GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 31, 2013

Congressional Committees 

Subject: Army Logistics: Container Handling Equipment Requirements, Contracts, and Inventory

Container handling equipment provides Army commanders with the flexibility they need to 

respond to rapidly shifting operations by supplying the capability to transport critical cargo. To

support a versatile and expandable distribution system, the Army has five types of container 

handling equipment to carry both containerized and non-containerized (or “break bulk”) cargo: 

flatracks, container roll-in/out platforms (CROPs), container handling units (CHUs), enhanced 

container handling units (E-CHUs), and container transfer enhancements (CTEs). Flatracks, 

which can carry both containerized and “break bulk” cargo, and CROPs, which can carry only 

“break bulk” cargo, are structural steel frames. CHUs and E-CHUs attach to the lifting arm of a 

truck and allow for upload and offload of containers. The CTE is a modification to a trailer which 

allows the container to roll onto the trailer while being pushed by the CHU/E-CHU.

House Report 112-493 mandated GAO to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the acquisition plan, requirement, and inventory for container handling 

equipment in the Army, including CROPs, flatracks, E-CHUs, CTEs, and similar equipment in 

use by the Army.

1 Our objectives for this report were to describe (1) how the requirements for 

container handling equipment have changed since 1998 and when the corresponding contracts 

were awarded or delivery orders issued and (2) the current and projected inventories of

container handling equipment. Enclosure 1 provides a copy of the slides detailing the results of 

our review that we used in briefing your offices on July 11, 2013.

To address our objectives, we reviewed relevant documents related to the Army’s container 

handling equipment. These include the 1998 Operational Requirements Document for the 

Palletized Load System; Operational Needs Statements2 and Equipment Sourcing Documents3

 1

The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. 

L. No. 113-6 (2013), retained a reporting requirement established in House Report 112–493. See 159 Cong. Rec. 

S1404 (daily ed. Mar. 11, 2013); H.R. Rep. No. 112-493, at 138 (2012). 

for flatracks; the 2010 Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) flatrack/CROP briefing; 

the 2012 Distribution Enablers Study; the draft Capability Production Document; and contracts 

and related documents for container handling equipment. Additionally, we interviewed Army 

officials responsible for the requirements, acquisitions, program management, and inventory of 

2

Operational Needs Statements provide a way for unit commanders to identify urgent needs for new materiel or new 

capabilities. 

3

Equipment Sourcing Documents are requests for filling an equipment shortage that has already been validated or 

authorized by the Department of the Army.
Page 2 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

container handling equipment, including CASCOM, the office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology), the Department of the Army, TACOM,4 and the 

Program Executive Office. We obtained data on container handling equipment inventory as of 

June 2013. We reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors and completeness. When 

we found discrepancies, we brought them to the attention of Army officials to ensure correction 

of the discrepancies. From these efforts, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of this report.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 through July 2013 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In summary, requirements for container handling equipment have changed since 1998 from 

focusing on "break bulk" to focusing on containerized distribution. This change occurred 

because of unanticipated warfighter needs during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 

development of new container handling equipment technologies. Contracts were awarded and 

delivery orders issued from 2001 through 2012 to correspond to the changing requirements for

container handling equipment. 

• Produced prior to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 1998 Operational Requirements 

Document indicated that cargo would be transported to secure locations in containers 

and then to troops in “break bulk,” without using containers. Capabilities that would later 

be filled by CHUs/E-CHUs and CTEs were identified for the requirement to transport 

cargo in containers. CROPs were identified as a capability for the requirement to 

transport “break bulk” cargo without containers. Flatracks, the existing capability since 

1994 to move both containerized and “break bulk” cargo, were no longer identified as a 

capability in the 1998 document because, according to the document, they added

unnecessary weight to the load being transported and required additional equipment to 

place the container on and off the flatrack. As a result, in a 2001 strategy, the Army 

decided to eliminate the use of flatracks and transition funding to CROP procurement. In 

implementing this strategy, the Army awarded a contract in December 2002 for up to

3,997 CROPs and awarded another contract in June 2006, from which it ordered 32,917 

CROPs.

• According to Army documentation, from 2008 through 2010, warfighters in Iraq and 

Afghanistan identified an unanticipated and urgent need for flatracks to move cargo in 

containers to forward operating units, in order to better conceal and protect items being 

moved along hazardous routes. After the Army’s 2001 strategy eliminated the need for

flatracks, Army officials stated that the ability to move containers to forward operating 

units was limited because CROPs cannot carry containers. Further, as of 2010, Army 

officials said that there was an insufficient inventory of CHUs/E-CHUs to meet the urgent 

need for container distribution, because the Army had not anticipated the need to move 

containers to forward operating units. Additionally, Army officials said warfighters had not 

yet been properly trained to use the CHUs/E-CHUs. Moreover, as of 2010, the CTE had 

 4

TACOM was formerly known as Tank-automotive and Armaments Command. 
Page 3 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

not yet been fielded because it was in testing. As a result of the urgent need to move 

cargo in containers, the Army awarded a contract in August 2010 for 3,227 flatracks. As 

of June 2013, Army officials stated that 328 of these flatracks had been shipped to 

troops and 2,899 were awaiting release by the Army.

• In February 2012, the Army issued the Distribution Enablers Study, which revisited the 

capabilities needed for “break bulk” and containerized cargo distribution. This study 

included the E-CHU in its analysis, because more E-CHUs had been fielded to units, 

and the CTE, which completed testing in 2011. The Distribution Enablers Study 

recommended using the E-CHU paired with the CTE, because this combination provides 

three times more capacity to distribute cargo than flatracks alone. As a result, in June 

2012, the Army ordered 180 CTEs.5

• Requirements for container handling equipment are continuing to be updated and may 

change due to DOD's plans to reduce the size of the Army. A Capability Production 

Document—expected to be issued in late summer 2013 to update the 1998 Operational 

Requirements Document—is to provide updated requirements to include current 

technologies for CROPs, E-CHUs, and CTEs and is expected to add the flatrack 

capability for Army Corps of Engineers bridge units. Army officials said that plans are 

also being completed for each piece of container handling equipment—based on the 

2012 Distribution Enablers Study—that will identify the quantity and type of equipment to 

be sent to units. Additionally, Army officials said that the Army Capabilities Integration 

Center is conducting a tactical wheeled vehicle reduction study, due to be completed in

late 2013 or early 2014, which could affect requirements for container handling 

equipment. 

Based on experiences during the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s priority 

is to increase the inventory of E-CHUs and CTEs to move containerized cargo in a sufficient 

and secure manner to the forward-most units on the battlefield. According to Army officials, the 

Army has the majority of the inventory it needs of CROPs and flatracks to move “break bulk” 

cargo, and there is no future funding programmed for CROPs or flatracks. However, the 

inventory of CROPs and flatracks is projected to increase, because some CROPs and flatracks

have been procured but have not yet been provided to units. Table 1 below shows the 

inventories of container handling equipment as of June 2013 and the projected inventories

through fiscal year 2018.

6

 5

The Army initially ordered 182 CTEs in June 2012 but reduced the order to 180 through a modification issued in 

December 2012.

6

Projected inventory includes (1) the current inventory as of June 2013, (2) E-CHUs, CTEs, CROPs, and flatracks

that have been procured but have not yet been provided to units using fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 

funds, and (3) E-CHUs and CTEs programmed for in the 2014 through 2018 Program Objective Memorandum. 

Projected inventory is subject to change based on Army budgetary decisions.
Page 4 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Table 1: Actual and Projected Inventory of Container Handling Equipment

Category Inventory as of June 2013 Projected inventory through fiscal 

year 2018

Container handling unit 768 768

Enhanced container handling unit 1,241 6,035 

Container transfer enhancement 0 6,324 

Container roll-in/out platform 47,228 48,397

Flatrack 4,342 7,241 

Source: Army G-8 data.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a copy of a draft of this report, including the briefing slides, to DOD for comment. 

DOD provided technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

- - - - -

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. The report is also available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are Marilyn Wasleski, Assistant Director; Nicholas Benne; Virginia Chanley; Joanne 

Landesman; Jodie Sandel; Michael Shaughnessy; and Amie Steele. 

Zina D. Merritt 

Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures – 1
Page 5 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Dick Durbin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Chairman 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable Pete Visclosky 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Page 6 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Army Logistics: Container Handling 

Equipment Requirements, Contracts, 

and Inventory

Briefing for Congressional Committees

July 11, 2013

Page 1
Page 7 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Table of Contents

• Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Background

• Summary

• Objective 1: Requirements and Contracts

• Objective 2: Inventory

Page 2
Page 8 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objectives

• House Report 112-493 mandated GAO to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the acquisition plan, requirement, and inventory for container handling equipment 

in the Army, including Container Roll-in/out Platforms (CROPs), flatracks, Enhanced Container 

Handling Units (E-CHUs), Container Transfer Enhancements (CTEs), and similar equipment in 

use by the Army.1

• We reviewed the following:

1. How have the requirements for container handling equipment changed since 1998, and 

when were the corresponding contracts awarded or delivery orders issued?

2. What are the current and projected inventories of container handling equipment?

Page 3 1The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 (2013), retained a 

reporting requirement established in House Report 112–493. See 159 Cong. Rec. S1404 (daily ed. Mar. 11, 2013); H.R. Rep. No. 112-493, at 138 (2012).
Page 9 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Scope and Methodology

• To review the Army’s requirements, contracts, and inventory for container handling equipment, 

• We reviewed relevant documents, including the 1998 Operational Requirements Document 

for the Palletized Load System; Operational Needs Statements2 and Equipment Sourcing 

Documents3 for flatracks; the 2010 Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) 

flatrack/CROP briefing; the 2012 Distribution Enablers Study; the draft Capability Production 

Document; and contracts and related documents for container handling equipment.

• We interviewed officials from CASCOM, the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Acquisition, Logistics & Technology), the Department of the Army, TACOM,4 and the 

Program Executive Office. 

• We obtained data on container handling equipment inventory as of June 2013. We reviewed 

these data for obvious inconsistency errors and completeness. When we found discrepancies, we 

brought them to the attention of Army officials to ensure correction of the discrepancies. From 

these efforts, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

• We provided a copy of this draft briefing to Army officials and incorporated their technical 

comments.

Page 4 2Operational Needs Statements provide a way for unit commanders to identify urgent needs for new materiel or new capabilities.

3Equipment Sourcing Documents are requests for filling an equipment shortage that has already been validated or authorized by the Department of the Army. 4TACOM was formerly known as Tank-automotive and Armaments Command. 
Page 10 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background

• The Army’s container handling equipment supports the transportation of cargo for the family of 

heavy tactical vehicles, particularly the Palletized Load System, the Heavy Expanded Mobility 

Tactical Truck, and the Palletized Load System trailer. This equipment includes:

• Flatracks

• Container Roll-in/out Platforms (CROPs)

• Container Handling Units (CHUs)

• Enhanced Container Handling Units (E-CHUs)

• Container Transfer Enhancements (CTEs)

• Container handling equipment can move cargo in two ways:

• “Break bulk,” such that cargo sits on top of a flatrack or CROP

• Containerized, such that cargo is inside of a 20-foot container and moved via a flatrack, 

CHU, E-CHU, or CTE

Page 5
Page 11 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

Flatrack

• Description: A structural steel frame that does not have side walls or a top (see figs. 1 and 2).

• Function: Transports “break bulk” loads or 20-foot containers. 

• Developed: 1990

• First contract: December 19925

• Fielded: February 1994

Page 6

Source: Army. Source: Army.

Flatrack carrying 

“break bulk” load

5According to Army officials, the first contract was awarded in December 1992.

Figure 1: Flatrack Figure 2: Flatrack carrying “break bulk” load
Page 12 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

Container Roll-in/out Platform (CROP)

• Description: A type of flatrack that is able 

to fit into a 20-foot container (see fig. 3).

• Function: Inserts and extracts loads 

directly from a 20-foot container and 

transports “break bulk” loads; cannot carry 

a 20-foot container. 

• Developed: 1997

• First contract: July 1997

• Fielded: September 2000

Page 7

Source: Army.

Figure 3: Container Roll-in/out Platform
Page 13 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

Container Handling Unit (CHU)

• Description: Attaches to the lifting arm of 

the Palletized Load System (see fig. 4).

• Function: Allows container upload and 

offload onto a truck and loads a 20-foot 

container from the truck onto a trailer 

without the use of a flatrack.

• Developed: 20016

• First contract: July 1997

Page 8

Source: Army.

Container 

Handling Unit

6According to the Army, although the first contract was awarded in July 1997, increased development of the CHU began when they became part of the Family of 

Heavy Tactical Vehicle contract in March 2001.

Figure 4: Container Handling Unit
Page 14 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

Enhanced Container Handling Unit (E-CHU)

The E-CHU enhances the capability of the 

CHU by improving the capability for 

stowage. The E-CHU can be carried in a 

stowed position when a flatrack or CROP 

is to be moved instead of a container. The 

E-CHU is lighter than the CHU and can be 

deployed more rapidly (see fig. 5).

• Developed: November 2007

• First contract: November 2007

• Fielded: July 2009

Page 9

Source: Army.

Enhanced 

Container 

Handling Unit

Figure 5: Enhanced Container Handling Unit
Page 15 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

Container Transfer Enhancement (CTE)

• Description: The CTE is a modification to the Palletized Load System trailer that allows the 

container to roll onto the trailer while being pushed by the CHU/E-CHU (see fig. 6).

• Function: Adds the capability to the base trailer of the Palletized Load System to transport 20-foot 

containers.

• Developed: May 2005 (CTE completed testing in March 2011)

• First contract: June 20127

• Fielded: Tentative September 2013

Page 10

Source: Army.

7In June 2012, the Army Contracting Command issued a delivery order for the CTE emanating from an existing contract for the acquisition of Heavy Tactical 

Vehicles, which includes the Palletized Load System trailer. 

Rolling cart to allow the container to roll onto the trailer while 

being pushed by the CHU/E-CHU

Lock to provide adequate lock down of container during 

transport

Figure 6: Container Transfer Enhancement
Page 16 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Background (cont.)

According to officials, container handling equipment functions are performed by the following Army 

offices:

Page 11

Office Container handling equipment function

Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) Develops and maintains container handling equipment requirements documents.

Army G-3/5/7 Validates and approves the requirements documents.

Army G-8 Programs funding based on requirements documents and available funding and 

determines equipment distribution to active and reserve component units.

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, 

Logistics & Technology)

Participates in acquisition decisions.

Program Executive Office for Combat Support and 

Combat Service Support

Prepares acquisition plans and scope of work documents, provides new 

equipment training, and performs overall program management for container 

handling equipment.

Army Contracting Command Awards contracts for container handling equipment.

Army G-4 Oversees sustainment and maintenance of container handling equipment.

TACOM Life Cycle Management Command

Integrated Logistics Support Center

Oversees inventory of container handling equipment.

Table 2: Container Handling Equipment Offices and Functions

Source: GAO analysis of Army data and interviews.
Page 17 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Summary

• Requirements for container handling equipment have changed since 1998 from focusing on 

“break bulk” distribution to focusing on containerized distribution. This change occurred because 

of unanticipated warfighter needs during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the development 

of new container handling equipment technologies.

• 1998: Requirements focused on moving cargo to troops from secure locations by “break 

bulk” transportation, using CROPs. 

• 2008 to 2010: Requirements changed to moving cargo in containers using flatracks to better 

conceal and protect cargo being moved forward on the battlefield. CROPs cannot carry a 

container.

• 2012: Army completes a study recommending containerized distribution using E-CHUs, 

because more had been fielded to units, and CTEs, which completed testing in 2011. The ECHUs and CTEs were recommended to supplement the existing capability for “break bulk” 

transportation using CROPs and flatracks.

• Contracts have been awarded and delivery orders issued from 2001 through 2012 to correspond 

to the changing requirements for container handling equipment.

Page 12
Page 18 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Summary (cont).

The Army plans to acquire additional inventory of E-CHUs and CTEs through fiscal year 2018 to address the 

new requirements for containerized distribution to the forward-most units on the battlefield, identified during the 

recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has the majority of the CROPs and flatracks it needs to 

meet its requirements for “break bulk” distribution.

Page 13

Category Inventory as of June 2013 Projected inventory through 

fiscal year 2018

Container handling unit 768 768

Enhanced container handling unit 1,241 6,035

Container transfer enhancement 0 6,324

Container roll-in/out platform 47,228 48,397

Flatrack 4,342 7,241

Table 3: Actual and Projected Inventory for Container Handling Equipment

Source: Army G-8 data.

Notes: Projected inventory includes (1) the current inventory as of June 2013, (2) E-CHUs, CTEs, CROPs, and flatracks that have been 

procured but have not yet been provided to units using fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 funds, and (3) E-CHUs and CTEs 

programmed for in the 2014 through 2018 Program Objective Memorandum. Projected inventory is subject to change based on 

Army budgetary decisions.

CHUs have been replaced by E-CHUs and no additional inventory of CHUs is projected.
Page 19 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: Timeline of Select Requirements 

and Contracts

Page 14

Figure 7: Timeline of Select Requirements and Contracts
Page 20 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: 1998 Palletized Load System 

Operational Requirements Document

Prior to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 1998 Operational Requirements Document reflected 

the rationale that cargo could be transported to secure locations in containers and then to troops 

in “break bulk,” without using containers. In the document,

• Capabilities that would later be filled by CHUs/E-CHUs and CTEs were identified for the 

requirement to transport cargo in containers. However, E-CHUs and CTEs had not yet been 

developed.

• March 2001: According to the Army, increased development of the CHUs began when 

they became part of the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicle contract. 

• November 2007: The E-CHU replaced the CHU and the Army awarded a 5-year 

contract for the purchase of E-CHUs. 

• CROPs were identified as a capability for the requirement to transport “break bulk” cargo 

without containers.

• Flatracks, the existing capability since 1994 to move both containerized and “break bulk” 

cargo, were no longer identified as a capability. The document states that the flatracks add 

unnecessary weight to the load being transported and require additional equipment to place 

the container on and off the flatrack.

Page 15
Page 21 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: 2001 CROP Pure Fleet Strategy

• According to Army officials, the 2001 CROP Pure Fleet Strategy prioritized “break bulk” 

transportation of cargo using CROPs, based on requirements outlined in the 1998 Operational 

Requirements Document.

• The strategy called for eliminating the use of flatracks, and all funding was transitioned to CROP 

procurement. 

• When this strategy was implemented, CROP orders accelerated.

• December 2002: The Army awarded a contract for up to 3,997 CROPs.

• June 2006: The Army awarded a 5-year contract for CROPs, from which it ordered 32,917 

CROPs. 

Page 16
Page 22 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: 2008 – 2010 Operational Needs 

Statements and Equipment Sourcing Documents

• 2008 to 2010: According to Army documentation, Central Command submitted seven Operational Needs 

Statements and seven Equipment Sourcing Documents identifying urgent needs requirements for flatracks to 

move containers.

• According to Army officials, warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan identified an unanticipated need to move cargo 

in containers to forward operating units, to better conceal and protect items being moved along hazardous 

routes. After the 2001 strategy eliminated the need for flatracks, the Army’s primary capability to move cargo to 

forward operating units was through CROPs, which cannot carry containers. Army officials stated that without 

flatracks, the ability to move containers to forward operating units was limited. 

• The Army’s 1998 Operational Requirements Document described a need—which would later be filled by 

CHUs/E-CHUs and CTEs—to move containers to staging areas, not to forward operating units. 

• As of 2010, Army officials said the inventory of CHUs/E-CHUs was insufficient to meet the urgent 

requirements, because the Army had not anticipated the need to move containers to forward operating 

units. Additionally, Army officials said warfighters had not yet been properly trained to use the CHUs/ECHUs.

• Moreover, as of 2010, the CTE had not yet been fielded, because it was in testing. 

• August 2010: The Army awarded a contract for the 3,227 flatracks identified in the Operational Needs 

Statements and Equipment Sourcing Documents. As of June 2013, Army officials stated that 328 flatracks had 

been shipped to troops and 2,899 were awaiting release by the Army.

Page 17
Page 23 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: August 2010 Flatrack/CROP 

Briefing

• April 2010 to August 2010: CASCOM conducted a study to determine the proper mix of flatracks 

and CROPs for the Army’s distribution mission. This study was intended to inform Army decision 

making regarding the emerging requirement for both “break bulk” and containerized distribution.

• The study recommended switching to a mix of 50 percent flatracks and 50 percent CROPs, 

because it was the most cost-effective option and provided the ability to move both “break bulk” 

and containerized cargo.

• The study did not consider the E-CHU or the CTE, because the E-CHU had not been fully fielded 

to units and the CTE was in testing.

• According to Army officials, a market survey was publicly posted to identify potential suppliers of 

flatracks and indicate the Army’s interest in purchasing them. However, no acquisition actions 

were taken as a result of this study because the Army decided to conduct the Distribution 

Enablers Study, which included the E-CHU and CTE in its analysis. 

Page 18
Page 24 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: 2012 Distribution Enablers Study

• October 2011 to February 2012: The Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center 

conducted the CASCOM-sponsored Distribution Enablers Study to revisit the capabilities needed 

for both “break bulk” and containerized cargo distribution. This study included the E-CHU in its 

analysis, because more E-CHUs had been fielded to units, and the CTE, which completed testing 

in 2011.

• This study determined that using the E-CHU and CTE along with the existing flatrack and CROP 

inventories would provide the most effective cargo distribution capability. It recommended one 

E-CHU, one CTE, and six flatracks or CROPs per truck and trailer system.

• The study found that the E-CHU, combined with the CTE, provides three times more 

capacity to distribute containerized dry cargo than the flatrack alone. This reduces the risk to 

soldiers, because it requires fewer trips through vulnerable transportation routes.

• The study found that flatracks require additional equipment, such as cranes, to move 

containers onto and off of the flatrack.

• June 2012: The Army ordered 180 CTEs through the October 2008 Family of Heavy Tactical 

Vehicles III contract.8

Page 19 8The Army initially ordered 182 CTEs in June 2012 but reduced the order to 180 through a modification issued in December 2012.
Page 25 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 1: Additional Studies

• The 1998 Operational Requirements Document is being updated and converted into a Capability 

Production Document. This document is to update requirements to include current technologies 

for CROPs, E-CHUs, and CTEs and is expected to add the flatrack capability for Army Corps of 

Engineers bridge units. However, Army officials stated that there is sufficient inventory of 

flatracks, and no new inventory will be required. The Capability Production Document is expected 

to be approved in late summer 2013. 

• Army officials said that plans are being completed for each piece of container handling 

equipment—based on the 2012 Distribution Enablers Study—that will identify the quantity and 

type of equipment to be sent to units. 

• Army officials said that the Army Capabilities Integration Center is conducting a tactical wheeled 

vehicle reduction study due to DOD’s plans to reduce the size of the Army. This could affect 

requirements for container handling equipment. The study is estimated to be completed in late 

2013 or early 2014.

Page 20
Page 26 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

Objective 2: Current and Projected Inventories 

of Container Handling Equipment

• Based on experiences during the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s priority is 

to purchase E-CHUs and CTEs to move containerized cargo in a sufficient and secure manner to 

the forward-most units on the battlefield. The Army has programmed funding for E-CHUs and 

CTEs for fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

• According to Army officials, the Army has the majority of the inventory it needs of CROPs and 

flatracks to move “break bulk” cargo. 

• There is no future funding programmed for CROPs or flatracks. However, the inventory of 

CROPs and flatracks is projected to increase. This increase is accounted for by CROPs and 

flatracks that have been procured but have not yet been provided to units.

Page 21
Page 27 GAO-13-719R Army Logistics

Enclosure 1

(351754)

Objective 2: Current and Projected Inventories 

of Container Handling Equipment

Table 4: Actual and Projected Inventory for Container Handling Equipment

Page 22

Source: Army G-8 data.

Notes: Projected inventory includes (1) the current inventory as of June 2013, (2) E-CHUs, CTEs, CROPs, and flatracks that have been 

procured but have not yet been provided to units using fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 funds, and (3) E-CHUs and CTEs 

programmed for in the 2014 through 2018 Program Objective Memorandum. Projected inventory is subject to change based on 

Army budgetary decisions.

CHUs have been replaced by E-CHUs and no additional inventory of CHUs is projected.

Category Inventory as of June 2013 Projected inventory through 

fiscal year 2018

Container handling unit 768 768

Enhanced container handling unit 1,241 6,035

Container transfer enhancement 0 6,324

Container roll-in/out platform 47,228 48,397

Flatrack 4,342 7,241
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.