Sgt. Where's My Car?' Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This was in response to an issue that came up locally in NC but is a more widespread problem that than. Basically servicemen and women are re-stationed and their personal vehicles are shipped to them by the branch's transportation command, who then in turn contracts it out to a private company. The problem is that both the company is backlogged severely and customs is causing still further delays, particularly if the car was purchased overseas. This problem is causing financial strain for the service men and women who have to lease or buy another car whilst they wait. Considering we went seven months without a car ourselves, I can tell you in NC, that is a death sentence and large concentrations of our military are stationed in similar states where public transportation is limited or none existent.

These people sacrifice a lot to serve our country, they shouldn't be forced to contend with this red tape bs with regards to their personal vehicles.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So any concerns, questions, comments concerns?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's fine with me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The vote Lumine?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The company who has the contract in real life at least is falling further and further behind, largely because I think they lack the capability to handle the increased demands for vehicles to be transported.

A legislative mandate is necessary in my view because the existing criteria and structure of the contract were not satisfactory to ensure contractor could meet demand. 

As long as the bills is not weakened. I am fine with a redraft.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The company who has the contract in real life at least is falling further and further behind, largely because I think they lack the capability to handle the increased demands for vehicles to be transported.

A legislative mandate is necessary in my view because the existing criteria and structure of the contract were not satisfactory to ensure contractor could meet demand.

(1) If the original contractor cannot meet the military's current level of need, then why not renegotiate the contract to allow another firm to take responsibility for whatever portion of the work the original contractor is unable to handle?

That is what I intend to happen but with these stronger guidelines in place.

(2) Isn't the problem here one of poor contract design rather than inadequate regulations?

Last I checked the military was a gov't agency and thus we possessed the ability to regulate the operations of such, including the design of the contract, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(2) Isn't the problem here one of poor contract design rather than inadequate regulations?

Last I checked the military was a gov't agency and thus we possessed the ability to regulate the operations of such, including the design of the contract, no?

Of course, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea. By focusing on the details of a specific contract that has gone poorly, we might be overlooking a broader and more serious problem with how the military develops contracts.

What do you have in mind then? The hope is that competitive bidding as a rule will improve one world famous problem with them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know, but we can suffice it to say that they didn't do enough to ensure it was capable of handling the task.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why does this say voting?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It could be worse Nix. It is not the end of the world.