Blame shifts in auto delays

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

Hun­dreds of U.S. troops and ci­vil­ian de­fense work­ers com­plain that the com­pany hired to ship their per­sonal ve­hi­cles af­ter they re­lo­cate is de­liv­er­ing them weeks, even months late.

The mil­i­tary blames lit­i­ga­tion filed by the firm that for­merly did the work for the gov­ern­ment as the cause of the pro­gram’s ills. That de­layed the start of the new com­pany’s work from Decem­ber to the height of the mov­ing sea­son May 1, trig­ger­ing ship­ping prob­lems, says the U.S. Trans­por­ta­tion Com­mand.

But a con­tract no­tice filed Oct. 23 by TransCom shows the mil­i­tary an­tic­i­pated that they might have to de­lay the start date to May 1 if the com­mand de­cided to hire a new com­pany to ship the ve­hi­cles. This was filed be­fore any lit­i­ga­tion was ini­ti­ated.

The ex­tra time might be nec­es­sary for an ade­quate tran­si­tion to a new firm, the doc­u­ment says.

The doc­u­ment ap­pears to un­der­mine TransCom’s as­ser­tion that Amer­i­can Auto Lo­gis­tics of New Jer­sey is to blame for prob­lems in the ship­ping pro­gram.

“While time for con­trac­tor tran­si­tion was orig­i­nally con­tem­plated in plan­ning,” TransCom said in the doc­u­ment, “changes in con­tract re­quire­ments have over­taken the orig­i­nally sched­uled tran­si­tion time.”

The day af­ter this doc­u­ment was filed, TransCom hired In­ter­na­tional Auto Lo­gis­tics of Bruns­wick, Ga., which won a con­tract po­ten­tially worth $919 mil­lion with a bid that was $38 mil­lion lower than AAL’s.

A TransCom spokes­man said the doc­u­ment, de­scribed as a rou­tine fil­ing, does not con­tra­dict its as­sess­ment of blame.

The doc­u­ment “does not ex­tend the con­tract but gives us the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and ap­proval to do so if nec­es­sary,” said Army Maj. Mat­thew Gre­gory, a TransCom spokes­man.

The mil­i­tary notes it did not ac­tu­ally ex­tend AAL’s con­tract to May 1 un­til af­ter lit­i­ga­tion was ini­ti­ated.

TransCom in­di­cated that ex­tra vol­ume of cars at the height of the mov­ing sea­son in­creased the dif­fi­cul­ties faced by a new com­pany tak­ing over the busi­ness.

“It was never the in­tent of TransCom to tran­si­tion this size of a con­tract dur­ing the bus­i­est mov­ing sea­son,” the com­mand said.

TransCom said it asked AAL to con­tinue work­ing be­yond May 1 “to mit­i­gate the dif­fi­cul­ties caused by its lit­i­ga­tion and avoid a po­ten­tial break in ser­vice” af­ter it was clear IAL would not be ready to take over.

AAL, how­ever, was not con­trac­tu­ally ob­li­gated to ship cars be­yond May 1, and TransCom said the com­pany re­fused the re­quest.

The con­tro­versy over the ship­ping con­tract ap­pears to have caught the mil­i­tary flat-footed. Two days be­fore IAL took over the con­tract on May 1, TransCom of­fi­cials pro­vided re­as­sur­ance that the tran­si­tion to a new firm would go smoothly.

“We do not an­tic­i­pate any di­min­ished ser­vice dur­ing the tran­si­tion,” the U.S. Trans­por­ta­tion Com­mand said April 28 in a re­sponse to an in­quiry by a New York con­gress­man.

The com­mand said it was meet­ing daily with In­ter­na­tional Auto Lo­gis­tics, and “is con­fi­dent IAL will be able to per­form con­tract re­quire­ments when it as­sumes re­spon­si­bil­ity” for the work.

The pre­dic­tion proved wildly off mark as com­plaints be­gan flood­ing in dur­ing the months that fol­lowed.

The com­mand said IAL took over the busi­ness ear­lier than it was re­quired to do so. “This is cer­tainly not how TransCom planned the tran­si­tion, but it was the only solu­tion,” the com­mand said.

United States - North America


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here