Air Force Gen. Randall Reed, head of U.S. Transportation Command, testifies during a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, March 25, 2025. (House Armed Services Committee)
Fewer service members have filed “inconvenience” complaints in recent weeks over late pickups and deliveries of household goods under a new relocation system being phased in by the Defense Department, the head of U.S. Transportation Command said Tuesday.
Hundreds of military households complained of botched pickups and deliveries late last year and in January under the Global Household Goods Contract, or GHC, which launched a year ago but ramped up in earnest in recent months.
Under GHC, the command is transferring oversight of the 300,000 to 400,000 annual moves for the military and Coast Guard to HomeSafe Alliance, a joint venture between Tier One Relocation and KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root. HomeSafe oversees all contracting for packing, trucking, shipping and storage of goods in GHC moves.
“As we continue to look at the performance and as [HomeSafe] continue to respond to the shortfalls that we had seen before, we have actually seen, within the last few weeks, the number of those claims declining, and they’ve resolved those claims to 100%,” Gen. Randall Reed told members of a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
“And so, while there is still work to go, we are actually getting the improvements that we’re seeking,” he said.
Service members’ complaints prompted several U.S. senators to launch inquiries earlier this month into the transition to GHC.
The Transportation Command had intended to transition all domestic military moves away from its legacy system to GHC by this summer’s peak moving season.
Earlier this month, however, the command began using a “conditions-based approach” to adjust the ratio of moves being allocated to the legacy system and to GHC to take some of the pressure off HomeSafe as it attempts to reach greater capacity through industry contracts.
Reed said that GHC system puts in place “levers that we can use to actually address performance shortfalls” that do not exist in the legacy system.
“And so, while there are performance issues, and while things in spots aren’t as solid as we would like them, at least now we can see them, and at least now we can hold the conversation, at least now we can document it, and at least now we have incentives to get the performance that we’re seeking,” he said.
The moving industry in large part has declined to sign on to GHC because, among other issues, the new system’s payment rates are on average 30% lower than what the government pays in the legacy system.
“If they were three, four or five [percent less], we can absorb that kind of loss,” Brian Hunley, director of long-distance operations for Lambert Moving Systems, said by phone Wednesday. The company has branches in Alabama, Georgia and Florida and has done military moves for decades.
“But they’re talking about putting it at a price point where I cannot afford to do it,” he said.
In the legacy system, movers can bid on rates during peak and off-peak seasons based on supply and demand, he said.
Hunley said he was alarmed by Reed’s statements during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 5 in which the general indicated the command would adjust the payment rate in the legacy rate to be “more in line” with GHC rates.
Reed told the senators that the rate can only be adjusted once a year in May, “which we will do.”
With that adjustment, “there will be less of an incentive to stay outside than to join the GHC,” Reed said.
Hunley described such a rate adjustment as “a train running for a brick wall.”
“Instead of working to fix the new system that is clearly not functioning properly, [Reed] wants to lower the rates to the point where quality movers cannot serve the military under either system,” he said.
