U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama challenges Army decision to buy Canadian product instead of one made in Cullman
By Mary Orndorff | Washington Burea | May 29, 2012

WASHINGTON -- The Army would not be allowed to spend money on new cargo transport gear until a government auditor reviews why the Army stopped buying a product built in Alabama, under a provision adopted by a key House committee.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, said the U.S. Government Accountability Office needs to analyze the switch from Cullman-made cargo flatracks to a system built in Canada. The decision is forcing about 200 layoffs in Aderholt's congressional district.

"Since learning of the Army's plans to replace flatracks with the Canadian-built (Enhanced Container Handling Unit), which is a more expensive product that has somewhat limited use in the field, I have been rather skeptical about the Army's thinking on this," Aderholt said after his amendment was adopted.

The House Appropriations Committee approved the defense bill last week, and it now goes to the full House.

The flatrack system of platforms and containers had been built by AAR Mobility Systems in Cullman for several years, and the company said that, without the defense contract, it will lay off most of the facility's 213 employees this summer.

According to the amendment, the Army has said it has no plans to buy any more flatracks for the next three years. But there are concerns on Capitol Hill that the Army's switch was abrupt and "calls into question the accuracy and diligence of the Army's budget formulation process," according to the committee's report that accompanies the defense bill.

"The (appropriations) committee notes that after a three year break, substantial costs could be incurred to reestablish a production line and certify a producer," according to the report. "The committee believes that better forecasting and inter-service coordination would assist both the industrial base and the armed services to ensure the availability of the required equipment."

An Army spokeswoman in April said that the Cullman facility's last contract was to meet urgent needs, that it was completed, and that the Army had plenty of them on hand and didn't need any more. Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry also said the current contract for the alternate type of container system was a 2006 competition between two companies, "due to market research indicating they were the only two sources with the potential to fulfill the requirement."

Aderholt's amendment requires the GAO report to be complete 90 days after the defense bill becomes law.

If you would like to read this article online, click here.