eGov/Mil Newsletter: August 9, 2019

August 09, 2019

In this Issue:

  • USTRANSCOM Weekly Peak Season Teleconference (8 Aug) Week 32
  • USTRANSCOM Weekly Peak Season Teleconference (1 Aug) Week 31
  • USTC Pre-Proposal Conference for the Global Household Goods Contract (GHC)
  • Increased Loss and Damage Liability Coverage for DPM Shipments
  • Jeff Coleman on Congress bid: ‘I’m all in’

USTRANSCOM Weekly Peak Season Teleconference (8 Aug) Week 32

Due to travel constraints, IAM was not on the weekly peak season call for week 32. The slides are included for your reference. The feedback we received was that there was not much discussion, and the slides were covered quickly. Of note, I was told the Army asked for verification that Refusals would end 29 August and USTC verified that it would.



Source: USTC; IAM

USTRANSCOM Weekly Peak Season Teleconference (1 Aug) Week 31

Today was COL Gipson’s first time speaking on the Peak Season call. She welcomed everyone and said she looked forward to working with everyone on the program. Chuck and I met with COL Gipson and COL Lounsbrough 26 July. It was a good meeting. As you might imagine, she didn’t have any specifics to offer on any portion of the program at this point, but just said initially when she found out she was coming to this job, she thought, “what am I getting into?” But after getting here, meeting the staff and seeing what was in place, she felt much more comfortable. Her family is with her. She was previously assigned to USTC and worked in Operations (J3). Sounds like her moving experience getting here was good. We look forward to more interaction with her.


Danny Martinez led the slide discussion. The data for these slides is through week 30. USTC stated they were preparing an Advisory to ask the Services and Industry for feedback and data with regard to Code 2 operations and Refusals. Was it positive or negative; did it work well; should it be expanded or curtailed; and what data or evidence do you have to support your position? Would ask that you start thinking through your position on Code 2 and Refusals so we can respond to this request for information. I suspect there will be limited time to respond based on when the PPF is and what USTC will have to do to look at the data from all sides and have a recommendation for the Services.




  • #4: Currently less than 2,000 shipments below the 3 year peak season average. Week 30 data this year is below the 3 year average in members counseled, shipments awarded, and shipments picked up.
  • #5A: USTC stated that they expected refusals to decrease the amount of “no capacity” reports as depicted on this slide, and early in peak it seemed like it might have, but the chart shows significant capacity problems still exist. AF asked USTC to evaluate this latest week’s “no capacity” report compared to last year for the same week. They found it interesting on how much “no capacity” was reported, and where it was reported. USTC said they would provide analysis on these kinds of reviews at the PPF Hotwash. USTC mentioned that week by week the number of accepted shipments and pick-ups are down as opposed to last year (suggesting, I think, without saying it that refusals hurt capacity). IAM pointed out that slides 21.1 and 21.2 at the back reflected a lot of “no capacity” for Code J and Code 4, and that the Association had warned USTC following round one of rate filing that their rate ranges were creating potential problems with capacity on the international side. JPPSO-NC spoke up and said when they can’t get a shipment picked up, they are hearing from agents that the reason is rate related. But they then countered with, “if industry can’t move shipments for the rates that were filed, why did they file those rates?” This led to a discussion of rates being rejected; TSPs not knowing where the range is; filing a rate based on using an established network and when no capacity exists within the network, is there enough money to go outside the network, etc. USTC said they would study the issue and discuss it with the Services at the PPF Hotwash. JPPSO-SC also asked USTC when there are capacity problems, to allow the flexibility to use OTOs to get after the capacity that is out there and make those shipments more attractive. USTC did not respond definitively to that request.
  • #6: This slide started a conversation about the number of members counseled compared to the number of shipments booked, and why the big mismatch. DoD offered up that it’s possible that members who couldn’t get Code J shipments moved were forced to move that entitlement via Code 4. And that there was a push when there was no capacity, that many members who couldn’t move their dates were forced to go the PPM route. The Services asked USTC for data on how many members did a PPM shipment this peak season compared to last year. Again, USTC said they would present that to the Services at the PPF.
  • #7: Represents record highs for short fuse shipments based on system issues DPS was having during the peak, and was also attributed to refusals by USTC. The Services spent quite a bit of time on the Code 2 topic. They want more data from USTC on how it was used. They called for a new goal for next year to raise the number of Code 2 shipments. It was stated by AF that “the customer likes Code 2” so they recommended USTC make it known to industry that DoD wants more Code 2, and they recommended that word get out soon so industry has time to react and invest properly to make more Code 2 a reality. USTC said they would look at the Code 2 data and see what it tells them in terms of what the enterprise can support. Chuck brought up that wood costs, container costs, transportation to position crates, etc were all factors in pushing for higher Code 2. Generally, DoD said they hadn’t heard a lot of pushback on Code 2, but JPPSO NC said they’ve been “chasing containers” all summer.
  • #13: blackout ratio exceeded previous years because of the way DPS auto re-offers worked this year.
  • #14: worst time for DoD to get a shipment booked this year was the end of May, week 22. That week there were 83K refusals. This past week, by comparison, there were 6K.


Army requested USTC consider providing a story to Military Times to counter an early peak season story they ran that said members should expect a worse peak season than last year. They don’t believe it’s been a worse peak season, and they would like USTC to tell that story.



Source: USTC; IAM

USTC Pre-Proposal Conference for the Global Household Goods Contract (GHC)

USTC updated with information about their Pre-Proposal Conference on the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the GHC. If you plan to attend, the message states that “Pre-registration is required for participants interested in attending the Pre-Proposal Conference. You may pre-register by providing the information included below to Mr. Andrew McClain at and Ms. Paige Brown at not later than 26 August 2019, 1200 CST."

Registration information:
1. Business Name
2. Attendee(s) Name and Title
3. Contact Information (email and phone)


Date: 28 August 2019 8:00am – 4:30pm

Location: Drury Inn & Suites
1118 Central Park Drive
O'Fallon, IL 62269


Additionally, USTC updated their Acquisition Milestones for the GHC. There are some significant changes to the previous published timelines, such as the "Performance Start" date. The milestones provided are as follows:





Issue Solicitation

19 Aug 19

Pre-Proposal Conference

28 Aug 19

Receive Proposals

30 Sep 19

Source Selection Process - Begin Proposal Evaluations

1 Oct 19

Enter Discussions

13 Dec 19

Conclude Discussions - Request Final Proposal Revisions

3 Feb 20

Award Contract

15 Apr 20


May 20 – Jan 21

Performance Start

1 Feb 21


See all the updates on the GHC.



Source: USTC/AQ; IAM

Increased Loss and Damage Liability Coverage for DPM Shipments

USTC posted Advisory #19-0098 on 2 August on DPM loss and damage liability coverage. This information was previously issued. The advisory can be seen on the website under Advisories. The advisor states:


  1. Advisory 00-0080 is rescinded and this advisory serves as official guidance regarding subject.
  2. The loss and damage liability coverage for personal property shipments has increased to the greater of:
  3. $7,500 per shipment, or
  4. $6.00 times either the net weight of Household Goods shipment or the gross weight of the Unaccompanied Baggage shipment, in pounds, not to exceed $75,000.
  5. The cost for the increased liability shall be included in all rates for the DPM Program

effective 1 October 2019.

  1. This change will be reflected in the next revision update to the Defense Transportation


  1. Email questions regarding this advisory to



Source: USTC; IAM

Jeff Coleman on Congress bid: ‘I’m all in’

Dothan, Ala. businessman Jeff Coleman told Alabama Daily News that he plans to run for the Republican nomination for Congress in Alabama’s 2nd District. Coleman is a two-time former Chair of IAM as well as the current Chair of the IAM Hall of Honor.

Read More