The Cullman Times | Aderholt Stalls Army's Switch from SUMMA Transport System

Aderholt Stalls Army's Switch from SUMMA Transport System
By Trent moore | The Cullman Times | May 27, 2012

CULLMAN — Though AAR Summa is still scheduled to completely shut down manufacturing by July, a new development in the U.S. Defense Appropriations bill will at least have the Army take another look at the Cullman-based manufacturing plant’s non-renewed contract for a transportation and storage device, which was awarded to a Canadian company earlier this year.

Essentially, U.S. Congressman Robert Aderholt (AL-04) has included a stipulation in the latest defense bill that requires an accountability report be done by the Army to show why ordering the similar Canadian product is the right decision.

Summa has manufactured the U.S. Army MK 1077 Flat Rack transportation device for more than 15 years, though the Army now plans to order a similar product, the ECHU, from a Canadian firm.

With the loss of the Flatrack contract, the Cullman plant is laying off more than 200 employees within two months.

In a statement, Aderholt said he hopes the amendment will keep Summa in the discussion, and he says he is “skeptical” of the Army’s decision to go with a manufacturing company from outside the U.S. The bid process was only open to “small” businesses, and though the local plant meets those requirements, the fact that it is now owned by the international AAR company put Summa out of contention.

“Since learning of the Army’s plans to replace Flatracks with the Canadian built ECHU, 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. I was particularly concerned with the contract’s limited competition and increased cost,” Aderholt said. “I was able to call a ‘time-out’ by offering an amendment to next year’s Defense Appropriations bill that puts the brakes on further spending for the ECHU until the completion of a GAO report that examines the contracting process and utility of this product.”

Ideally, Aderholt said he would potentially like to see the bid re-opened, and Summa allowed to compete.

“Especially in today’s economy, the Army should not be spending $223 million on a product that was acquired without a full and open competition — American workers and their families deserve better,” he said. “I am very pleased the amendment passed and will be included in this bill moving forward.”

A representative from AAR Summa said the amendment is obviously a positive step. But, with so many questions still unanswered, the layoffs will still have to move ahead as scheduled.

“AAR’s Cullman operation is glad to have supported the U.S. Army for the past 15 years, and to have provided jobs for the community in the process,” spokesperson Christine Wayne said. “We hope to have the opportunity to compete for this business in the future, and AAR is grateful for the continued efforts of Congressman Aderholt toward insuring transparency in the procurement process, and a level playing field for American workers.”

For local economic officials, the amendment is a silver lining — and provides some hope that the massive layoffs may at least prove temporary.

“From our side, it’s great news to hear Summa might have any chance to get back into the mix on the bid,” Cullman Economic Development Agency Assistant Director Dale Greer said. “Because, those 200 jobs aren’t just numbers. Those are local people, and local families, affected by that.”

In the defense bill, the committee notes that if the Army shuts down orders for Summa-manufactured equipment, substantial costs could be incurred to reestablish a production line and certify a producer if the Army needed more equipment in the future. The committee has told the Comptroller General to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days on the Army’s acquisition plan, requirements, and inventory for container handling equipment.

The report also calls into question the Army’s abrupt decision to cut off future orders of the Summa-produced Flatrack, saying “the abrupt change in requirements from one year to the next calls into question the accuracy and diligence of the Army’s budget formulation process.”

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