I've been trying to keep out of the fray but....most of the comments that
sound like they're coming from someone who graduated high school are right
on. The rest of the noise coming from the list is just going to drive away GL
when we've got their ear until GL realizes there's not much money here, just
a bunch of ranting lunatics. In general I'm against a contractor, especially
a single contractor, handling surplus sales. This system goes against the
small business man. I believe the Internet and not any marketing magic has
raised the prices of surplus equipment along with less material being
available than in years past. DLA could have gotten the same results with a
good web design contractor. For the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
(DRMO), reutilization is their main mission. We all know the reality, but how
do you think it looked on their books when they reutilized a deuce-and-a-half
with an acquisition cost of $46,000 compared to selling it for $1500? Surplus
sales looked like a big negative to them. How did they fix it? They cut out
all the over head and now just collect a check from the contractor. In
reality it didn't cost them much more to have one of the fork lift operators
hold a local sale when you've got to have the crew for the reutilization
mission any way. Another place DLA dropped the ball was when they closed down
and consolidated DRMO locations. Now the units that used to be able to turn
in excess property at the local DRMO on base are expected to pay the added
cost of shipping it to the nearest DRMO. They say 'screw that' and down grade
it to scrap and throw it away.
So here we are, stuck with GL until 2007, I hear. We need to try to make
it work. The only thing I can add as far as constructive criticism is this:
First, they've already fixed one thing that bothered me. EUC items should go
sealed bid. I really don't want to be 'run up' by an unqualified buyer and I
think GL will have fewer defaults as a result. If the high bidder's EUC is
rejected then they can go to the second highest bidder and so on. On the
subject of EUCs and titles, GL is letting themselves get screwed. In the past
if I bought a truck from DRMO that required an EUC, I would be approved by
DLA or whoever and get my truck with SF97. If I then sold the truck, the
buyer would not have to be approved by DLA, they would just sign my EUC and
move on down the road. If DLA is going to require GL to take title to the
trucks they sell and not give SF97s in the name of the buyer then why should
GL's customer be required to have their own EUC approved? Shouldn't GL's
buyer only sign GL's EUC?
Any kind of description is a waste of time. More pictures and better
access to inspect the property is the only way. This is not a used car lot,
it's a surplus property sale, 'as is where is.' My last personal bone is
successful bidder information. GL could go a long way to give themselves some
credibility (and thus more money) if we knew we were bidding against real
people. There's a very easy and private way to do this. Give people the cho
ice when they register weather or not they want their e-mail address
published or allow bidders to e-mail the high bidder through GL without
giving out the high bidders address.
Jeff
TacticalTruck.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 11:49:34 PST