It has been said that moving is one of the top stressors in a person’s life, and yet military families are forced to do it multiple times in a career. Recent changes to how these moves are managed may make this common stressor more complicated. As of January 23, 2025 PCSing will be managed under the new $6.2 billion Global Household Goods Contract (GHC) which was awarded to Houston-based HomeSafe Alliance, LLC on November 4, 2021. Though awarded in 2021, it faced legal challenges and process delays that prevented it from being phased in until last April.
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM,) is the major command that oversees the contract and is ultimately responsible for the over 300,000 moves of DoD and Coast Guard families. Under the previous Defense Personal Property Program (DPS), the government contracted moves to over 900 different companies. However, according to Andy Dawson, Defense Personal Property Management Office Director, customer satisfaction had reached a low of 77%. Plagued by complaints such as months-long delays, damaged or missing personal property, poor communication and a cumbersome claims management process it drew the attention of lawmakers after a particularly painful summer PCS cycle in 2018.
HomeSafe Alliance, the GHC contractor, promised new tools and practices to avoid these pitfalls: an app to track goods electronically, a move counselor assigned to each family to serve as a single point of contract throughout their move and a promise of 24/7 customer support. In short, having a single contractor handle military moves meant modernization and accountability. However, with up to $19 billion being funneled through a single contractor, the transition to the GHC has not been embraced by everyone in the moving industry.
HomeSafe Alliance appears to be struggling to build necessary subcontractor capacity to perform successfully. Industry groups such as Movers for America have called for a “strategic pause” on the GHC. Their complaints include a fee structure that would cause them to lose money on jobs as well as more cumbersome legal requirements that did not apply under DPS.
Danielle Hahami, a manager for the American Trucking Association (ATA) Moving and Storage Conference noted that “[The Movers] don’t want to sign up for something [where] they don’t know what it is they’re getting themselves into.” She went on to share that the contractors they represent have helped move military families for many years, care about them as a customer base, and don’t want to be left behind by the new system.
When asked to provide a statement, USTRANSCOM noted that “the legacy system has complexities that over time disproportionately benefited the moving industry at the expense of our military members.” But whether it is an industry that cannot or refuses to modernize, it is ultimately the service members and their families who suffer. This could take the form of less experienced contractors signing on to work with HomeSafe and resultant performance issues or a lack of network capacity in certain regions, such as Minot. And if there isn’t a subcontractor willing to move a military member, they may be forced to move themselves.
Military families have strong opinions on personally procured moves (PPMs). Some avoid them, while others prefer control over their belongings. However, the new system seems to make PPMs less appealing financially. A change.org petition (found at https://www.change.org/p/military-families-forced-to-new-pcs-contract-amid-diminishing-self-move-rates ) circulated around social media in January of this year that raised red flags for military members. Started by Megan Harless, a military spouse and PCS reform advocate, the petition cited numerous examples where, under the GHC, families were being reimbursed up to 40% less for personally procured moves.
Additionally, Facebook groups such as Harless’s “PCS Like a Pro” have shared stories where families ended up having to pay out of pocket for these moves because the government’s reimbursement under the new Milmove system did not align with the actual costs incurred.
These complaints seem to echo what subcontractor’s have stated about HomeSafe’s now lower fee structure.
Scott Ross, Deputy Public Affairs Officer for USTRANSCOM, noted that “prices referenced for PPMs are NOT determined by HomeSafe.” In accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation, the government reimburses service members what it would cost the government to pay a contractor to perform the move. However, as Harless has rightly pointed out, HomeSafe is now the only contractor handling these moves, therefore their rates are the only thing informing the government rate.
Issues with the new contract extend beyond a less profitable PPM rate. They include the same problems that the GHC was meant to fix: poor communication, lack of transparency, and stories about contractors simply not showing up to do the work. These experiences are in stark contrast to the multiple positive reviews featured on HomeSafe’s website: https://www.homesafealliance.com/customers/what-customers-are-saying, which are based on the Government administered Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS.)
While it may be reassuring to hear that not every moving experience has been difficult, it should be noted that as of February 19th, HomeSafe had only completed just over 1,400 moves. This is a fraction of the nearly 200,000 moves they will be expected to handle in the coming months of peak PCS season. They are expected to take on all CONUS moves by this summer and OCONUS moves in the Fall. In January USTRANSCOM issued a “show-cause” notice, asking HomeSafe to account for performance issues. According to the Federal News Network, Ken Brennan, USTRANSCOM’s director of acquisitions confirmed that this was due to concerns related to missed pick-ups and ability to access moving industry capacity.
The problems with the GHC are quickly gaining wider attention. On February 26, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia reached out to USTRANSCOM requesting clarification on the many concerns raised by his constituents. Two days later, the Army and Air Force opted to switch any moves with less than a 21 day lead time back over to the legacy DPS system.
It remains to be seen how these issues will impact MAFB’s summer PCS cycle. When asked to provide more information on how these changes have affected moves to and from MAFB, 5th LRS, which oversees the base’s household goods/transportation office, was not able to provide clear answers. SMSgt Appleby, Deployment & Distribution Flight Chief shared that, “a successful move is based on communicating with the appropriate agencies and keeping your supervisors up to date on [your] move.” He encouraged service members to come see his office as soon as they receive their orders. He also emphasized the importance of completing customer surveys, particularly at the end of a move, and speaking with a supervisor if an issue arises rather than suffering in silence.
For more specifics on the GHC and how it might impact an upcoming move, members can visit the Global Household Goods Contract information page at https://www.militaryonesource.mil/resources/millife-guides/ustranscom-global-household-goods-contract/
