Moving ahead: an interview with MTMC's commanding general.

Q. Currently, MTMC is developing a new personal property program. What is your vision for this effort?

A. Over the past several years, DoD and industry have been working together to improve the present personal property program, which encompasses about 500,000 shipments annually at a cost in excess of $1.5 billion. Efforts have produced four pilots, each with distinctly different features and processes. The U.S. Transportation Command has had responsibility for assessing the best aspects of these pilots and recommending changes to the Secretary of Defense. The USTRANSCOM Commander rendered his report to the Secretary last month. Included therein were recommendations for change in three broad areas: (1) Provide full value replacement and direct claim settlement when damages occur; (2) acquire carrier services based on best value versus low cost; and (3) replace the existing automation system with a web-based one that enables service members to be more informed participants in the relocation process. In essence, the USTRANSCOM report provided the general azimuth for the future program. The Commander then asked MTMC to provide further recommendations to implement changes and to define related costs so that services could program money to make changes a reality. That is what we are doing now. Last month, we met with services and industry to discuss the USTRANSCOM recommendations and to solicit their assistance in developing a detailed roadmap for the future, something we call a Program of Actions and Milestones. I have told the USTRANSCOM Commander that we would provide him a full report by the end of August. We are proceeding to develop that now. We will work closely with industry and align as much as we can with commercial sector practices, which will make life easier on all of us as we improve the quality of household goods moves. We are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I feel very positive we will see substantive change in the next couple years.

Q. MTMC's surface movements to South West Asia in the War on Terrorism have been growing by the week. What is the significance of liner service in this effort?

A. Whenever I tell people that we are shipping supplies across Russia or Pakistan into Afghanistan, their eyes widen. Then, when I add that shipments are not touching military hands until arriving in Afghanistan, people are taken aback. Those of us who have been around the military for a decade or two have heard naysayers question whether industry would follow us into war zones. Many have challenged the use of contractors on the battlefield. What is happening today to resupply allied forces operating in and around Afghanistan should put such misgivings to rest. Our commercial transportation partners deserve praise as silent heroes in the current War on Terrorism. They have put employees, equipment, and profit margins at risk to make things happen. They have stood by our sides when we needed them, sometimes with little more than a handshake. Surface movements have become a huge success story as a result. This war is demonstrating daily the strength of commercial solutions and our partnerships with industry.

Q. Why has MTMC recently decided to extend the Universal Service Contract 03 for six months?

A. The short answer is this. We are extending USC 03 to allow time to incorporate improvements into its successor contract, USC 04. To understand that answer, you need a little background. We have been trying to make improvements in our ocean shipping contracts for some time. Unfortunately, with each new contract, we only succeeded in nibbling around the edges because we could not overcome years of disagreement or distrust over the best way to accomplish meaningful change. With the introduction of USC 03, we literally shattered past practices. We partnered with industry up front to develop terms and conditions that became the basis for USC 03. It was a "clean sheet" approach to create a best value, performance-based contract. And it worked. We are light years ahead of where we used to be. We also recognized that realistically we couldn't expect to hit perfection our first time out of the box. So, the same group of government and industry leaders who brought us USC 03 decided we should apply some lessons learned from the experience gained under USC 03 in formulating USC 04. Doing that properly meant reconvening an Integrated Process Team to recommend and vet changes in process, terms and conditions. That necessitated the six-month extension to the current contract. The draft request for proposal for USC 04 is now on the street. It will grapple with issues of streamlining the bid submission and evaluation process, reassessing cargo allocation practices and lengthening the time period for the contract so that we can avoid a massive rebid process every 12 months. I suspect USC 04 will not be the end of the journey. But I am confident that it will continue to move us in the right direction with the right spirit of candor and partnership.

Q. The move to Federal Acquisition Regulation from the Guaranteed Traffic process is a major effort. What will be the impact on MTMC customers and the carriers providing the service?

A. FAR contracts provide a more formalized legal relationship between the government and its transportation providers, which protects both partners better. They guarantee rates to shippers for a fixed period of time and provide expectations of service once shipments are offered. Thus, they are generally less flexible, which can be good or bad. FAR contracts also enable longer term relationships with providers, which allows for more effective documentation of carrier quality and performance, thereby leading to better customer service. They can lead to higher rates, depending on the carrier, since socio-economic requirements and Federal wage statutes apply, and their fixed prices necessitate more accurate bids. FAR contracts offer advantages for industry since they provide minimums over the life of the contract and reward good performance beyond those minimums. Carriers therefore can convert strong performance into better partnerships, thereby reducing the needs for marketing. The FAR also creates more opportunities for small businesses, through guaranteed set-asides. There will be positives and negatives on both sides of the FAR fence to be sure. As I have said several times, though, we have no choice in aligning our GT shipments with the FAR. The law requires it.

Q. You recently officiated at the change of command at the 598th Transportation Group in Rotterdam. What do you see as the new commander's biggest challenges?

A. The challenge of the commander of the 598th is no different than that of the commanders of the 597th and 599th, and that is to focus their headquarters to meet the needs of the future. We've had some very healthy dialogue on this already. All battalions and group commanders have been involved. Most battalion commanders have questioned the need for groups in MTMC, particularly in view of the successful centralization of operations. Even some group commanders have questioned the need or size of their own staffs. Battalions will continue to excel; they operate very well in most situations, without group assistance. As you know, we have already centralized most support functions worldwide at MTMC Headquarters. Centralization will continue in the future, to include booking of cargo, and perhaps even developing stow plans. All this raises more questions about the purpose of our groups. I have asked the Deputy Commanding General to provide me recommendations next month on the path for the future. She is dialoguing with all group commanders to assess where we need to go. I don't know what the exact path will be. One thing is clear, though. We don't need unnecessary layers. If we cannot define their specific value, both to battalions and to CINCs, then groups should go away.