally relationships between prime/subcontractors should be clearly defined as part of the operations plan for new participants.

The Government's evaluation criteria will ensure only offerors who are technically acceptable, responsible, and have acceptable past performance will receive awards.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.3.3 Do not support a 10 year contract. Recommend the contract time frame be consistent with the USC-09, i.e. 1 base year and 4 option years.

The period of performance reflects the Government's requirement.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.5.2

"Cargo may be booked as container or breakbulk cargo, depending on shipper requirements" - please provide clarity on this point. If cargo booked is Prime Vendor cargo what exactly will be booked as this statement seems to contradict 1.5.3 "contractor owned/provided equipment remains in contractor possession at all times." If a contractor owned/provided equipment is booked and not delivered how does that work?

Language updated.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.9.1

Recommend rewording to take into account that CRAF carrier primes do not maintain sailing schedules in IBS. prior to submission of their offer. We use existing schedules for VISA carriers or bid using foreign carriers who do not have schedules in IBS maintained by the Contractor.

All contractors should maintain vessels schedules in IBS prior to submission of the contractor's offer if a vessel is a part of the multimodal movement.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.9.2 Please clarify how flight itinerary is going to be verified as IBS can only support vessels (Voydocs). The language places voydocs and flight itineraries on equal footing

Flight itineraries are to be submitted with the Contractor's offer. Language updated in the contract.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.10.3 Carrier does not always receive a Point of Contact (POC) for the cargo at time of award. Recommend language be revised to state 24 hours prior, only if POC is available. Otherwise, require 24 hours post booking.

The language says 24 hours prior to the available date. Although it is preferred for the carrier to reach out sooner, it is not a requirement.

Attachment 1, PWS

1.17

Requires all shipments to be tracked IAW the format in Attachment 5. Attachment 5 reflects a MM redeployment from Afghanistan and is not condusive to all shipments especially non-IBS. Recommend the wording be adjusted or Attachment 5 add templates for other types of moves.

No Change. Attachment 5 is not reflecting a redeployment from Afghanistan.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.3.1.1

Removed prior language in contract stating, "an adjusted RDD will be established based on length of any delay or staging period approved by the Government." Based on updated language, "The contractor shall deliver cargo no later than the...(RDD) specified in the accepted booking." Want to confirm that DRAPs will still be used to adjust RDDs.

Delay Request Analysis - Portal (DRAP) is included in the definitions section, but not included in the Multimodal contract. Recommend that DRAP be added to the Multimodal contract for consistency with USC-09.

RDD extensions will no longer be processed in D-RAP and will have to be requested in CPP. Removed DRAP from the definitions section. MM-3 and USC-09 are stand alone contracts.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.6

The rating system already forces carriers into limited use by design (i.e., unsatisfactory score). Agree that if a carrier quotes a U.S. Flag vessel or aircraft, that limited use should apply. However, disagree with language regarding limited use for falling below acceptable score for two months. There should be consistency between Multimodal and USC contracts.

Accepted, however, MM-3 and USC-09 are standalone contracts.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.3.2.1

Can you clarify how the EDI requirements are to be transmitted for movement non booked within the SDDC IBS system. Unlike the EDI 315 for the IBS Booked cargo which is a EDI 300 booking is sent to the carrier after awards by IBS bookers, for the cargo not booked within SDDC IBS system will it be a system booking message sent to the awarded carrier system for the required EDI transaction to be met: W, I, VD, VA, OA, and X1? What system on the USG side will received the EDI for orders not booked within the SDDC IBS system?

The Government is currently working on an update in PAT to allow for EDI transactions to be transmitted for orders not booked within the SDDC IBS system.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.3.2.1 Please clarify how is EDI going to be submitted within SDDC IBS system for movements not booked in IBS

The Government is currently working on an update in PAT to allow for EDI transactions to be transmitted for orders not booked within the SDDC IBS system.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.5.3

Section states, "in the event the performance rating for a geographical lane is neutral, the combined overall score of all geographical ratings will be used". In lieu of using the Worldwide Score when the Lane Score is Neutral, recommend that a Neutral score be used for that lane. Once a lane score resets to Neutral, the carrier would then have the ability to remedy its score in that lane.

The Government understands your concern however the Government considers demonstrated past performance on another lane should be indicative of ability to perform transportation services on other lanes.

Attachment 1, PWS

2.5.3 Recommend the following hierarchy rating structure: Exceptional, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, Neutral, Unsatisfactory. This allows a Neutral rating to be considered higher than Unsatisfactory, but below Satisfactory.

IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Thus, adding a hierarchy is contrary to the FAR.

Attachment 1, PWS

5.6.1.4 Please clarify this entire paragraph

Updated to clarify. If a Contractor is unable to identify subcontractors used for services under the contract, the Government would accept a list of all subcontractors used in the contractor's network.

Attachment 1, PWS

8.2 Request that Available Lift Date (ALD) be defined in the definitions section to include the Carrier's responsibility to the ALD.

ALD is not used in the contract. ALD is the JOPES term for Available to Load Date, which is the date the cargo is at the POE for load. The term used throughout this contract, and in IBS, is the Cargo Available Date which is the date the cargo is available at Origin fo pick-up by the Carrier. In JOPES terminology, this is the RLD. Available Date is defined in 1.10.1.

Attachment 2, Invoicing &

A.8 Please provide definition of a "certified air weight ticket" Updated to "certified weigh ticket" Please see B.4.i and B.5 for additional information on a certified weigh ticket.

Attachment 2, Invoicing &

B.4.i Language appears inconsistent as further language refers to "certified weight tickets Please see comment above. Updated the language to be consistent throughout.

Attachment 2, Invoicing &

B.4.ii There needs to be further clarification if a Government Representative is not available to attend a joint inspection and sign a joint certified document

No changes. Exceptions should be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer.

Attachment 2, Invoicing & Payment

B.5

Regarding dimensions included on weight tickets, service provider may not have capability to provide depending on the origin of the cargo. How would that information be added, pen and ink additions? Recommend removing the requiremen for verified dimensions since as required in IBS, verified dimensions are documented on Load onboard (LOB) reports or in the Pipeline Asset Tool (PAT).

The Government requires certified weight and dimensions. No changes to the PWS.

Exceptions should be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer.

Attachment 2, Invoicing & Payment

B.5 Added weight ticket language needed for NON-IBS movements. Where available, third party documents or Commercial Invoice - Packing List (CIPL) from supplier declaring weight should be accepted.

The Government requires certified weight and dimensions. No changes to the PWS.

Exceptions should be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.2 Previous contract referenced NTE pricing. Recommend that NTE pricing be included for Afghanistan only and reinstate a 5 year contract (1 base year and 4 option years be exercised) as referenced in 1.3.3 above.

The Government notes your feedback, however the pricing reflects the Government's requirement. The pricing strategy chosen is allowable per FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E) and Class Deviation 2018-O0006, dated 13 Dec 17.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.2 A.

Current wording states that "Only the Surface Deployment Distribution Command (SDDC) Ordering Office and the Contracting Officer are authorized to order services under this contract." From our perspective, the non IBS Task Orders are not contracted/booked through SDDC. Is SDDC only involved in IBS shipments or in all moves? Should this wording be more inclusive and include USTC/AQ who signs the task orders for non-IBS shipments?

Non-IBS Task Orders are contracted by the Contracting Officer which is included in this sentence. SDDC orders IBS requirements. The Contracting Officer orders Non-IBS requirements through the issuance of a Task Order outside the IBS system.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.4.A.5 CONOPs were previously required only upon request. Recommend reinstating the previous language instead of mandating a CONOPs report for every Request for Quote (RFQ).

Updated to clarify. Only the awardee would need to provide a CONOPs report.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.4 B.

Recommend the following changes to incorporate statutory airlift cargo preferences and provide a similar priority system based on the statutes, "B. In accordance with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904, the order of priority for cargo moving via ocean is as follows: U.S. Flag vessels (P1), the combination of U.S. Flag and foreign flag vessels (P2), and foreign flag vessels (P3). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40118 and 49 U.S.C. 41106, the priority for moving cargo by air is as follows: (A1) air carrier holding a certificate under section 41102 with assets committed to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (A2) air carrier holding a certificate under section 41102 without assets committed to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (A3) Foreign Carriers.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures reflects the applicable law, regulation, and policy regarding the application of the VISA and CRAF preferences.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.4 C.

Recommend the following wording to more precisely reflect sealift and airlift cargo statutory preferences along with associated case law. "C. VISA –VISA preference will be applied based on ship utilization. CRAF-CRAF preference will be based on the air carrier, airway bill and associated code share agreements. US CRAF carrier preference is allowed when flying on a foreign flag carrier using the US CRAF carrier airway bill but only if a code share agreement approved by the US Department of Transportation is active and approved for the two carriers involved.

VISA and CRAF participants receive an equal preference. CRAF or VISA carriers

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures reflect the applicable law, regulation, and policy regarding the application of the VISA and CRAF preferences.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.4 C.

In regards to (VISA and CRAF participants receive an equal preference.) In a scenario where an offer propose VISA P1/Non-CRAF vs. an offer propose VISA P2/CRAF or VISA P3/CRAF is the Gov’t stating they will be equally accepted under the (VISA/CRAF Preference) contract requirement and the Gov’t will then move to evaluate the offers based on the remaining criteria i.e. pricing, past performance etc.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures reflect the applicable law, regulation, and policy regarding the application of the VISA and CRAF preferences, however, any transportation solution must comply with the Cargo Preference Act of 1904.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.5

Recommend that variances in the Multimodal contract be stated in two approaches:

1. NON-IBS movements - Set a minimum guarantee and no variance percentage

2. IBS movements - Use one time only modifications instead of REAs and a 10% variance rule

The Government has determined that risk is equally shared by both the government and contractor with a variance of 25%. The Government's decision is supported by Multimodal- 2 data analysis.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.5

Some MM moves requires whole aircraft charters with margins considerably less than 25%. With a variance at 25%, carriers either have to increase margins (not in the best interest of the taxpayers) or take the risk or a substantial loss based on erroneous information at the time of solicitation. Recommend the language be modified to place more responsibility on accurate cargo weight/dimension information from government shippers and not require higher margins to offset risk of loss. The government could also lower their variance amount but accept a higher variance level since they control the initial bid estimates. Recommend the following wording " 2.5 Variance. Services Ordered via IBS or Contracting Action: If the total billable weight varies more than 5% below or 15% above the total booked weight for the Task Order (e.g. total of all PCFNs awarded together), the contractor may request an equitable adjustment to the Government for additional costs incurred by the carrier due to the weight variance. DELETE Remainder (in excess of 25)."Supporting documents confirming the additional costs that were incurred by the carrier due to the weight variance DELETE Remainder (in excess of 25). between the booked weight and the billable weight must be submitted to the Contracting Officer no later than 15 calendar days after delivery of the cargo. In addition, the contractor shall submit, to the best of their ability, all appropriate documents requested by the Contracting Officer.

The Government has determined that risk is equally shared by both the government and contractor with a variance of 25%. The Government's decision is supported by Multimodal- 2 data analysis.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.5

In regards to (Variance). Would the Gov’t review the variance of 25% requirements above/below the booked weights for RFQ solicitation outside of the IBS booking process (Non-IBS Booked). An offers cost is based on the EST at the RFQ suggested weights, it may not always reach the 25% above/below difference. This impacts cost of transportation in cases where the offer/carrier is under contract following an award based on the EST. weights and is under contract to a sub-contractor following an award value. Suggest to eliminate the 25% variance requirement for NON-IBS booked orders and move to a Contracting Officer review of the difference and allow an adjustment to the carrier offer price per lb. to adjust the award the carrier would otherwise be entitled to following the award value.

The Government has determined that risk is equally shared by both the government and contractor with a variance of 25%. The Government's decision is supported by Multimodal- 2 data analysis.

Attachment 3, Ordering Procedures

2.6

If the intent is to allow a large number of carriers to participate then recommend removing the paragraph which states that CPARs rating can be negatively impacted from failure to bid. Many carriers will not be able to bid on all task order solicitations and some will most likely not bid on most.

Updated.

Attachment 4, Safety and Audit Oversight Checklist

1.1

IATA IOSA Audit are the international recognized platinum standard for airlines.

US carriers use IOSA audits to meet the DOT requirement for code share safety.

IOSA standards exceed the standards outlined in the Attachment 4 checklist. HQ AMC/A3B can attest to the fact that IOSA audits exceed checklist standards. Like this audit, IOSA audits have to be renewed every two years. Current IOSA audited airlines can be found at https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/audit/iosa/Pages/registry.aspx. Recommend wording be changed to read " 1.1 The purpose of the CRAF/VISA carrier’s safety and oversight audit program is to ensure Non-DoD Approved air subcontractors meet safety standards, DoD requirements, and the operational standards of the applicable State. CRAF/VISA carriers will not use Non-DoD Approved air subcontractors on internationally recognized CAA safety “Banned” lists. Non DOD approved carriers who have completed an International Air Transport Association (IATA) IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) and are currently listed on the IOSA registry are considered to have met the requirements of the Safety and Oversight Audit program. The IOSA program is an internationally recognized and accepted evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline. The IOSA audit creates a standard that is comparable on a world-wide basis, enabling and maximizing the joint use of audit reports. The IOSA standards meet or exceed the standards outlined in this attachment. IOSA audits have saved the aviation industry over 6400 redundant audits and continues to lead to extensive cost-savings for IOSA participating airlines. All IATA members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to maintain IATA membership.

This is already stated in Attachment 1, PWS Paragraph 1.21.2.

Attachment 4, Safety and Audit Oversight Checklist

Intro

Recommend adding Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to read "Introduction. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) prime carriers are responsible for performance of their Non-DoD Approved air subcontractors. CRAF/VISA carriers must ensure each Non-DoD Approved air subcontractor, operating into or out of military controlled Forward Operating Base (FOB)/Forward Operating Location (FOL) airfields, within the CENTCOM AOR, is approved by the country specific Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The Government reserves the right to request the CRAF/VISA carrier provide copies of information pertaining to ...."

Updated.

Attachment 4, Safety and Audit

Introdu ction

Second sentence of introduction paragraph ends with "is approved by the country-specific". Believe it was meant to end with country-specific Civil Aviation Authority.

Updated.

Attachment 5, Reports

Line one states that this is to be used for "Cargo Lift – Containers/ Breakbulk," We believe it's intended to be used for "Sealift - Containers/Breakbulk". This appears to be a USC/IBS carryover. Recommend additional granularity to ensure the government gets the report only for sealift movements.

Accepted. Report is required for sealift portion of applicable multmodal movements.

Attachment 6, ITV

Spreadsheet

All

Spreadsheet reflect the process flow of an air sea redeployment out of an FOB in Afghanistan. Is it possible to use a more generic format to account for other types of move OR provide guidance on exactly what types of moves this spreadsheet should be used for. Adapting this spreadsheet for many moves including Non-IBS moves not going into the CENTCOM AOR is difficult and may not provide sufficient ITV for the customer.

The Government is currently working on updating the ITV spreadsheet.