File Photo: American Roll-On/Roll-Off Carriers (ARC)

ARC Loses DOD’s Multi-Billion Global Household Goods Contract

Mike Schuler
Total Views: 6413
November 4, 2021

U.S.-flag ro-ro operator American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier Group (ARC) has missed out on being awarded U.S. Transportation Command’s multi-billion Global Household Goods Contract for providing global relocation services for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Coast Guard.

ARC was originally awarded the $7 billion Global Household Goods Contract in April 2020, only to have the award was protested by other bidders and prompted the government to re-evaluate the contract. ARC submitted its updated response in December 2020, but was not awarded the contract, ARC’s parent company, Oslo-based Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, said Thursday.

A contract announcement on the Department of Defense’s website says that HomeSafe Alliance LLC of Houston, Texas has been awarded the fixed-price $6.2 billion contract.

The Global Household Goods contract provides complete door-to-door global household goods relocation transportation and warehouse services worldwide for Department of Defense service members, U.S. Coast Guard members, DOD civilians and their families

ARC has requested a debrief from TRANSCOM and will reassess its options to protest the decision.

After an introductory setting up period, the contract with ARC was initially set to start in early 2021 with volumes gradually building. From 2022, the contract was estimated to provide revenues of more than USD 2 billion per year, Wallenius Wilhelmsen said in a statement after the initial contract award.

The DOD’s announcement today said the contract with HomeSafe Alliance will have a transition and base period from December 1, 2021, to August 31, 2025.

HomeSafe had protested the award to ARC based on “the agency’s (TRANSCOM’s) determination that the awardee (ARC) is a responsible contractor, asserts that the agency conducted misleading discussions, contends that the agency failed to adequately document oral presentations, argues that many aspects of the agency’s technical and price evaluations were unreasonable, and asserts that the agency performed an improper best-value tradeoff analysis.”

Back to Main