When we left you in the May/June 2021 Portal issue, the HHGFAA (Household Goods Forwarders Association) Executive Committee was leading the charge on Capitol Hill to address the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) Pilot Program that was announced in the Federal Register in March, 1995. The initial pilot awards were to be made in September 1996 for $1.1 Billion.

MTMC was making an all-out effort with the industry and in backdoor lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. Within this article is a page from their presentation that spelled out their talking points (see “What We Want,” facing page), mostly consisting of items that were normally contained in “Commercial Contracts.” During August and September, they “marched” to various military bases within the United States to provide the industry a first-hand look at what reengineering meant in their proposal. The industry had problems with two issues that were not contained on the talking point page: the utilization of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the “winner-take-all” concept. If these were included in the final award, the ability of small businesses to compete in the new program would be limited.

One bright spot for industry was that Congress had indicated that the Department of Defense (DoD) would have to report to them by January 1, 1996, prior to the implementation of any element of the pilot program and how it would impact small business due to the implementation of FAR. MTMC indicated that they would meet with industry after September 20, 1995, when all comments were to be received.

General Roger Thompson, Commander of MTMC, indicated at the meeting that he hadn’t made up his mind on FAR and the winner-take-all concept. He said that he had received 285 comments (including the association’s detailed response on the draft requirements), and would have a two-day meeting with his staff around January 4. MTMC also announced that they would schedule a DoD/Industry working group meeting in October. They would send the pilot program draft solicitation in December to the industry for comments.

At the HHGFAA Annual Meeting in October, 1995, the membership elected Rick Curry as Chairman and Han Helders as Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee. The Members at Large were Jeff Bell, George Fouch, Heino Preissler, and Sandra Rowe (Maier), with Don Collins and Terry Head representing the Associate (Core) membership. Most of these individuals are now in our Hall of Honor. All of these seasoned veterans have been involved in the reengineering discussions. 1996 would be a major challenge for our industry.

1996 Portal Headlines and HHGFAA Military Forwarder newsletters

January/February Portal Issue

“HHGFAA Seeks Cosponsors for Claims Legislation,” referring to the Government Services Household Goods Claims Act drafted by Rep. Lamar Smith (Chairman of House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee), which would change the statute of limitation for filing claims from two years to nine months.

February Military Forwarder

We received a letter from MTMC dated March 1 advising us that they would hold a “Partnership Council” meeting on March 20 to discuss the 297 industry comments. MTMC did indicate that they were going to adopt 31 items in the industry alternative plan. They did not mention which items they were adopting.

March/April Portal Issue

 “MTMC Releases Re-Engineering Proposal”

Proposal—On March 7, the association was finally presented with a copy (backdated to January 29) of the MTMC Small Business Impact Report, which addressed the proposed Re-Engineering plan.

Washington Week—4th Annual Washington Week had over 150 people throughout the five-day period in April.

May/June 1996 Portal Issue

 "HHGFAA Town Meeting Addresses Re-Engineering”

Town Hall Meeting at Global Van Lines—On May 21, the HHGFAA had a meeting of the membership, Executive Committee and the Reengineering Committee. HHGFAA adopted an Alternative Pilot Program based on the suggestions from the meeting, and would work with the American Movers Conference to develop an alternative domestic program.

July/December Portal Issue

Provided updates on Re-Engineering discussions.

July Military Forwarder: The second Reengineering Personal Property Working Group meeting took place on July 1 and 2. MTMC realized that industry was united in its opposition to their proposal. They decided to utilize a blank sheet of paper and develop a new program. Working sessions didn’t produce a consensus on 10 goals:

1. Quality service;

2. Improved on-time pick-up;

3. Improved on-time delivery;

4. High Customer satisfaction in relationship to the entire move process;

5. Adopt corporate business processes that lead to world class customer service;

6. Lower loss/damage and lower claims frequency rate and claims average;

7. Simplification, including reduction of administrative workload;

8. Assure capacity to meet DoD’s needs for quality moves;

9. Provide opportunity for small business offering quality service to compete for DoD business as a prime contractor; and

10. Provide best value moving services to the government.

An agreement was reached between MTMC and industry that the claim liability would be $3.50 per net hundredweight with a $63,000 per shipment limitation. A customer survey would be used to measure carrier performance.

General Thompson asked the associations to discontinue lobbying on Capitol Hill. (He even called me as he was flying to emphasize his desire for us to stop going on the Hill.) The associations did not agree as it was their belief that the lobbying effort had pushed MTMC to the negotiating table.

July 18 and 19 were set for a follow-up meeting of the Reengineering Working Group. Unfortunately, little progress was made on the major issues such as FAR. MTMC did accept the commercial tariff for domestic service as long as the industry simplified the accessorial charges. MTMC suggested that a consolidated billing be utilized to reduce paperwork. Industry declined.

Changes were offered by MTMC on the details of the proposed program. Instead of 14 destination regions there would be three origins—Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. MTMC also wanted to assure adequate capacity. MTMC would provide best projections on the number of shipments.

On June 14, the Army issued their solicitation for transportation services from Hunter Army Air Field in Georgia. This pilot project would only be for Army personnel. “If successful, this type of solicitation will be expanded to all other Army PPSO’s.”

General Thompson agreed to present the proposed reengineering program details at the HHGFAA Annual Meeting Military Affairs Day in October. Afterward, a Military Affairs panel with military personnel from all over the world discussed the program. The third panel addressed all of the claim changes in the reengineering program.

Back on the Hill, the industry efforts in lobbying Congressional members had been successful in obtaining some support. Unfortunately, it was the belief of Congress that since DoD and industry were talking, that no language was necessary in the Defense Authorization bill. The house included language in their Appropriations Bill for reengineering the program. They wanted the military to review the results of the Pilot Program to ensure that commercial practices were utilized and to determine the impact on small business. The Senate was firmly against including any language in their bill. Since we were concerned that DoD would not continue to negotiate with industry, we needed the Senate to include the House language during the Senate Appropriations Conference. That didn’t happen. We had to work behind the scenes on obtaining support for our position during the Defense Appropriations conference committee. The final conference report in the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 1997 contained the below language:

1. The conferees recognize the urgency of improving the DoD personal property relocation program, and do not object to the conduct of a pilot program in order to validate this concept.

2. The conferees commend the DoD for including industry representatives in the development of the pilot program.

3. The conferees believe there are still several significant concerns that should be addressed in the final pilot proposal, and encourage the DoD to continue their work with the industry representatives to resolve these outstanding issues concerning the structure of the pilot program. The conferees understand the proposed pilot program involves outbound household goods from a three-state region, and direct that this outbound portion of the pilot program may not be expanded beyond this area during fiscal years 1997 and 1998.

4. The conferees direct that before the DoD proposes further expansion of this program, or any other household goods relocation pilot program, General Accounting Office (GAO) should review data collected during fiscal year 1997, and validate the results and savings by such pilot program.

It was the general opinion that considering where we were when we began our lobbying and grassroots campaign, the industry had come a long way in educating those on the Hill. However, more work would need to done as we moved forward with the new 105th Congress. Another challenge was that Major General Mario F. Montero, Jr. replaced Major General Roger G. Thompson, Jr. on October 8, 1996.

As we look back at 25 years ago in the history of our association, with changes that have been made in the current program, has the industry provided the service that MTMC asked for in their Pilot Proposal presentation slide (What We Want) and met the stated goals from the working group sessions?

We will “march on” in the next Portal issue to see what was next for the HHGFAA, industry and the military.