HTC71124RW002_Amend0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of Amendment 0004 is to provide Government responses to follow -on industry comments received on RFP Q&As Round 2, Q&As No. 2, 3, 5, and 18.

A. RFP Q&A Round 2 (Amended 20240222) is attached. See columns K, L, M for comments/responses on Q&As No. 2, 3, 5, and 18.

B. The proposal due date/time is not extended.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Feb-2024

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HTC71124RW002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jan-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Feb-2024

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC71124RW002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMEND 0004

See USC10 RFP Consolidated QA Round 2 (for SAM.gov)_Amended 20240222.

(End of Summary of Changes)

USC-10 RFP Q&A (Round 2)

UNIVERSAL SERVICES CONTRACT-10 (USC-10)

RFP - Question and Answer Log

1 2/9/24 00_SF1449 1 Box 8 We respectfully request the offer due date be extended to 26 Feb 2024. Our understanding from the pre-proposal conference is the due date is under consideration for extension to Friday, 23 Feb. We believe a due date of Monday, 26 Feb would be similar and would not adversely impact timeline since the weekend days (24-25 Feb) are non-work days for the government. As of Amendment 0002, the due date has been extended through 1100 AM CT, 23 Feb 2024. No

2 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 3 Section 2.1.1.5 Language not discussed nor mentioned on any prior RFI or during USC-10 Pre-Solicitation Conference. If the language remains, Carriers must price additional insurance costs into rates. Request remove " COGSA liability limitations shall not apply to cargo that is stolen or pilfered." This language will remain unchanged and reinforces language that is included in USC-9, Exhibit 2, Additional USC-9 Info at paragraph 2.1.4., which reads as follows:

"The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of non-conforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security. This recovery is limited to the amount paid for the services by the Government."

Multiple authorities, including FAR 52.212-4 and applicable case law, allow the Government to recover non-conforming transportation (including accessorial costs). No There is no specific limitation language in USC-10 section 2.1.1.5. A limitation must be set for additional insurance to be priced into rates. In USC-9 Section 2.1.4. the limit is referenced. Specifically, "Recovery is limited to the amount paid for services by the Government." Please provide rationale why the statement from USC-9 was not included in USC-10. USC-10, Exhibit 1, Section 2.1.4 reads exactly the same as USC-9, Exhibit 2, Section 2.1.4, which reads:

"The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of nonconforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security. This recovery is limited to the amount paid for the services by the Government."

The Government reviewed, and the language will remain unchanged. No

3 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 3 Section 2.1.2.4 Language not discussed nor mentioned on any prior RFI or during USC-10 Pre-Solicitation Conference. If the language remains, Carriers must price additional insurance costs into rates. Request remove " COGSA liability limitations shall not apply to cargo that is stolen or pilfered." This language will remain unchanged and reinforces language that is included in USC-9, Exhibit 2, Additional USC-9 Info at paragraph 2.1.4., which reads as follows:

"The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of non-conforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security. This recovery is limited to the amount paid for the services by the Government."

Multiple authorities, including FAR 52.212-4 and applicable case law, allow the Government to recover non-conforming transportation (including accessorial costs). No There is no specific limitation language in USC-10 section 2.1.1.5. A limitation must be set for additional insurance to be priced into rates. In USC-9 Section 2.1.4. the limit is referenced. Specifically, "Recovery is limited to the amount paid for services by the Government." Please provide rationale why the statement from USC-9 was not included in USC-10. USC-10, Exhibit 1, Section 2.1.4 reads exactly the same as USC-9, Exhibit 2, Section 2.1.4, which reads:

"The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of nonconforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security. This recovery is limited to the amount paid for the services by the Government."

The Government reviewed, and the language will remain unchanged. No

4 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 3 COGSA/ Section 2.1.1.5 “Accordingly, COGSA shall only apply in determining the limits of a Contractor’s liability, as set forth above, for loss or damage to cargo booked under this Contract arising at any time in the custody of the Contractor.” COMMENT: What is the intent of the word “only” in this sentence? Does this mean that only COGSA liability limits are applicable (and not COGSA defenses)? Note: a similar provision appears in Section 2.1.2.4, but does not contain the word “only” as follows: “Accordingly, COGSA shall apply in determining the limits of a Contractor’s liability, as set forth above, for loss or damage to cargo booked under this Contract arising at any time in the custody of the Contractor.” The word "only" has been removed from the sentence and it now reads as follows:

“Accordingly, COGSA shall apply in determining the limits of a Contractor’s liability, as set forth above, for loss or damage to cargo booked under this Contract arising at any time in the custody of the Contractor.” Yes Amend 0003

5 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 4 Section 2.1.4 Language not discussed nor mentioned on any prior RFI or during USC-10 Pre-Solicitation Conference. If the language remains, Carriers must price additional insurance costs into rates. Request remove " The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of nonconforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security." This language is not new and was included in USC-9. As such, language will remain unchanged. No There is no specific limitation language in USC-10 section 2.1.1.5. A limitation must be set for additional insurance to be priced into rates. In USC-9 Section 2.1.4. the limit is referenced. Specifically, "Recovery is limited to the amount paid for services by the Government." Please provide rationale why the statement from USC-9 was not included in USC-10. USC-10, Exhibit 1, Section 2.1.4 reads exactly the same as USC-9, Exhibit 2, Section 2.1.4, which reads:

"The COGSA liability limitations are not applicable to the Government’s recovery from the Contractor for the cost of nonconforming transportation for pilfered or stolen cargo, including, but not limited, to enhanced ITV or enhanced security. This recovery is limited to the amount paid for the services by the Government."

The Government reviewed, and the language will remain unchanged. No

6 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 4 COGSA/ Section 2.1.6 Please renumber to 2.1.5.2 The Government reviewed, and the numbering will remain unchanged. No

7 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 4 COGSA/ Section 2.1.7 Please renumber to 2.1.5.3 The Government reviewed, and the numbering will remain unchanged. No

9 2/9/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 9 Section 9/ General Services Administration (GSA) Audits 1. Section 9: General Services Administration (GSA) Audits

10 2/2/24 01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information 2 & 3 COGSA/ Section 2.1.1.5 and 2.1.24 “COGSA liability limitations shall not apply to cargo that is stolen or pilfered.” Note: Potential Offeror's P&I club asked for clarification that although liability limitations do not apply, COGSA defenses are still available. (Note: Potential Offeror will not accept liability for pilferage or theft that is itself a result of “Act of war”, “Act of public enemies”, “Riots and civil commotions”, etc.) Multiple authorities, including FAR 52.212-4 and applicable case law, allow the government to recover non-conforming transportation (including accessorial costs). No

11 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 1 Attachment 8- DLA Prime Vendor Cargo/ Section 1.1(c): 2. Section 1.1(c):

a. This provision states that USC Contractors are to submit “claims” for container detention “…accrued on or after the X1 event for USC Contractor equipment” to Prime Vendors (unless the US Government is clearly the cause/fault).

COMMENT - this language does not clarify what happens if free time is depleted during transit, resulting in adequate/no free time available to the Prime Vendor at destination for post-delivery unstuffing. Would depletion of free time during transit result in the post-X1 container detention being the cause/fault of the Government if still within the contractual free time period? This issue is not clarified in the new language.

b. Pursuant to Section 9.G.1 of the Performance Work Statement, for refrigerated containers (reefers), container detention and reefer maintenance may run concurrently. As a result, recommend changing 1.1(c) to read as follows: “USC Contractor claims against a Prime Vendor for detention and reefer maintenance (if applicable) accrued on or after the X1 event for USC Contractor equipment;” Depletion of free time during transit will result in the post-X1 container detention. Post-X1 container detention will be charged back to the Prime Vendor unless there is proof that the Government is at fault. All of the free time being used in transit does not equate to post-X1 detention being Government fault. No

12 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2 Attachment 8- DLA Prime Vendor Cargo/ Section 1.1.3(a): 3. Section 1.1.3(a): see comment at 2b. directly above. Reefer maintenance is not applicable post-X1 since the carrier is not in possession of the container. No

13 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 8 4.B Responsibility for charges and taxes- Concerns about how we will know ahead of time for taxes to include the cost in our rates. COMMENT: If a previously unknown charge related to the cargo clearance process becomes known, but is not included in our rate what will be the recovery process from the USG perspective? The proposed type of contract is fixed-price with EPA. The Government cannot predict changes in the cargo clearing process. The USC-10 terms and conditions will apply. The Government will review on a case-by-case basis. No

14 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 8 Paragraph 5 Rate Release. Please describe the Rate Release process. We're a new vendor to the USC and currently do not publish a tariff. How will USTRANSCOM/TCAQ distribute a Rate Guide following contract award? Is this Rate Guide public facing, or within a closed system only accessible to USC contract participants? Regarding the rate release process, once the Government awards contract rates, a consolidated rate guide is generated, containing all carriers' accepted rates. This rate guide is not posted to a public website but it is distributed internally within the Government and to all USC awardees. No

15 2/13/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 14 7.A.2.2.1. One of the items raised at the pre-proposal conference was drop and pick rates. In the Draft PWS, we noted that the amount has been increased from $450 to $540, however for many lanes, this is still not compensatory.

What we propose is that if Drop and Pick is ordered for Drayage locations or where the customer is within 250 miles from the port locations that the Drop and Pick Charge be equal to the Linehaul/Drayage Rate.

For ‘inland locations’, we propose $540 for every 250 miles between the customer location and the water port be added as a drop and pick charge.

We would suggest adding this as a fixed rate/calculation in the PWS – so that it not be a competitive differentiator between the USC carriers.

The above would be applicable for DRY containers. Some extra premium (150% of the DRY rate?) should be considered for REEF containers.

The carrier-suggested rate indicates the dropped container is coming from the POE location which is not always the case. After review and consideration, the current contract language reflects the Government requirement and the PWS language will remain unchanged. No

16 2/2/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 17 Section 9.Q.1.3. Request clarification for 48 hour time period prior to being able to charge vessel demurrage if the Carrier pre-coordinates with the SDDC Battalion in advance and agrees to pay stevedore and civilian overtime differential. If the Battalion refuses to work the vessel upon arrival, the carrier should be able to charge demurrage as per section 7.B.3.6.2.1. To stay commercially viable, Carrier vessels must follow commercial practice and normal operating procedure is to work the vessel on arrival. Exhibit 2-PWS, 9.Q.1.2 states if "U.S. Government-provided stevedores are not available to commence operations at the date/time as mutually agreed between the U.S. Government and the Contractor." If the battalion does not commence work on a pre-coordinated day, then demurrage could be applicable. The 48 hour time period is for when loading/unloading occurs but takes longer than had been coordinated. No

17 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 17 Paragraph 7.B.3.6, Premium Business Hours Speed of War and Velocity are common themes for unit deployment and redeployment. Commercial carriers cannot be expected to pay OT differential costs for stevedore labor and US Gov't personnel when required to work outside of an office-environment typical business hours. Ocean transportation is a 24/7/365 business. Carriers not opting to pay the differential and have the ship sit and wait for "the office to open" will seek vessel demurrage under PWS Section 9.Q as stevedores are not available and the vessel operation is delayed due to the Government-provided stevedores failure to meet load/discharge planning factors. Carriers work vessels at their commercial terminals after 1700, on weekends and holidays. Carriers do not time vessel arrival to only work from 0800 to 1700. Carriers, may in some cases, adjust vessel arrivals in order to meet an 0800 start and have a vessel arrive at 0700 and not 0300 to sit idle waiting for a clean morning start of a vessel operation. However, carriers do not adjust vessel arrivals to only work M-F 0800 to 1700. The Government understands ocean transportation operations are 24/7/365. Although this section will not be removed, the Government is willing to make some adjustments. The Government will modify the number of allowed port calls from 4 to 6 and add language that additional calls may be allowed on a case by case basis. Yes Amend 0003

18 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 39 Paragraph 9.Q.1.3, Vessel Demurrage Please define "pre-coordinated load discharge planning factors." Carriers cannot be expected to accept bookings if those planning factors are not defined at time of booking. As per our suggested language from December, the load/discharge planning factors should be consistent with SDDC's current S&RTS contracts. At this time the Government will not be adding in references to the S&RTS contracts. While most S&RTS contracts have similar language, there are differences depending on the port/AOR. The carrier and local battalion or brigade may start to coordinate the load/discharge plan at any time after bookings have been awarded. If the carrier feels the battalion or brigade is not being responsive, please notify the applicable OO/COR to assist. No Original question was not answered, specifically if the carrier agrees to pay differential and the Local Battalion refuses to work the vessel upon arrival, demurrage should be applicable. If the Carrier is willing to pay in accordance with 7.B.3.6.2 and the S&RTS still cannot work, then vessel demurrage would be warranted prior to 48 hr window. No

19 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 41 9.W. Damages to the Government Due to Major Delivery Failure If damages are applied due to late delivery, carrier should not also be punished via performance score or CDR. Any damages payable to the Government are intended to make the Government whole. A carrier's performance is a separate aspect of a major delivery failure. No

20 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 41 9.W. Damages to the Government Due to Major Delivery Failure 1. Shipments/OTOs that are subject to this clause should also include a minimum guarantee. It is not equitable for a shipment with potential "cargo melt" to also be further reduced due to a late delivery.

2. Penalty should only apply to the TCNs that were late and not the entire shipment.

3. Provided that the actual delivery does not exceed 15 days past RDD, the liquidated damage that the US Government accepts should be the sole remedy and “cure” the RDD. Carrier should not further be subject to CDRs or adverse BVNs once US Government accepts liquidated damage. 1. The Government is revising Exhibit 3, Ordering Procedures, to include minimum guarantee language (see Q&A # 31).

2. PWS Section 9.W.1. states "…per TCN…"

3. Any damages payable to the Government are intended to make the Government whole. A carrier's performance is a separate aspect of a major delivery failure. No

21 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 41 9.W.1 Potential Offeror requests this is added to the clause: “Contracting Officer must notify a carrier that this clause applies prior to booking and receive concurrence in writing from the carrier” The paragraph states, "This requirement shall apply when annotated by the OO at the time of offer," which would occur prior to the booking. Therefore, the carrier can decide whether to accept the booking. No

22 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 50 11.C.2, 3, 4 (Vendor Threat Mitigation) Is there a template for how information should be provided? Are copies of the business licenses required each reporting period or only as part of the initial report? What will happen if any information is missing from the report? There is no template on how the information should be provided. Regarding business licenses, the contractor shall provide for each foreign subcontractor on the first instance they are utilized. No

23 2/9/24 02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 1,2 Attachment 8- DLA Prime Vendor Cargo/ Section 1.1(d) and 1.1.2 1. GENERAL COMMENT: As set forth in Section 1.1(d) and 1.1.2, the USC Carrier shall address certain “claims” directly with the Prime Vendor “…that are clearly not the cause/fault of the Government.”

COMMENT- the USC-10 does not establish a basis or contractual provisions for determining or establishing fault between the Government and Prime Vendor for certain costs or charges caused by delay (e.g., container detention, reefer maintenance, port storage, Driver wait time) under a Government contract. In addition, this provision is not consistent with the requirements of the Contract Disputes Act. As a result, Attachment 8 should set forth a process for USC carriers to submit all “claims” (i) based on delay not the cause or fault of the carrier and (ii) regarding Prime Vendor Cargo, to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 52.233-1. To the extent the Contracting Officer determines that the claims are payable to the USC Contractor but that are otherwise “not the cause/fault of the Government” based on “interpretation of contract terms” (FAR 52.233-1(c)), the Government should seek reimbursement for the payment of such claims through the applicable DLA Prime Vendor Contract. The agreement between the Prime Vendor (PV) contractor and the carrier shall take precedence in the event of disputes. As such, claims for reimbursement shall be pursued under the terms of the PV agreement.

No

24 N/A 03_Exigency Annex 1 Section A.1.2. What are the Exigency Areas? Exhibit 2-PWS, Exigency Annex, Section A.1.2. has been revised to identify Iraq as an Exigency Area. Yes Amend 0003

25 2/9/24 09_Attachment 6 – Invoicing and Payment 1 Paragraph A.1 Please advise how the government will ensure that Lifted, Not Booked (LNB) cargo is properly booked after the fact and BRTs are processed timely. It is not uncommon to have outstanding LNB cargo pending for 9+ months. This creates a hardship on the carriers to finalize invoicing and creates risk for completing the invoicing process within two years. Carrier should continue to follow the process of submitting the BRTs. If the BRT is not completed in a timely manner, please elevate the request via email. When elevating the request, please start with the Booking Chief, then the OCCA Chief and then to BMO. No

27 2/9/24 15_Attachment 12 – Trade Areas And Zones N/A Section 2.7 - Zone 6 TCAQ/SDDC has made a determination regarding on how the current Red Sea/Arabian Gulf situation will be treated under USC-9 and USC-10. However, per the Routes for USC-10, Gulf of Aden is still included with Gulf of Aqaba/Suez/Red Sea in CARE application. Contrary to Attachment 12 "Trade Zones" Section 2.7 Zone 6, request Gulf of Aden be deleted as Yemen is included in Zone 3. This should be completed prior to Carrier CARE submission. Due to system limitations, the Government will not be able to amend the CARE Zone name for the Base Period. The Government will review and try to resolve prior to Option Period 1. No

29 2/9/24 19_Exhibit 3 Ordering Procedures 1 2.2.1.5 Why is ALD part of the evaluation criteria. RDD should be the driving force. The key requirement factor when planning some moves is not RDD but ALD. As such, the OO is required to consider the ALD when evaluating vessel schedules. No

30 2/9/24 19_Exhibit 3 Ordering Procedures 3 4.2.1.4 Why is ALD part of the evaluation criteria. RDD should be the driving force. The key requirement factor when planning some moves is not RDD but ALD. As such, the OO is required to consider the ALD when evaluating vessel schedules. No

31 2/9/24 19_Exhibit 3 Ordering Procedures 3 Ordering Process OTOs USTC currently has a process that allows them to consider a Minimum Guarantee for Ocean Freight on OTOs. Carrier believes this has been a mutually beneficial development but it is not codified anywhere in the contract. Carrier suggests that wording be added to this section that details that the Government can consider minimum guarantees for Ocean Freight on a case by case basis and it should not be unreasonably denied. The Government has revised Exhibit 3, Ordering Procedures, to include minimum guarantee language, section 4.2.1.5. Yes Amend 0003

33 2/9/24 Volume I - Business Proposal Worksheet; Amend0001 Subcontracting Plan Template 6 Format if Submitting a Commercial Plan If Offeror already has an approved Small Business Subcontracting Commercial Plan for 2024 does this template also needed to be completed? Or can the approved plan be submitted to meet this requirement of the solicitation? If an Offeror has a current / approved Commercial Subcontracting Plan, this can be submitted to meet the subcontracting plan requirement as long as the product or service provided under the Commercial subcontracting plan still meets the definition of a commercial product or service. Do not create and submit a separate subcontracting plan. No

34 2/9/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 2 Section 5 Would USTC clarify whether FMC regulatory oversight applies to the USC-10 program? Carriers are responsible for complying with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Carriers are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) law and regulation and are better positioned than DoD to know which regulations apply and which do not. DoD declines to answer this question because it is incumbent upon the offered to understand which FMC guidance applies to its operations. No

35 2/2/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 3 Provision 52.209-12 What is the correct way to include response in RFP package? Although SAM is the preferred repository for Reps and Certs, not all provisions are available in SAM.gov. Therefore, they have to be manually completed. Please complete the provision on page 26 of 52 of the SF1449 RFP document. No

36 2/8/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 5 Section 10 Are we to understand we need to attach our Small Business Subcontracting Plan twice? As a Large Business it asks for it in Volume I and its own attachment in Volume III. Please advise. No, an Offeror does not submit the subcontracting plan twice. The subcontracting plan is to be submitted under Factor 1, Business Proposal. Factor 3, the Small Business Utilization proposal is a separate document and not the subcontracting plan. No

38 2/9/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 5 Section 10 Please confirm that if an Offeror already has submitted and received approval on their 2024 Small Business Subcontracting Commercial Plan that this plan can be submitted to satisfy this requirement of the solicitation. If an Offeror has a current / approved Commercial Subcontracting Plan, this can be submitted to meet the subcontracting plan requirement as long as the product or service provided under the Commercial subcontracting plan still meets the definition of a commercial product or service. Do not create and submit a separate subcontracting plan. No

39 2/13/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 5 Section 10 Clarification on FAR Clause 52.219-9(d)(12)(i) and (ii) If an Offeror identifies in paragraph (d)(12)(i) it used a subcontractor to prepare its proposal for USC-10, the offeror will make a good faith effort to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, or material from the subcontractor who helped prepare the proposal. If the Offeror identifies in paragraph (d)(ii) it used a small business concern's pricing information or technical expertise in preparing the proposal for USC 10, the Offeror will assert good faith effort to award that small business a subcontract for the small business concern's related work. No

40 2/13/24 Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal) 5 Section 10 Clarification on FAR Clause 52.219-9(d)(13)(i) If an Offeror fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or materials from the small business subcontractor who helped prepare the proposal for USC-10 as identified in 52.219(d)(12)(i) and (ii), then the Offeror shall notify the Contracting Officer within 30 days of contract completion with a written explanation for not using the small business subcontractor. No

41 2/2/24 Volume II Worksheet (Technical Proposal) 1 Subfactor 1, Vessel profile The answer to Question #13 released via Amendment 01 Q&A Round 1 references that the Volume II Technical Capability Worksheet has been revised to include a “Please sign here” section. However, this revised Volume II worksheet was not included in the Amendment. It looks like Volume I worksheet was revised to include a signature drop-down, but Volume II’s worksheet says “Please sign here” to verify vessel ownership, but there is no dropdown associated with it Q&A Round 1, Question 13 incorrectly stated Volume II Technical Worksheet had been revised. As notated on the bottom of the last page on all 3 proposal worksheets (Vol I, II, III), these will need to be converted to Adobe.pdf. A digital or pen signature will be acceptable on the submitted PDF. If the Offeror chooses to provide a digital signature, the offeror has to manually prepare the Adobe PDF file to add a digital signature field. If issues are encountered trying to sign digitally, recommend signing with pen and ink. No

42 2/9/24 Volume II Worksheet (Technical Proposal) 3 Subfactor 3, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) We are unfamiliar with the available methods for EDI. Can you describe the manual process for EDI entry, such as vendor visiting a website for EDI and/or OCI code entries? For context, our reading of the RFP and attachments seem to address machine-to-machine automated interfaces, but we understand that there are manual entry interfaces that are also used. Can you please describe the how we can manually enter the EDI codes, including the domain (URL) that we will visit to update those codes if we are awarded a contract? See attached Surface ITV Portal Overview (Aug 2017) document for reference. It provides an overview on submitting EDI transactions. No

43 2/16/24 Volume II Worksheet (Technical Proposal) 3 Subfactor 3, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Can the text field on this part of the worksheet be adjusted to provide more space (e.g., at least 3 pgs.)? The worksheet's text field for Subfactor 3 has been expanded by creating "Additional Space, if needed" text fields. Vol II Worksheet is now 6 pages due to the additional text fields. Yes Amend 0003

44 2/7/24 Volume III Worksheet (Small Business Utilization Proposal) 1 Small Business Utilization Proposal Please clarify the difference of the Small Business Utilization Plan compared to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The information requested seems redundant as it is already provided in our Small Business Subcontracting Plan as to how we choose and utilize small businesses.

Also, it refers to a "TIER 1 LEVEL"; what is the definition of a TIER 1 Level? Could there be an acceptable answer that our subcontractors are not considered Tier 1? The application of information for these two documents is different. A subcontracting plan is written to address the elements identified in FAR Clause 52.219-9(d)(1) - (15), Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Only Other Than Small Business concerns shall submit a "plan" which projects the company's goals, and addresses various assurances to be executed throughout the contract's period of performance.

The Small Business Utilization proposal is required from both Small Business and Other Than Small Business concerns. The detailed proposal will be used to evaluate the extent of the offeror's ability to clearly demonstrate their approach and understanding of the Small Business Utilization criteria identified in Volume III, Small Business Utilization worksheet. Tier 1 is defined as the business concerns directly subcontracted by the Prime Contractor. No

45 2/2/24 N/A N/A New European Union (EU) Emissions Regulation Tax - Emissions Trading System (ETS) ETS commenced 1 January 2024. Carriers must pay first tax payments in September 2025 for the 2024 calendar year. USC-10 RFP does not factor this new EU Tax. ETS is a tax charged to ocean carriers entering EU ports. Tax applies to the entire vessel, even if the carrier is loading or discharging only a small number of military units. Tax is based on fuel burned from last non-EU port to/from EU port, current rate is ~250 €/ton fuel consumed. Carriers will have to price this tax into Ocean rates to/from EU (Routes 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 23, 32 and 57). Carriers rates shall be inclusive of taxes. No

46 2/2/24 N/A N/A Red Sea Accessorial TCAQ/SDDC has not made a determination regarding how the Red Sea/Arabian Gulf situation resulting in additional cost for carriers will be treated under USC-9 and as such we do not know how it will be handled under USC-10. Having no determination will have a large impact on Ocean rates to from the Middle East (Routes 7, 13 and 57). Request guidance prior to TCAQ closing IT1. Regarding USC-9, on 9 February 2024, carriers were provided with a Memorandum on Guidance for Increased War Risk Insurance Premiums.

Proposed rates for USC-10 shall be inclusive of any additional War Risk insurance premiums. No

47 2/9/24 N/A N/A Customs Accessorial Jordanian customs charges are invoiced to the Carrier on a per TCN basis vice the pricing template of per PCFN. Request Customs Charge be changed to per TCN vice per PCFN. The Government is not revising the PWS section 7.E.2.3. or the accessorial pricing structure at this time but will consider revising at a future date. No

USC-10 RFP Q&A (Round 1)

UNIVERSAL SERVICES CONTRACT-10 (USC-10)

RFP - Question and Answer Log

Q&A # Date of question Reference Solicitation Document/Attachment Page # Reference Section/Paragraph Offeror Question/Comment Government Response Did Government response result in a change to the RFP Documents/Attachments? Change made via:

1 1/26/24 RFP Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor 1 and Volume II - Technical Capability Worksheet, Subfactor 1 Pg 32 and Pg 1 1. Subfactor 1, Vessel Profile Evaluation criteria for Factor 2, Subfactor 1 (Vessel Profile) states, "To be rated Acceptable, offerors must demonstrate the proposed vessels they own, or have control of, are ocean-going and meet the requirements of the solicitation for the routes/zones proposed." Volume II - Technical Capability Worksheet states, "Offerors shall provide a vessel profile for one (1) ocean-going vessel.'" Would the Government please clarify whether the proposal submission should include only 1 vessel profile or profiles of all proposed vessels? The Government confirms only one (1) vessel profile is required. No

2 1/26/24 Volume III -- Small Business Utilization Worksheet and RFP Evaluation Factor 3 Pgs 1-6 and Pg 32 #1-#6 The Volume III Small Business Utilization Worksheet requires that the contractor provide details around securing and maintaining capacity for Tier 1 subcontractors, and RFP Evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Small Business Utilization is that it will be "evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Small Business Utilization will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully demonstrate how the Offeror will secure capacity, maintain capacity, and manage subcontractor’s performance throughout the contract." Is it the intent of the Government that SB Primes must secure Tier 1 subcontractors? If so, then what are the SB goals in relation to maintaining capacity? Please clarify. FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Factor 3, Small Business Utilization states all offerors (certified as large or small) shall address their approach for securing and maintaining capacity for Tier 1 subcontractors. The offeror will be evaluated based on their demonstration of how the offeror secures capacity, maintains the capacity, and manages subcontractor performance throughout the life of the contract. The Government did not define small business goals for the evaluation of small business utilization. No

3 1/26/24 Volume I -- Business Proposal Worksheet; USC10_SB_SubKPlan_Template 5 #10. Small Business Subcontracting Plan The USC10_SB_SubKPlan_Template provided in the Volume I Worksheet on page 5 will not detach/open. Would the Government please provide this template as a separate attachment? The Government is providing the Small Business Subcontracting Plan template as a separate Word document attachment. Yes Amend 0001

4 1/26/24 Volume II -- Technical Capability Worksheet 1 #1. Subfactor 1. Vessel profile For tug and barge carriers, does the Government want the vessel profiles on both the tugs and barges used in combination or just the barges? For the purposes of USC-10, a barge is considered a vessel. A vessel profile is not required for a tug. No

5 1/29/24 VOL II Worksheet - Technical 3 Subfactor 3 If a Carrier will use IBS OCI to accept/counter/reject bookings, is a Trading Partner Agreement still required as part of the proposal submisson? Yes, a Trading Partner Agreement still required as part of the proposal submisson. No

6 1/29/24 RFP HTC71124RW002 1 RFP Please extend offer due date to 11:00 CT, 05 March 2023. Although the Government is not extending the offer due date as of Amend 0001, if circumstances warrant, an amendment will be issued to extend the offer due date at that time. No

8 1/30/24 VOL I - Business Proposal Worksheet 5 #10. Small Business Subcontracting Plan The embedded template for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not open. Please provide the document. See Q&A # 3 See Q&A # 3

9 1/30/24 VOL I - Business Proposal Worksheet 5 #10. Small Business Subcontracting Plan What are the suggested small business subcontracting percentage goals? The Government did not project any suggested small business goals for this acquisition. No

10 1/30/24 Exhibit 2-PWS, Attachment 13 - Domestic Shipyard Rpt Wksheet Combined cells A-D & 1-2 "Select Scac Here" cell does not have associated reference table to pull from and does not accept open text. Please advise where to specify SCAC Code of responder. The MS Excel file named "16_USC10_PWS Atch 13-Domestic Shipyard Rpt" is being revised to allow data entry of offerors' Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC) in cell D1. Yes Amend 0001

11 1/30/24 Exhibit 2-PWS, Attachment 13 - Domestic Shipyard Rpt Wksheet Column "I" Cells in Column "I" do not have associated reference table to pull from to respond "yes or no" and does not accept open text. Please advise how carriers should fill out this section. Column I, cells I10 through I38 have been revised to allow dropdown selection of "Yes" or "No" as it relates to question of "US Shipyard?" in cell I8 Yes Amend 0001

14 2/1/24 Volume II Technical Capability Worksheet 2 #2. Subfactor 2, Domestic Shipyard Information Would the Government please confirm that we should submit the Domestic Shipyard Report template (Exhibit 2, Attachment 13) as an Attachment to our proposal and not embedded with the worksheet as a pdf? It would be difficult to read if turned into a pdf. The Domestic Shipyard Report template needs to be included as an MS Excel attachment to the proposal and not converted to a pdf. Please use the updated Domestic Shipyard Report template provided via Amend 0001. No

Sheet1

00_SF1449

01_Exhibit 1 Additional USC-10 Information

02_Exhibit 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS)

03_Exigency Annex

04_Attachment 1 – Electronic / EDI Reporting

05_Attachment 2 – Operational Reports

06_Attachment 3 – Rate Rules

07_Attachment 4 – City Groupings

08_Attachment 5 – Route Information

09_Attachment 6 – Invoicing and Payment

10_Attachment 7 – Economic Price Adjustment

11_Attachment 8 – Shipments of DLA Prime Vendor Cargo

12_Attachment 9 – NIST.SP.800-171 POAM Template

13_Attachment 10 – Yubikey Request Form

14_Attachment 11 – Acronyms & Definitions

15_Attachment 12 – Trade Areas And Zones

16_Attachment 13 – Domestic Shipyard Report Template

17_Attachment 14 – Container Pool Agreement Template (Example)

18_Attachment 15 – DD 254

19_Exhibit 3 Ordering Procedures

20_Exhibit 4 Service Contract Act Wage Determination # 2010-0147

21_Exhibit 5 VISA Activation Liner Terms

Volume I Worksheet (Business Proposal)

Volume II Worksheet (Technical Proposal)

Volume III Worksheet (Small Business Utilization Proposal)