be a happy medium in there. I think if this were done more often in more areas, it would generally be a great savings to our country. Senator DANFORTH. Mr. Dunkley? Mr. DUNKLEY. Senator, the thing which concerns me is the duplication. That's what's costing the Government a lot of moneyadministrative duplication. Let's take my case with AFPEC. AFPEC does a good job in getting a product in with all the necessary documentation, having it tested through the various labs for quality and acceptability, tasting it themselves as a committee, and then approving the product. Yet each base that I go to, they repeat the same process of tasting the product, checking it, filling out forms. It would seem that when the highest body, which is AFPEC, approves a product, it should have immediate access to the dining facilities for tasting, instead of going through another testing process again. If that is eliminated, I think the Government could save a lot of money. There are many other wrinkles in the system that appear to be a lot of duplication and which, if eliminated, could save a lot of man-hours, time, and effort and consequently save the taxpayers a lot of money. [Attachment to Mr. Dunkley's testimony, Mr. Cartwright's prepared statement with attachments, and additional material submitted by Mr. Loeb follow:] ATTACHMENT TO MR. DUNKLEY'S TESTIMONY Summary of Steps in the Armed Forces Approval and Procurement Process forLocal Purchase of Food. 1. APPROVAL BY THE ARMED FORCES PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE (AFPEC) This involves the submission of: (a) Application and various documentation; and (b) Samples of Product for various tests and for taste testing by AFPEC members. It took approximately two months after the submission of samples until the written decision of AFPEC was received. 2. SECURING A NATIONAL STOCK NUMBER AND FEDERAL CATALOG NUMBER Each product approved by AFPEC is assigned a national stock number and item nomenclature. Without this national stock number no installation may purchase the item. It took us approximately 5 months (after step No. 1) with the assistance of Senator Danforth's office to secure a national stock number. 3. APPLICATION TO DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY TO BE PLACED ON BID LIST This step is usually required for competitive bidding of like items for central purchasing and central storage involving: (a) The examination of company's financial statements and credibility; and (b) On-site inspection of plant and facility to determine if plant could meet production requirements. Even though our approval was for local purchase only, installations requested that we seek this credential. This process which is the most efficient and expeditious action we have experienced from any governmental agency took approximately two months from date of application to receipt of written approval. 4. PRESENTATION OF PRODUCT TO MENU BOARDS AT THE VARIOUS INSTALLATIONS This involves contacting and setting up appointments with appropriate personnel at the solicited installations and personal presentation of our product before menu boards and/or Food Service Officers and their staff. Credentials and approval letters are usually forwarded ahead of time. This process takes between one week to two months from initial contact to securing a menu board's decision. 5. PROCESSING OF ORDERS AND GETTING INTO THE SYSTEM Bureaucracy within the various installations or complexes involving the development of new product specification, execution of blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and input to computer systems. This can take anywhere from two to four months from the date requisition for purchase is submitted by the food service officer. The total process can take anywhere from thirteen to eighteen months to secure the necessary approvals before an order is placed. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. CARTWRIGHT Cartwright Van Lines, Inc., and it's subsidiary Cartwright International Van Lines, Inc., derives nearly 70 percent of it's total Interstate volume of revenue from Government Traffic. Competition for household goods shipments awarded by the Department of Defense is extremely keen. We welcome this competitive business climate. However, the competitive posture of this particular market is riddled with ill conceived performance policies and rate filing procedures. Moreover, it is the unmanaged and irresponsible administration of these procedures which brings me here today eager to explain these problems. The Department of Defense through the Military Traffic Management Command provides each approved Motor Carrier or Freight Forwarder the opportunity to participate in the Personal Property Movement Program on the basis of rate competition and quality of service at all joint personal property shipping offices throughout the United States. A carrier may file individual rate tenders for each installation served, four times a year during certain specified periods. In this way rate competitiveness can be achieved by the Carrier either establishing the low rate or by meeting the low rate. Quality of service is judged by the Carrier Evaluation and Reporting System better known as "CERS". Developed by Military Traffic Management Command, this system provides for points to be taken away from a total possible of 100 for certain deficiencies in the service provided on Department of Defense shipments moved by the Carrier or Forwarder. At the end of the evaluation period, six months, "X" number of shipments moved during that period are selected and the individual shipment scores are compiled for the Carrier. Then all scores for all Carriers at each individual installation are summarized and ranked by percentile. This ends with the ranking of Carriers into three areas of performance: Superior, Excellent and Standard. Military Traffic Management Command repeatedly has stated that the CERS Program will reward those Carriers who provide quality service with more traffic than those who do not. And that is exactly how the program is suppose to work. But, Consideration was not given to the Department of Defense's efforts in saving money. A Carrier can provide superior service and maintain a superior CERS rating but never receive the proper amount of traffic because that Carrier was not rate competitive. Conversely, a Carrier may be ranked 29 out of 29 Carriers, in other words last place, and if that Carrier would be the only Carrier to have a low rate in effect that Carrier, the worst performer, would receive all the shipments offered at that installation. I submit to you that priorities have been mismanaged. What is even more disturbing is to learn that you have become ineligible for shipments because of some arbitrary decision made by the Installation Transportation Office. MTMC has precise and exacting regulations for disqualification of Carriers for poor service and these are often not followed. We have found that MTMC and the Installation Transportation Office's have little or no continuity in their decision making process or administrative management of the rules and regulations of Personal Property Movement. Quite frankly, the MTMC and ITO are understaffed and often with unqualified personnel with little or no concern for applying these regulations properly. The Traffic Distribution Roster (TDR) which is an accounting of all traffic allocated to participating Carriers at an installation is hidden. surrounded by mystery and suspense at many installations. And if a Carrier representative asks to see the Roster a defensive attitude is taken. But, as it usually happens the (TDR) is so confused with numbers and codes and special notes that a Carrier cannot judge at first glance if he has been offered the proper amount of traffic. It takes only one rate cycle where the Rate Acquisition Division of Military Traffic Management Command is 30 days late in approving rate tenders, an understaffed ITO's Office, and the attitude that no one really cares, to put a Carrier or a Forwarder out of business at that installation for three to four months. Gentlemen, when we are late we are suspended for 30 days and receive not a Both of our companies move shipments for the Department of Defense which includes the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. We also move shipments for several departments of the government, some of which include the Drug Enforcement Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, FFA, Social Security, FBI, and IRS. Through the years we have continuously experienced delays in receiving payments for our services from the various military Finance Centers and the government departments. With this testimony we have submitted consolidated printouts for both of our companies reflecting the payment records for 17 months. Respecting shipments we have moved for the government, we have listed our payments separately for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and miscellaneous other governmental agencies. The payments are organized in time segments. We have computed interest based on a 20 percent simple interest rate beginning after the 30th day of nonpay For the sake of time I will not list the other government branches. The Army does by far the best job of all the services in payment for our services. However, it is very expensive to do business with the government when we cannot receive our money in a timely manner. The totals on our Summary reflect monies that were owed to our company by the government from between 31 and over 210 days have cost us $100,219.40 in interest at our bank. Presently we have unpaid over 30 days old, 241 shipments, representing $552,988.61 of revenue, with interest paid to date over 30 days of $8,201.17, which is included in our total interest paid of $100,219.40. I have also brought along two examples, we have many more, that show why it sometimes takes so long to get paid by the government. The first is one where the Army Finance Center has been trying to obtain the proper appropriation number for this shipment since August 19, 1980. If the Transportation Office who issued the Government Bill of Lading had assigned the proper appropriation number, this search would not have been necessary. The Army has finally sent this shipment to the General Service Administration Accounts Payable Branch for processing. Three Hundred and Twelve days have passed and we still have not been paid for the shipment. To date it has cost us $680.16 finance charges on this shipment. In the second example we presented our Public Voucher as stated on the Government Bill of Lading to the Army Finance Center for payment. The Government Bill of Lading states that we are to bill all transportation charges to the Army Finance Center, Indianapolis, Indiana for our charges. On 10/1/80 we submitted our Public Voucher to the Army for payment. 2/11/81, we ask the Army why we had not been paid. On 2/25/81, the Army advised us to bill the U.S. Army Eng. District., Los Angeles, California. We sent our Public Voucher to the Army Eng. Dist. as directed. Thirty days went by and we still had not been paid, so we called the Army Eng. Dist; we were informed that they had not received the Public Voucher. We resent the paperwork to Army Eng. Dist., Los Angeles. We were then informed that they could not pay the Public Voucher, it had to go to U.S. JATE OF RECEIPT OF SHIPMENT INITIAL CARIER'S AGENT BY SIGNATURE BELOW, CERTIFIES DATE-10-7-80TITLE Cartwright International Van Lines (Date) (Actual delivery point) (Name of delivering carriers LIVERED THIS CONSIGNMENT COMPLETE AND IN APPARENT COOD ORDER EXCEPT AS MAY BE INDICATED HEREAFTER. Cartwright International Van Lines SHORTAGE DAMAGE DELIVERY RAP CAR SERVICE AT DESTINATION. STANDARD FORD 1 Jegory 1574 1183-116 SHON ALSO CUB:C MEASUREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS VIA AIR, TRUCK OR WATER CARRIER IN CASES WHERE REQUIRED. |