# Government finds new ways to screw soldiers in the name of saving money: door-to-door move policy



## McG (15 Apr 2009)

The career managers deserve some positive acknowledgment for this years initiative to go with two (as opposed to a single common) posting dates for all pers.  It seems someone discovered that giving everyone the exact same COS date resulted in so many people moving within the same communities on the same day, that a lot of families were not even able to get the moving companies' B teams .... and as a result a lot of things were getting lost and/or broken (I can share an amusing tale about a time that a truck arrived ready to deliver another soldier's F&E to my new house of the time).

Unfortunately, somewhere else within the bureaucracy, someone found a way to implement a policy that will counter the goal of the CMs' initiative, will make soldiers pay for unavoidable costs moving, and will make the housing market dysfunctional in primarily military communities (Wainwright, Oromocto, Petawawa & Pembroke, Shilo, Cold Lake, Baggotville, etc, etc).

If service personnel cannot arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then they will pay from their own pockets for hotels, restaurants, storage of furniture, and any other costs associated with waiting for a home to become available.

Around any base not attached to a major city (most bases) there are whole communities that are dependent on incoming military to buy from the outgoing military.  These markets will become dysfunctional as there is suddenly no flexibility to negotiate closing dates ... especially between pers of different COS dates.    

The stupidness is even bigger when one takes the time to examine it.  Even though I've learned there is usually an intelligent reason behind every apparently stupid decision (though not necessarily an adequate reason, I cannot fathom what anyone might have been thinking when they decided to make soldiers carry typical costs associated with government dictated moves.  

 ???


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> If service personnel cannot arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then they will pay from their own pockets for hotels, restaurants, storage of furniture, and any other costs associated with waiting for a home to become available.



It's all been headed in this direction for years, thanks in large part to the outsourcing of support to coordinate moves and contractors looking for ways to squeeze the budget tighter and tighter to maximize their profits.  My last few moves were under the program and each was more frustrating because of uncaring contract staff who were drones and slaves to the bureaucratic books of limitations.  They neither sought to help the service member or make the system more workable at any level affecting the individual.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (15 Apr 2009)

From my understanding, this also includes any contracts, like cable, cellphone, etc... the cancellation fees will not be covered either.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2009)

MCG, is that even if it's outside the member's power to make a door-to-door happen?

Is there anywhere where we can find this year's IRP Guide?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MCG, is that even if it's outside the member's power to make a door-to-door happen?
> 
> Is there anywhere where we can find this year's IRP Guide?



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/index-eng.asp


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ... uncaring contract staff who were drones and slaves to the bureaucratic books of limitations.


But, it is someone(s) inside government who are responsible for establishing those policies.  The policy makers should wear their decisions (for better or for worse) and not the implementers .... something in line with a don't shoot the messenger philosophy.  



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MCG, is that even if it's outside the member's power to make a door-to-door happen?
> 
> Is there anywhere where we can find this year's IRP Guide?


Even if it is outside the members power, the member pays.  The guide attempts to suggest otherwise, but anyone that has moved a few times knows that it is not possible for everyone to arrange perfect door-to-door moves, and the guide states:


> CF members whose closing date is after the date the HG&E is available for delivery have made a personal choice to await a specific house and are therefore responsible for additional costs associated with the later closing.


This is an unrealistic constraint.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> But, it is someone(s) inside government who are responsible for establishing those policies.  The policy makers should wear their decisions (for better or for worse) and not the implementers .... something in line with a don't shoot the messenger philosophy.



Yes, but try submitting a complaint and getting it to anyone who deals with that policy, it is not a supportive process designed to assist the member.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2009)

Relocation Directive - APS 2009
Chapter 2 - Administration
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/chapter-chapitre-02-eng.asp#sec-02-02



> *CF members are responsible for:*
> 
> * contacting the service provider within 21 days after receiving their posting instruction;
> * requesting confirmation in writing of the information given by the service provider;
> ...



Not phrased to state that a door-to-door move is the goal, it is specific that it's the member's "responsibility" to ensure one.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2009)

Section 9.1 does talk about storage in transit, so from my understanding, you are still entitled to it. 

However, section 5.01 does say :



> Once HG&E is available for delivery at the new place of duty, ILM&M is no longer reimbursable unless circumstances beyond the CF members control extend the entitlement. CF members whose closing date is after the date the HG&E is available for delivery have made a personal choice to await a specific house and are therefore responsible for additional costs associated with the later closing.



That means, if you end up getting screwed at destination (ie:  CFHA doesn't have your Q ready yet/house you're getting built is not ready on time), you will be covered for ILM&M.  

I do not own a house and never did while having to deal with a CF move.  Do you normally sell your house at origin or buy one at destination?  Eighter way, it seem pretty unreasonable to expect a member to close both houses on a date that will be okay for a door-to-door move.

On the cancelling cost subject, I could not find anything in the document talking about it, so I assume it has indeed been cancelled...

On a different token, you can claim the remainder of the expenses on your taxes. Granted it won't be 100%, but it's still better than a kick in the butt.


----------



## armyvern (15 Apr 2009)

Ask questions. Get it in writing.

According to this:



> *APS 2009* A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001
> Chapter 5. Interim Lodgings, Meals and Miscellaneous Expenses, continued
> 5.08 Commercial lodgings
> Entitlements are to be reimbursed as per art 3.2.01 and in conjunction with art 5.04, based on the following:
> ...



I'm seeing a core entitlement of up to 15 days interim meals and lodgings stated in the 2009 manual. And a possible extension over the 16th day onward if the department or it's agent caused HG&E delay.

So, the way I read it all is that I'd be entitled "up to 15 days" ILM if my F&E didn't arrive until the 15th day. If it arrives on day 2, I'm on my own if my house isn't available until day 4 or 5 or 6 or ....

Guess we'd all better make sure we only buy houses from CF guys who have the exact same COS date as we do. Then we're both fucked equally. Buy from a guy who has the 2nd COS date they're using this year, you could be on your own ... "by our own choice to choose to wait for that particular house".  :

Although, I guess the arguement could be made that the Dept caused the non door-to-door move be giving the other guy a different COS date than mine - therefore my ILM for the other days should be covered. That solves it - only buy from CF guys/gals ... that way you have a fighting chance in hell of making it "their" fault vice "personal" choice.  :

Either way, thanks for not kissing me first - swell move. And they wonder why people are getting the hell out of this outfit these days. At least we get a little foreplay at home.


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2009)

Who will buy a house in Oromocto other than a military family waiting for a house to sell somewhere else?  How much flixibility is there in Quebec for a closing date other than moving day?



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On a different token, you can claim the remainder of the expenses on your taxes. Granted it won't be 100%, but it's still better than a kick in the butt.


Telling a single income family that they will swallow the cost of a week of hotels & furniture storage is (from the perspective of that family) probably a whole lot worse than a kick in the butt ... even if it can be claimed on taxes.

I've also seen F&E (or HG&E as the new acronym appears) was ready to be delivered earlier than the number of travel days allowed. What does that mean for families with young children that need to take the full travel time?

And while the members & their families are being forced to cover the costs of just doing the job, the implementation of this policy is also attacking the proper function of the housing markets in military communities.  You can't do an HHT until you have sold, but you can't sell because the rest of the posted military is sitting at home waiting for their places to sell.  Gradually, people will trickle out of the larger cities (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax) but not fast enough for those who need to sell.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I've also seen F&E (or HG&E as the new acronym appears) was ready to be delivered earlier than the number of travel days allowed. What does that mean for families with young children that need to take the full travel time?



In that case, you'd be allowed to these travel days and you do not have to be at destination until the last travel day.  This is my interpretation anyways, since it's an entitlement.  On loading day, I was always able to get an accurate estimate, from the driver, of when he'll be at destination. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> And while the members & their families are being forced to cover the costs of just doing the job, the implementation of this policy is also attacking the proper function of the housing markets in military communities.  You can't do an HHT until you have sold, but you can't sell because the rest of the posted military is sitting at home waiting for their places to sell.  Gradually, people will trickle out of the larger cities (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax) but not fast enough for those who need to sell.



I agree that it is not right and totally unfair to the members.  Because we're in the military, it seems we cannot chose the home that will suit our needs and tastes better, or else, we may end up paying part of the bill.  Moving is part of our life and it should be made as painless as possible, IMO.  So far, in my 3 moves, I never had any real issues.


----------



## Bigg_H (15 Apr 2009)

So, in layman's terms, how would I arrange a move? What is the consensus? Is it 1 bad move in 5? 3 good ones to 1 bad one?


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Apr 2009)

This policy sucks, so now instead of looking for a house that can accommodate my family I have to now focus on the closing date and possession date being back to back.  Which is damn near impossible for those big moves like Esquimalt to Comox.


----------



## TimBit (15 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Who will buy a house in Oromocto other than a military family waiting for a house to sell somewhere else?  How much flixibility is there in Quebec for a closing date other than moving day?
> Telling a single income family that they will swallow the cost of a week of hotels & furniture storage is (from the perspective of that family) probably a whole lot worse than a kick in the butt ... even if it can be claimed on taxes.



Well I wouldn't know about Oromocto but in Quebec there are always plenty of houses on the market with varied closing dates. Moving dates is for rental really.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2009)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Well I wouldn't know about Oromocto but in Quebec there are always plenty of houses on the market with varied closing dates. Moving dates is for rental really.



The possibility of finding a house that meets the family's requirements for size, locations, etc., will vary widely across Canada.  The questions remains: how flexible is the policy going to be for those members posted to areas where a surplus of choice does not exist?


----------



## TimBit (15 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The possibility of finding a house that meets the family's requirements for size, locations, etc., will vary widely across Canada.  The questions remains: how flexible is the policy going to be for those members posted to areas where a surplus of choice does not exist?



I really wasn't commenting on the policy, more on the actual market in Quebec. That said, I take your point, if there is no surplus of choice, or if it is a big time military city then it might not look too good...


----------



## CountDC (15 Apr 2009)

I think the opening of chapter 1 says it all:

1.1.02 Policy statement
The Department will:

pay for a door-to-door move when authorized to relocate at public expense


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2009)

You do understand that door-to-door means that you do not spend any time in hotels waiting for your next residence to become available, right?

If your furniture is ready to be delivered but you do not yet have your new residence, then you will start paying.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (15 Apr 2009)

The door to door policy is really stupid. During my last move from Kingston to Ottawa, the IRP folks were adamant that I needed to take possession of my house the day after leaving the PMQ in Kingston.  With kids, cat, and the wife in tow we rush frantically to Ottawa to get all of the paperwork signed first thing in the morning so the truck could arrive.  Low and behold upon calling the traffic section in Ottawa to let them know we were ready we were politely informed that there is a policy that dictates that our effects were not to be delivered for another four days. Not only did we have to scramble to find a hotel that took pets at the last minute during the tourist season, a different truck arrived the following week with our banged up furniture because it was offloaded and re-shuffled at a warehouse.  Finally, the IRP folks are very good at the policy piece.  If everyone followed up and filed complaints for what they really wanted to reimbursed then perhaps folks would figure out that we are being milked. Yes the 15 dollars for registering my cats as per CFHA direction and city bylaws was will worth the fight when we moved to Kingston.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Apr 2009)

birdgunnersrule, you got your pet registrations reimbursed!  That's a first!!  During my 3 moves, I was never able to get it, no matter how hard I fought!


----------



## Occam (16 Apr 2009)

Some additional information.  Is it just my imagination, or is this just an attempt at positive spin to counteract the *#$@ sandwich at para 4?

------------------------------------------

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09
SIC WAB
SUBJ: CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) 2009
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM ALL CF MEMBERS, 
ESPECIALLY THE VERY SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THEM WHO WILL BE RELOCATED 
BY ACTIVE POSTING SEASON 09 (APS 09), AND THEREBY PARTICIPATE IN THE 
CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP), OF THE RECENT 
CHANGES BROUGHT TO THE PROGRAM. I AM THEREFORE ASKING THAT 
COMMANDERS DIRECT THEIR UNITS TO ENSURE THAT THIS MESSAGE RECEIVES 
WIDE DISSEMINATION SO THAT THEIR UNIT MEMBERS MAY FAMILIARIZE 
THEMSELVES WITH THE CFIRP CHANGES IN ADVANCE OF APS 09
2. ALL ELIGIBLE REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS POSTED WITH A CHANGE OF 
STRENGTH (COS)/RELEASE/TRANSFER DATE AND RESERVE FORCE MEMBERS WHOSE 
COMMENCEMENT DATE OF PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT IS 1 APR 09 OR LATER WILL 
BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CFIRP 09. THERE IS ALSO DIRECTION FROM 
TREASURY BOARD WHICH SETS THE ESSENTIALS OF THE RELATED POLICY 
FRAMEWORK OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE, THE RCMP AND THE CF. UNDER IT, 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE ELECTED THEIR INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE (IPR) AND 
REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS WITH A COS/RELEASE DATE/TRANSFER DATE AND 
RESERVE MEMBERS WHOSE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT IS 
PRIOR TO 1 APR 09 BUT WHO RELOCATE THEIR DEPENDANTS, HOUSEHOLD GOODS 
AND EFFECTS (D,HG AND E) AFTER 1 OCT 09, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE 
CFIRP 09
3. FOLLOWING WIDE CONSULTATION, A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF 
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING CF RELOCATION POLICY THAT WERE 
RAISED DURING APS 08 WAS UNDERTAKEN. I AM PLEASED TO INFORM YOU THAT 
SOME 110 AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CFIRP FOR APS 09, WITH 
MOST BEING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL 
FLEXIBILITY AND CHOICE. THOUGH THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW ARE NOT 
ALL-INCLUSIVE, THEY PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT 
CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO HAVE THE WIDEST IMPACT:
A. ELIGIBILITY TO RELOCATION UNDER THE CFIRP HAS BEEN AMENDED TO 
INCLUDE ALL CF MEMBERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE THEIR (D)HG AND E 
AND WHO HAVE COMPLETED BASIC MILITARY TRAINING IN THE CASE OF NON 
COMMISSIONED MEMBERS, OR BASIC OFFICER TRAINING IN THE CASE OF 
OFFICERS
B. DEPENDANT CARE ASSISTANCE NOW:
(1) INCLUDES THE OPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF RETURN TRANSPORTATION 
OF A THIRD PARTY TO THE PLACE OF ORIGIN TO PROVIDE CARE FOR A 
DEPENDANT. HOWEVER THE REIMBURSABLE COST CANNOT EXCEED THE COST OF 
TRANSPORTATION OF ONE DEPENDANT FROM A PLACE OF ORIGIN TO THAT 
DEPENDANT S DESTINATION AND RETURN, AND
(2) MAY BE REIMBURSED AT THE PLACE OF ORIGIN OR AT THE DESTINATION, 
AS REQUIRED
C. CF MEMBERS WITH DEPENDANTS, BUT PROCEEDING UNACCOMPANIED TO THEIR 
NEW LOCATION WHERE NO GOVERNMENT QUARTERS ARE AVAILABLE, ARE BEING 
GIVEN THE OPTION OF TAKING AN UNACCOMPANIED HOUSE HUNTING TRIP (HHT) 
SO AS TO SECURE SEMI-PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION
D. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN EQUITABLE CUSTOM FUNDING ENVELOPE FOR ALL 
IPR MOVES REGARDLESS OF THE DISTANCE OF THE MOVE, THE CUSTOM FUNDING 
ENVELOPE WILL NOW BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF 35 PERCENT OF THE 
TRANSPORTATION COST AND OF THE COST OF SHIPPING HG AND E FROM 
HALIFAX TO VANCOUVER
E. REIMBURSEMENT OF A CAR RENTAL WHEN A PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV) 
IS SHIPPED HAS BEEN AMENDED SO AS TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
ACTUAL AND REASONABLE EXPENSES UNTIL THE PMV IS DELIVERED
F. WHEN THERE IS AN ENTITLEMENT TO SHIP UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE (UAB), 
CF MEMBERS NOW MAY CHOOSE HOW THEIR UAB IS SHIPPED TO THEIR NEW 
PLACE OF DUTY
G. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEES HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE CFIRP AS THEY 
APPLIED TO CF MEMBERS WHO ELECT TO RECEIVE THE REAL ESTATE INCENTIVE 
AND WERE THEREBY DEEMED TO HAVE DISPOSED OR THEIR PRINCIPAL 
RESIDENCE. THIS WAS A TAXABLE BENEFIT REIMBURSABLE FROM THE 
PERSONALIZED ENVELOPE
H. THE REQUIREMENT FOR CF MEMBERS TO SPEND THE MAJORITY OF THEIR ILM 
AND M IN CANADA HAS BEEN DELETED. THIS ALLOWS CF MEMBERS AND THEIR 
UNITS OUTSIDE OF CANADA GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO PLAN THEIR RELOCATION
I. GIVEN THAT AIRLINES RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ACCOMPANIED BAGS TO 
WHICH TRAVELLERS ARE ENTITLED WHEN THEY GO TO LOCATIONS OUTSIDE 
CANADA, THE CFIRP NOW ALLOWS AS A CORE BENEFIT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE 
COST OF TWO ACCOMPANIED BAGS THAT MEET THE WEIGHT AND SIZE 
RESTRICTIONS OF AIRLINES
J. AN INCENTIVE TO DISSUADE FROM SHIPPING OR STORING A PMV HAS BEEN 
ADDED IN THE CASE OF POSTINGS OUTSIDE CANADA
K. RECOVERY OF RELOCATION BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS WHO VOLUNTARILY 
TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYMENT AFTER ONE YEAR HAS BEEN DELETED SINCE 
RELOCATIONS ARE ONLY AUTHORIZED FOR PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF ONE 
YEAR OR MORE
L. THE TIME LIMITATION FOR THE IPR MOVE HAS BEEN REVIEWED. IT WAS 
DETERMINED THAT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 
(DCBA) CAN ONLY EXERCISE MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE 
TWO-YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR ANOTHER YEAR IN CASES WHERE FACTORS NOT IN 
THE CONTROL OF CF MEMBERS PREVENT THEM FROM ELECTING THEIR IPR AND 
COMPLETING THEIR MOVE TO IPR
4. APART FROM THE PRECEDING, A REDUCTION IN PROGRAM CLIENTELE IS 
EXPECTED BECAUSE THE INTENT TO ENSURE THAT CF MEMBERS EFFECT A 
DOOR-TO-DOOR MOVE HAS BEEN RE-EMPHASIZED IN RESPONSE TO AN 
INCREASING TREND TOWARDS SIGNIFICANTLY EXTENDED AND EXPENSIVE ILM 
AND M
5. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS MESSAGE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT 
ALL-INCLUSIVE. YOU WILL FIND THE COMPLETE CFIRP 09 POLICY ON THE 
DCBA WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.CMP-CPM.FORCES.GC.CA/DGCB-DGRAS OR 
HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DGCB/DCBA
6. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Apr 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> .... WITH MOST BEING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM BY WAY OF *ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND CHOICE*.
> 
> 
> 4. APART FROM THE PRECEDING, A REDUCTION IN PROGRAM CLIENTELE IS
> ...



Perhaps if we had more information on what created this "trend", is it factors normally outside the members' control?  Or is the problem really a reduced profit margin for the contractor?


----------



## BinRat55 (16 Apr 2009)

To all those who can by a house in a week - kudos to you. I solved the problem my own way - PMQ. TB will pay all my costs (the ones i'm entitled to of course) up to two years from my COS date. I get a PMQ, take my time buying (or building) - door to door move is virtually stress free!!

But that's just me.


----------



## Occam (16 Apr 2009)

Having moved last year (and I had 20 days of ILM&M at origin/destination due to non-negotiable closing dates on both ends), I don't really know how everyone is going to do it under the new rules.

Cpl Bloggins goes on his one week HHT.  Finds a nice place on the third day.  Asks for a second viewing to make sure before putting in an offer.  Even if a closing date stipulation (to allow a door-to-door move) is put in the initial offer, that's still a lot of wasted time if the seller comes back with "Sorry, the closing date MUST be 10 days later than you're asking".  With the new rules, you have to abandon efforts to buy that house (unless you're willing to eat the 10 days ILM&M yourself) and start the dancing the dance with another seller.


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 Apr 2009)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> To all those who can by a house in a week - kudos to you. I solved the problem my own way - PMQ. TB will pay all my costs (the ones i'm entitled to of course) up to two years from my COS date. I get a PMQ, take my time buying (or building) - door to door move is virtually stress free!!
> 
> But that's just me.



That would be nice if there were enough PMQ's at every base, but that is not the case.  The waiting list here in Comox is quite lengthy, and I am certain bases located in higher real estate markets also have waiting lists for PMQ's.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that IR postings suck.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Apr 2009)

Not to mention, if you take a PMQ and then move, the cost of the move itself is on you.

I like para 3.C., although it's too late for me now.  :'(  Otherwise, I was thinking "Say again, all after UNCLAS."   ;D


----------



## observor 69 (17 Apr 2009)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> To all those who can by a house in a week - kudos to you. I solved the problem my own way - PMQ. TB will pay all my costs (the ones i'm entitled to of course) up to two years from my COS date. I get a PMQ, take my time buying (or building) - door to door move is virtually stress free!!
> 
> But that's just me.



Hey BR55 did ya one better owned a mobile home and moved it from base trailer park to base trailer park.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Hey BR55 did ya one better owned a mobile home and moved it from base trailer park to base trailer park.  ;D



 :-\

Mobile home.........Depreciates.  Possible Damages ( structural ) on move.

House..................Appreciates.  Possibility F&E damaged on move.

Debatable.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :-\
> 
> Mobile home.........Depreciates.  Possible Damages ( structural ) on move.
> 
> ...



Geez George, talk about ruining a guys day   

Actually I bought the trailer in Bagotville through Canex then moved it to Chatham base trailer park. Sold it for a good price upon getting a transfer to Baden.
Came back from Baden and, after being offered a dump of a PMQ, bought a house in Kingston.
Of course milage varies in each case. I even like Binrat55's idea of taking a Q, if one can be had, and then moving onto the economy. It's a cheap move and a whole lot less stress.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2009)

Well.....With the Mobile Home, you do have an instant "Cottage" for the Lake, when you do find a House.


The best advice I got when I left the Reserves for the Regular Force way back when, was from our RSS Sgt who told me to buy a house on every Posting I got, as when it came time  to Retire, I would own my home.  I was forced to buy my first home when I got posted from Gagetown to Kingston and there was a two year waiting list for a PMQ, and my posting was for two years.  Nothing makes more sense than getting a PMQ as you are getting Posted Out.


----------



## TimBit (17 Apr 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Hey BR55 did ya one better owned a mobile home and moved it from base trailer park to base trailer park.  ;D



I have yet to meet a single young lady who would currently be thrilled at the idea of living her next 30 years in a mobile home. I mean, yuck! I wouldn't. For heaven's sakes, we get decent salaries in the CF, use them and buy yourself a nice house... it's an investment!


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2009)

TimBit said:
			
		

> I have yet to meet a single young lady who would currently be thrilled at the idea of living her next 30 years in a mobile home. I mean, yuck! I wouldn't. For heaven's sakes, we get decent salaries in the CF, use them and buy yourself a nice house... it's an investment!



On some CF Postings, the PMQs are Mobile Homes.  Not may CFS postings around anymore, but the majority of them were "Temporary Structures".


----------



## Northern Ranger (17 Apr 2009)

TimBit said:
			
		

> I have yet to meet a single young lady who would currently be thrilled at the idea of living her next 30 years in a mobile home. I mean, yuck! I wouldn't. For heaven's sakes, we get decent salaries in the CF, use them and buy yourself a nice house... it's an investment!



You should come to Yellowknife, Mobile homes are the affordable housing and lots of hot girls live in them.

http://www.cb.yk.com/pdf_listings/dmPDF/546rangelakeroad/546rangelakeroad.pdf

Heres a nice one that just sold in the high 200K


----------



## ballz (17 Apr 2009)

Back in May of 05, we sold our 20 ft wide, 3 bdrm 2 bath, mobile in Fort Crack for 345k. Since then it went up to 425k and now it's back down to about 390k.

We sold our 3 bedroom split level house with an acre of land for 48k back here in Newfieland when we moved up there :'( What a difference.....


----------



## combatbuddha (17 Apr 2009)

That policy is awesome. Now if I happen to go and purchase a substandard house primarily because it is the only one with a closing date that would accomodate the travel time and closing date fo the residence I am disposing to ensure a door to door move, I could possibly have reason to claim against the crown the cost of a good lawyer to assist me in my upcoming divorce. (in case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.) So much for encouraging the masses to get out of the Q's.

Heres an idea to chew on...

What if there were provisions in place to help the member out if the place he is purchasing has a closing date of earlier than the place he is disposing. It could be in the crowns interest to pay the small amount of mortgage interest for that month if it ensured a door to door move, thus saving the cost of interim lodging and possible storage fees....Why couldn't this come out of the members "use it or lose it" benefit?
IMHO the 30 day waiver request for a change of report date should include a clause to allow for less than perfect possesion dates.
I wonder when the redresses and calls to the ombudsman will start......... :2c:


----------



## combatbuddha (18 Apr 2009)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> You should come to Yellowknife, Mobile homes are the affordable housing and lots of hot girls live in them.
> 
> http://www.cb.yk.com/pdf_listings/dmPDF/546rangelakeroad/546rangelakeroad.pdf
> 
> Heres a nice one that just sold in the high 200K



I like the foundation of wood blocks...classy.


----------



## McG (21 Apr 2009)

Interesting new discovery on this topic today.  DND will not book your pack, load, unload or unpack on weekends.  It seems that if you gut stuck waiting in a hotel because DND just won’t book the movers then you will be paying for those days.

If your pack is booked for a Friday and the loading is booked for Monday, then you will pay for the weekend’s hotel stay & restaurants (even worse if this happens to straddle a long weekend).  If you arrive at your destination on a Friday, you will pay for your meals, hotel stay, and storage for Saturday & Sunday even if your house is ready.

… and there’s more.  You cannot close the sale of your new property before you arrive at destination, and I’ve seen lawyers take to past mid-day to get this done. If you cannot unload on that day because of the closing being later in the day then your core entitlement does not cover that day of hotel, meals & storage.

DND will pay to have your house cleaned prior to your moving-in, but you will pay the costs of hotel, meals & storage for the day they are in the house doing this.


----------



## armyvern (21 Apr 2009)

That's neat.

Because CLEARLY if "the Department and it's Agent" have booked my "pack" on a Friday and my "load" on a Monday ... then CLEARLY it is the "Department and it's Agent's" fault that I have no pots to cook with, no beds to sleep on (because they are packed!!) and therefore will be in a hotel precisely BECAUSE of them!

Their fault (ie: IAW their own policy "casued by the Department or it's Agent") = they pay. 

Hope they have fun with the grievance they'll be getting from me this APS ...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting new discovery on this topic today.  DND will not book your pack, load, unload or unpack on weekends.  It seems that if you gut stuck waiting in a hotel because DND just won’t book the movers then you will be paying for those days.
> 
> If your pack is booked for a Friday and the loading is booked for Monday, then you will pay for the weekend’s hotel stay & restaurants (even worse if this happens to straddle a long weekend).  If you arrive at your destination on a Friday, you will pay for your meals, hotel stay, and storage for Saturday & Sunday even if your house is ready.
> 
> ...



Who is the person several curds short of a poutine who came up with this idea?


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Who is the person several curds short of a poutine who came up with this idea?



Likely some bureaucrat (either in or out of uniform) who has either not been subject to a posting move in many years or who has never been moved and, in either case, never plans to be.


----------



## BinRat55 (22 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Who is the person several curds short of a poutine who came up with this idea?



Mmmmmmm....poutine!!!


----------



## McG (22 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Who is the person several curds short of a poutine who came up with this idea?


I suspect it is not entirely one individual.  Rather it is that one bad policy is being made worse through a failure to syncronize with policies/constraints of a handful of organizations within DND.

Clearly the CM effort to spread around COS dates (so that moving companies don't run out of competant teams) is not compatible with the perfect door-to-door policy in primarily military communities.

The constraint that transport cannot get movers or packers on a weekend is also not compatible with the IRP theory that the COS date should be the day you start your travel (because COS dates are all Mondays & that would mean we are all expected to pay for a weekend in a hotel).


----------



## armyvern (22 Apr 2009)

MCG,

Did you get this from IRPP or is it interpretation?

Because in my reading of the refs, "packed" = "HG&E not available", and as long as your HG&E is "not available", the entitlement to IL&M exists (those dates are dept/agent dates, not members choice).

Pack/load dates are set by the Dept and it's agent (IRPP/the mover) and are therefore outside the member's control. The policy states several times that entitlment does not cease when it is outside the control of the member, but within the control of the Dept & agent.

That's my interpretation of it all.


----------



## McG (22 Apr 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Did you get this from IRPP or is it interpretation?


I got it right from IRP, and had it confirmed by others getting the same information at various bases across the country.


----------



## armyvern (22 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I got it right from IRP, and had it confirmed by others getting the same information at various bases across the country.



Lovely that then. What a pile of BS. I do know what my grieveance will be stating already.

That "YOU" refusing to book on a weekend makes it "your" fault, not mine. This is getting absolutely frickin' stupid.


----------



## karl28 (22 Apr 2009)

That's just sad that the Canadian Forces are doing this to their personnel .  The military should have to cover the cost of moving for all its troops as the troops have no choice to move because there being order to .   I am wondering if there is any other way to get this silly set of rules over turned .


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2009)

karl28 said:
			
		

> That's just sad that the Canadian Forces are doing this to their personnel .  The military should have to cover the cost of moving for all its troops as the troops have no choice to move because there being order to .   I am wondering if there is any other way to get this silly set of rules over turned .



I agree.

The move of DF&E "business" has been a *scandal* - not too strong a word - for decades and, I think I read just recently, it will be examined by a HoC committee again this year.

The policy is indicative of a major failure of leadership and management at the *highest* military and civilian levels.

If this is the bureaucracy (treasury Board) telling the DM and CDS (and the system) how to save money then the CDS needs to push back - all the way past the MND to the PM.

Whichever of the 13th floor minions is charged with reading Army.ca should tell advise the CDS to get off his butt and fix this, before APS 09. 

It is unfair, stupid, mal-administered and injurious to morale.


----------



## armyvern (22 Apr 2009)

Well,

If all goes as "hinted" in this thread with my upcoming move (that'd be to CFLS Borden on SLT: 27 Jul 2009 -18 Jun 2010 [officially just into my inbox about an hour ago]) ...

then, Ill post all my templates for grievance up here; might as well have the entire CF population posted this year using the same one ... to make it easy on them (which is, apparently, not something "they" are willing to do for us).


----------



## karl28 (22 Apr 2009)

E.R. Campbell    
          I completely agree with on what you stated good points on all .  Doesn't the American Military provide its housing for free to its troops ? I know that our troops make allot more money than the American counter but always felt the government could do something like this for the PMQ and single quarters . 
          I am glad that I am a civilian as I don't have to deal with any of this ( Ie I only move when I want to ) .  If I had to deal with this every time I got moved I think my moral would go down the toilet.

   Army Vern 
            Good luck on your posting hopefully it will go allot easier than how it appears  that it will go from reading this thread


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 Apr 2009)

Wow.
Thank you to the poster who first put this up.Being away I had not heard of it.
These policies are getting worse and worse every year.Not only do a wounded member of today's war not get a pension anymore they will try and find other ways to cut money from the soldiers families.

I'm getting so sick of this army.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Apr 2009)

Is there perhaps some way that we could organize some form of collective greivence?  Judging by the myriad of responces here that are all pointing in the same direction, I think its safe to assume there are tons more out there that feel the same way that dont happen to read these boards.

If one person here and there has the patience to submit a grievence, not much will happen.

But if they get everyone at the same time, that would have to inspire some sort of reaction.  

Another thought, given that the public loves to love the troops these days, maybe a class A member can be inspired to complain to the media while on civilian time?

I firmly believe that things like this need to be fought back hard, within appropriate means.


----------



## combatbuddha (23 Apr 2009)

No, that would be wrong.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

And illegal.  The only person that can grieve something is the member who has actually been adversely affected by the event or regulation.  The only people who could submit a grievance on this particular matter are those who:

a. are being posted, and therefore subject to this requirement.
b. have, after doing their reasonable best to meet the requirement, been unsuccessful for justifiable reasons.
c. have been detrimentally affected by the requirement, i.e, are actually 'out of pocket' for their move.
d. have followed up with the available levels of recourse in the IRP system , without success.

Each individual can only submit a grievance on their own circumstances.

And it may take some serious record-keeping to prove that all reasonable efforts were made to meet the intent of the regulation.

An attitude of _"fuck it, I'll do what I want and get my money back when I win the grievance later"_ may not be enough.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Apr 2009)

I should have been more specific.  I was speaking about those who would be affected by this.  Though, it seems that quite a few people would be affected.  I am going to be going through my first move in July so I've been trying to catch up on all of this info.  What I'm reading here worries me.  Since this is the first time ill be doing this, I highly doubt Ill be able to pull off a perfect "door to door".  

As for the "ill just pay for whatever I want and fight for it later attitude"...  What about the guy that couldnt even if he wanted to?  What happens if you are stuck covering these costs (even if they do reimburse you) but you have no means to cover the costs up front?


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I should have been more specific.  I was speaking about those who would be affected by this.  Though, it seems that quite a few people would be affected.


*
Grievance Manual*

http://www.cfga-agfc.forces.gc.ca/pub-man/gm-mg/index-eng.asp#gen



> 2.8 Administrative Restrictions
> 
> There are also a few prescribed administrative restrictions, which must also be respected for the submission of a grievance. They are as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2009)

Michael, being the union guy I am, I need to ask "there is no such thing as policy grievance?"


Never mind, I see the answer.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Michael, being the union guy I am, I need to ask "there is no such thing as policy grievance?"



Not in general sense for the individual.  That approach would be a chain of command responsibility, if you can convince your chain of command it's an issue they should fight on behalf of unit members, then the policy can be questioned by the appropriate authorities.

For an individual to grieve something, it has to fall within bounds of the grievance process (i.e., it has to directly affect you).


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> As for the "ill just pay for whatever I want and fight for it later attitude"...  What about the guy that couldnt even if he wanted to?  What happens if you are stuck covering these costs (even if they do reimburse you) but you have no means to cover the costs up front?



This could either be due to factors outside the member's control, or principaly poor personal financial management. If the former is the case (or possibly even the latter), it might be grounds to request not being posted for compassionate reasons, which can have its own aftereffects.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This could either be due to factors outside the member's control, or principaly poor personal financial management. If the former is the case (or possibly even the latter), it might be grounds to request not being posted for compassionate reasons, which can have its own aftereffects.



How about someone just coming out of school with no finances so to speak?  No debt, but no cash balance either.

On a slightly different note, does anyone happen to know if one is being sent from Ontario to Victoria if sending your car is included in the move package.  I know it has been discussed elsewhere, I did a search but the information conflicted.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

In all likelihood, you will drive it, and be given X number of days to make the trip.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Apr 2009)

I dont think my car will make it  :'(


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> How about someone just coming out of school with no finances so to speak?  No debt, but no cash balance either.



First line of defence, have clear credit cards and talk to your bank about a line of credit when you discuss a pre-approved mortgage.  At least that way you can't say you didn't do what you could to be prepared.



			
				ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> On a slightly different note, does anyone happen to know if one is being sent from Ontario to Victoria if sending your car is included in the move package.  I know it has been discussed elsewhere, I did a search but the information conflicted.



Relocation Directive - APS 2009
Chapter 9. Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)




> 9.3.02 Shipment of vehicle by commercial carrier
> 
> CF members must ship their PMV under the HGRS contract system when the service is available. Once HGRS has been contacted, CF members may be reimbursed actual and reasonable expenses, not to exceed HGRS contract rates, related to shipping their PMV by commercial carrier as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## Lil_T (23 Apr 2009)

karl28 said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell
> I completely agree with on what you stated good points on all .  *Doesn't the American Military provide its housing for free to its troops ? * I know that our troops make allot more money than the American counter but always felt the government could do something like this for the PMQ and single quarters .



The American military does NOT provide housing free of charge.  This is a myth.  American military members receive BAH which is the "Basic Allowance for Housing".  This allowance is used - if they live on base - to cover the cost of housing.  However, if the member chooses to live off base, they still receive BAH and can use that toward the cost of rent or a mortgage.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> First line of defence, have clear credit cards and talk to your bank about a line of credit when you discuss a pre-approved mortgage.  At least that way you can't say you didn't do what you could to be prepared.
> 
> Relocation Directive - APS 2009
> Chapter 9. Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)



Is HGRS a car moving service?  Some of these ackronyms are still new to me.  If so, I take that message to say that I need to use HGRS to move my car and if they cant then I can find someone else to do it and be reimbursed up to the amount that HGRS would have charged?


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2009)

Household Goods Removal Service (HGRS) contract

It's whoever the local IRP office has been contracting for moves of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)


----------



## McG (4 May 2009)

> CANFORGEN 078/09 CMP 034/09 011755Z MAY 09
> AMENDMENT TO CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 161423Z APR 09
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...


It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M.  The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M.  If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.

Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 May 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.



Therein lies the danger, while the DND policy drafter may have intended "only" a stronger emphasis on the intent, the contractor can interpret that as directive, especially since it fits their preferred financial model of paying out as little as possible.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 May 2009)

How much do you want to bet that Royal Lepage gets a "bonus" for saving money? 
Reminds me of some of the CANCAP operations while on tour in Bosnia.  Getting a light bulb was like pulling hen's teeth.   :


----------



## Wookilar (4 May 2009)

All it takes is one short, concise memo with the dates included to DGwhoeverthehell runs Movements now for them to tell Royal Lepage to cover the costs. A copy of the offer to purchase and the offer of sale attached, complete with dates of sale/possesion would also help.

The "corrected" CANFORGEN released this morning certainly reads differently than the previous one and I would hope that the powers that be will sort out the interpretations being done by Relocation Offices across the country.

Royal Lepage itslef does not get a bonus exactly. In the '05-06 contract, there were performance bonuses given to if a section came in under budget. Remember, their contract does not say "To assist the member in their move for their maximum benifit." Royal Lepage's job is to "administer" the relocation program for the Cf, that's it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 May 2009)

I don't think anyone here is arguing for "maximum benefit", how about just "minimal additional grief" on top of the usual personal posting admin burden?


----------



## Occam (4 May 2009)

So if I use my move last year as an example:

1.  Receive posting message, COS 14 Jul 08.  Put house up for sale.
2.  Receive excellent offer on house, with condition that closing date MUST be 29 Aug (buyer is military, about to complete a course/posted into gaining unit, and cannot close on house before that date).  Accept offer.
3.  I go on HHT at destination.  Play the game for a few days, make some offers that fall through. Find something suitable 5 days into HHT, put in offer.  Counteroffer stipulates no closing before 22 Aug 08.  Confirm with RLRS that ILM&M is available if I request change in RFD date to 11 Aug 08. Confirmed.  Accept counteroffer on house at destination.
4.  Pack/load/clean 7/8/9 Aug 08, travel on 10 Aug, RFD 11 Aug.  HG&E goes into SIT upon arrival at destination.
5.  House at destination closes on 22 Aug, unload 25 Aug, unpack 26 Aug.

ILM&M from 7 Aug 08 - 26 Aug 08 = 19 days.

So, if that move were made under the rules that are being slavishly enforced this year, what was I supposed to have done, given that RFD date can only be moved 30 days in either direction from COS?

A.  Pass on perfectly good offer on house at origin, because closing doesn't match with COS/RFD.  Continue with house on market, showings at odd hours, keeping house in showing condition and all the other inconveniences that go along with trying to sell a house;

B.  Pass on perfectly good counteroffer from house at destination, because closing doesn't match up with COS/RFD dates.  Continue to search for a house with a suitable closing date, sacrificing things I want in my house in order to do so - and end up paying more for the house than I should because the seller's agent can tell we're anxious to finalize a deal before HHT ends; or

C.  pay the 14-odd days of ILM&M to get the house that is right for me, not the one that suits the military's rules.

Come time for my next move, I know what choice I'll make - and it's not A, B or C.   ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M.  The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M.  If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.
> 
> *Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.*



You're response at this point should be "show me the regulation". No policy can stand on its own, and is only as enforceable as the regulation from which it is built. If you take all reasonable steps to reduce the number of day IL&M you anticipate claiming, then they are obligated to pay you the rest. No where in the regulation does it explicitly say you MUST make an exact door to door move.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 May 2009)

And they respond that they're just the front desk people, they don't write the regulation and only apply the RLRS book.

Then they let you talk to their supervisor..

Who says exactly the same thing.

And then you get told you can appeal it to some mysterious office in Ottawa, who generally just confirms with RLRS that they followed the book.

See where I'm going here?


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2009)

Yes, I see your point. I suppose the other way to do it is to get your replies in writing so that when you file your grievance you have sufficient proof. I suppose that I've been lucky using the "show me the regulation" tack.


----------



## jacksparrow (5 May 2009)

Apologies if snippets of this has already been mentioned. On our splash page today May 5th 2009

Important Notice

Intent of ILM&M

There have been many queries/complaints regarding the perceived "change" to the ILM&M policy. Many "potential" problem situations have been presented and some of these situations have not necessarily been fully addressed by RLRS in a fashion that would make the intent of ILM&M clear and help CF members understand their responsibilities. The attached was reviewed with RLRS and will be distributed to RLRS consultants so that they inform CF Members correctly. Once translated we will include the French version.

Note that DCBA has also responded to several queries regarding ILM&M, to help all understand the intent below is an excerpt from one of his responses.

"First of all, I guess it should be clarified that there has not been a change in policy. If you look at your 2008 CFIRP policy manual (last year's) you will note that right at the very beginning, article 1.1.02 (just the second paragraph) states, "The Department will: pay for a door-to-door move when authorized at public expense." The policy has always required members to effect a door-to-door move. ILM & M entitlements have always been based on pack, load at origin, travel to new location, unload, unpack at destination plus any additional days caused by the government or its contracted agents. The later clause covers such things as movers that won't unload or unpack on weekends and stat holidays, trucks delayed by the contractor to pick up/deliver other loads, etc.

This is being perceived as a change for two reasons. First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked. This was never the intent, but we weren't aware that this was the way the policy was being briefed and applied to members. Depending on family size and the location of the move, that was running at approximately $250 a day for a single member and upwards of $500-600 for a family of four. If you start multiplying that by 15 days and 15,000 moves you very quickly reach a very big number. That was never the intent of the policy. Thus, the more explicit wording is in part to make it clearer to the contractor what the policy is intended to provide. It also makes it crystal clear to the member so that he/she can make informed decisions when they're considering big decisions on sale or purchase dates. Secondly, and to a lesser extent, the notion that you would get 15 days seemed to be developing into an unfounded belief that it was a bottomless pit. We saw a huge increase in the number of people who made no attempt whatsoever to align their occupancy dates and incurred huge expenses for prolonged stays in hotels (up to 4 months in a couple of cases) and then were shocked to discover they were on their own for the vast majority of it. Thus, it seemed prudent to be absolutely clear insofar as the intent of the policy was concerned.

If you stop to think about it for a second, you will quickly see why this is and has always been the policy. Big numbers aside, the CF has no control over the personal decisions members are making WRT the disposal of one residence and the acquisition of another. These decisions are frequently being made to permit folks to maximize profit from a sale and minimize their cost on a purchase. Lots of times people are choosing one home over another based on their assessment of the likelihood of making a larger profit on one versus the other. I have no difficulty with that. But the Government of Canada shouldn't be subsidizing those decisions. The Government's responsibility is to move you from one place of duty to another as efficiently as possible but without passing on the costs to you. Hence the door-to-door policy. When you decide to sell your house early because you get a fantastic offer, i.e. you decide to maximize your profit (none of which you're sharing with the CF) part of the cost benefit analysis should be what additional cost you take on (having nothing to do with the actual move) as a result. If it works out to your advantage to sell once you've factored in the additional costs, go for it, but don't ask the Crown to pick up the additional costs so you can keep all the profits. This is even more true when you consider the considerable number of options that are at members disposal to effect a door-to-door move without resorting to long stays in ILM & M, such things as Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA), Reverse TDRA, automatic IR for up to 6 months, etc.

The situation described of a CF member selling a house on 27 May and contracting for a house that would be available on 1 Jul actually gives an excellent example of why we're re-emphasizing the rules on ILM & M. He chose to have a house built that would not be ready until after 1 Jul and then he chose to sell his home because he got an excellent offer. Both of those things are fine. But under what construct would there be an expectation that Canadian taxpayers, you and I, would pay for 33 days in a hotel so that he could turn a big profit on his house. I don't begrudge him the profit, but when he is making the decision to sell, he should have been thinking, "hmm, my house won't be ready for 33 days, where am I going to live and what's it going to cost me to cover that period?" (We have seen, for example, instances where people have arranged accommodations at the builder's expense as part of their contract.) If the answer to that question turns out to still be in his favour, he can sell, if it doesn't, then he may wish to wait for another offer that more closely matches the dates he will be moving.

On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."


----------



## Strike (5 May 2009)

Link or source?  The blurb about packing and loading over a weekend would be nice to show to IRP when I go in to sort my own move.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> The later clause covers such things as movers that won't unload or unpack on weekends and stat holidays, trucks delayed by the contractor to pick up/deliver other loads, etc.



Eerily, this statement is pretty much exactly what I used earlier to emphasize the grounds on which I would be grieving my upcoming move if indeed IRPP was now briefing that "weekends during pack/load at your own expense". The book seems pretty clear to ME (military members) in this respect, but obviously NOT so much to IRPP as they are the ones who are briefing members of this BS about weekends at  your own expense during load/unoad.



> This is being perceived as a change for two reasons. First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked.



Also eerily, in three IRPP moves - I have never been briefed that I was "entitled to 15 days in a hotel" by IRPP. I have always been briefed (2 different IRPP cells at 2 different locations) that I was entitled to *UP* to 15 days in hotel, if, for some unpreventable reason, my F&E and I could not be reunited with each other. I was also briefed that IF we couldn't be reunited before then, that I would have to seek out compensation authority over the 15 days via the CoC and that it may be denied and thus I would be on my own. IRPP stressed that it was extremely important to get closing date/rental date etc within that 15 day window - I was briefed all of this BEFORE I went on any HHTs.



> On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."



That's not why members are bitching. Members are botching because IRPP seems to have lost sight of the fact that I am STILL entitled to "up to 15 days". I am STILL entitled to make a closing date of 15 July on a 04 July COS date, and - if my furniture arrives on 05 July - I am STILL entitled to ILM to be covered until that 15 July date. I AM within my 15 day window (actually, I am at 9 days ILM). It's IRPP who's insisting (THIS YEAR) that my entitlement has changed and that it now ceases on 5 July when my furniture arrives.

Sort THEM out.


----------



## c_canuk (6 May 2009)

I’ve yet to complete a move, but expect to 2010, and these are my thoughts on the whole thing. My ignorance is most likely going to be displayed and clarification of my misunderstandings would be great.



> This is being perceived as a change for two reasons.



1. IRP Pers say it's changed, and 2. The way policy is being interpreted and applied has changed.



> First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked. This was never the intent, but we weren't aware that this was the way the policy was being briefed and applied to members.



So what you are saying is that ILM & M is only for use if there is a delay outside of the members control and you seem to think that members can close a deal on selling their house and buying their house at their whim? Sure homeowners will have some leeway but 2 weeks plus a day is pitifully small to complain about.



> Depending on family size and the location of the move, that was running at approximately $250 a day for a single member and upwards of $500-600 for a family of four. If you start multiplying that by 15 days and 15,000 moves you very quickly reach a very big number.



Irrelevant, if DND is so concerned with costs, they should be posting people around the same base, instead of sending them all over the country.



> Secondly, and to a lesser extent, the notion that you would get 15 days seemed to be developing into an unfounded belief that it was a bottomless pit. We saw a huge increase in the number of people who made no attempt whatsoever to align their occupancy dates and incurred huge expenses for prolonged stays in hotels (up to 4 months in a couple of cases) and then were shocked to discover they were on their own for the vast majority of it. Thus, it seemed prudent to be absolutely clear insofar as the intent of the policy was concerned.



So a handful of people misunderstand their entitlements and now we have no leeway? The sins of the few condemn everyone? Am I wrong or would the members plans have to be reviewed by IRP before they acted on them… why didn’t IRP pers pick up on a 4 month window and inform the member of the problem? IRP Pers are supposed to be SMEs on the subject are they not?



> If you stop to think about it for a second, you will quickly see why this is and has always been the policy. Big numbers aside, the CF has no control over the personal decisions members are making WRT the disposal of one residence and the acquisition of another.



I don’t see it, 2 weeks leeway between the selling of a house and purchase of a replacement seems a tight window to begin with.



> These decisions are frequently being made to permit folks to maximize profit from a sale and minimize their cost on a purchase. Lots of times people are choosing one home over another based on their assessment of the likelihood of making a larger profit on one versus the other. I have no difficulty with that.



The problem isn't which home they are picking, the problem is getting your house sold without taking a loss, you need to understand the difference between profit and equity, and the difference between turning down an offer to hold out for a high price and turning down an offer because it's a rip off.

If I buy a house for 100 000 and 4 years later sell it for 120 000 you want to imply that I made 20 000 in profit. that is incorrect because a 100 000 house will increase in value and the owner will have had to pay out 6,000-10,000 in property tax and had to spend Maint costs as well of aprox $8000 (2000 per year)... to avoid their property dropping in value.




> But the Government of Canada shouldn't be subsidizing those decisions. The Government's responsibility is to move you from one place of duty to another as efficiently as possible but without passing on the costs to you.



Exactly and if a reasonable offer is made on a house you are selling with a closing date within 15 days of a house you want to buy then it's reasonable for the Government of Canada to subsidize that gap in housing since they required the move in the first place



> Hence the door-to-door policy. When you decide to sell your house early because you get a fantastic offer, i.e. you decide to maximize your profit (none of which you're sharing with the CF) part of the cost benefit analysis should be what additional cost you take on (having nothing to do with the actual move) as a result.



Houses rarely sell for much above their assessed value, people don't sell early because they are being offered fabulous profits, they sell them because they are scared they aren't going to get another offer and will end up having to take a substantial loss.



> If it works out to your advantage to sell once you've factored in the additional costs, go for it, but don't ask the Crown to pick up the additional costs so you can keep all the profits.



I don't but if the crown needs to move me, I don't expect to take a 40 000 hit to my worth just so I have a perfect door to door move.




> This is even more true when you consider the considerable number of options that are at members disposal to effect a door-to-door move without resorting to long stays in ILM & M, such things as Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA), Reverse TDRA, automatic IR for up to 6 months, etc.



Please illuminate, with TDRA, Reverse TDRA, and IR, how if I get an offer to close on a house I'm selling for the 30th of June at break even price and the only house(s) in my price range and functionality is available on the 30th of July do I arrange things so I don't end up spending my life savings without turning down a reasonable offer on my current house with the possibility of not being offered another? Assume PMQs have a waiting list.



> The situation described of a CF member selling a house on 27 May and contracting for a house that would be available on 1 Jul actually gives an excellent example of why we're re-emphasizing the rules on ILM & M. He chose to have a house built that would not be ready until after 1 Jul and then he chose to sell his home because he got an excellent offer.



You can't reasonably expect someone to have a contract to build a house where construction begins until after their house is sold, a house built in under 6 weeks is recklessly fast. So how does a member moving to a location with a shortage of housing completes a door to door move on a house that isn't built yet? They have to move somewhere within 50 km of the base.



> Both of those things are fine. But under what construct would there be an expectation that Canadian taxpayers, you and I, would pay for 33 days in a hotel so that he could turn a big profit on his house.



The construct that the member pack up and move their family across the country on the crowns dime within a couple of months notice.



> I don't begrudge him the profit, but when he is making the decision to sell



Clearly you do because you keep going on about all the members collecting fantastic profit like a game show host going on about fabulous prizes.



> he should have been thinking, "hmm, my house won't be ready for 33 days, where am I going to live and what's it going to cost me to cover that period?"



Under your interpretation of the situation he will be thinking "holy crap I've got a quarter million dollar house being built that will be finished in 4 weeks and I'll have to have the money ready, and I've got an offer for my current house right now; do I sell now and apply for entitlements that are supposed to give me the flexibility to effect a painless move at no cost to myself due to requirements placed on me by the crown, or gamble that there will be another offer that will allow me to break even and hope I don’t go bankrupt"

yes a 1/4 million, you might be able to get a shack built for less but not in 6weeks, and certainly not without a large percentage up front and another mid way through the project.



> (We have seen, for example, instances where people have arranged accommodations at the builder's expense as part of their contract.) If the answer to that question turns out to still be in his favour, he can sell, if it doesn't, then he may wish to wait for another offer that more closely matches the dates he will be moving.



That would be a late penalty clause, not part of the estimated construction time. Even if a contractor would do such a thing they would simply tack the expense of accommodations onto the final price of the home, again impacting the member’s finances.



> On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."



They are expected to do their best for a Door-to-door move; the problem is now you are saying that nothing is unreasonable to deny them the flexibility the policy is supposed to provide.

The problem is there is a disparity between what we think is reasonable and what IRP thinks is reasonable and there is no policy framework that fleshes out what is reasonable so IRP has defaulted to nothing outside a door to door move excepting delays in HG & E delivery is reasonable. Which is a farce.


----------



## Cdnarmybear (6 May 2009)

Not here to whine, just passing on something that I was told after one of my meetings with IRP....

I was advised by IRP that I should get my posession date 2 or 3 days before I get out to Pet (!?) even though as per the policy when I drive to my new location I have 7 days to get there from Wainwrong (and I would be arriving on a Friday despite their attempts to get my to leave here earlier even with the closing date of my house here being on the Friday before I leave) ...kinda hard to do an unload and unpack  in your new location when you aren't there to take posession of your house, no? 

They seem to be very reluctant to pay out for the weekend in a hotel before unload and unpack.... even though odds are that my F&E may not be ready for delivery on that Friday anyways.
Unload and unpack aren't usually done on the weekend(someone can correct me if I am wrong here)..and of course, that is dependent on whether the people I buy a house from have a COS date that is close to my own 

I don't have a problem paying for a couple nights hotel if I have to, but it seems they are taking the "door to door move" thing to the extreme....and if there are people out there that are abusing it, then they should be dealt with....but then again, that usually ends up being a group punishment thing


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 May 2009)

Cdnarmybear, it's certainly not whining, you're actually giving real-time confirmation that IRP is actually applying the extreme interpretation that this entire thread has been discussing.  And if one office is applying it, then I would suspect the instructions they all have are the same.

But we don't get to see IRP instructions to their own staff, do we?  The "staff answer" would no doubt be that they use the same book each member is handed on their initial interview.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2009)

Cdnarmybear said:
			
		

> They seem to be very reluctant to pay out for the weekend in a hotel before unload and unpack.... even though odds are that my F&E may not be ready for delivery on that Friday anyways.
> 
> I don't have a problem paying for a couple nights hotel if I have to, but it seems they are taking the "door to door move" thing to the extreme....and if there are people out there that are abusing it, then they should be dealt with....but then again, that usually ends up being a group punishment thing



Lest there be any doubt in your mind: *I believe you!!* ... One of my MCpls who is promoted and posted this APS outright asked IRPP here in Gagetown about that "weekend on my own expense during pack/load" (because I outright asked her to ask) at *1300hrs this afternoon * (apparently, IRPP has yet to have their "clarification" made clear to them by the powers that be) during her appointment with them.

"It's at your own cost." She then asked "What do we sleep on - airmattresses? Cook on, cook with?" Response: "Whatever you wish to, but if you go into a hotel, you're on your own."

It is indeed IRPP that requires the sorting out - NOT the soldier. 

I know the MCpls name (obviously) and I know the IRPPs rep name - for administrative purposes of course. Because as soon as I see "official" reference (if indeed it exists as inferred below) that IRPP are the ones wh are WRONG here ... I'll be firing this up the CoC faster than that grieveance they're going to be seeing from me on a certain CANFORGEN policy regarding ATL promotion effective dates.


----------



## Strike (6 May 2009)

Since I am moving from Kingston to Edmonton (7 days driving I think) I expect that I will also have to deal with this stupidity.

If anyone drafts a grievance can you at least let us know (if not posting the grievance fully) so that we can PM you for a copy?


----------



## leroi (6 May 2009)

Sounds like a real cheesy, scrooge-like way to chisel a few bucks away from CF members ... 

I wish you all luck in challenging this.


----------



## leroi (6 May 2009)

I suppose I could write a letter, too. This policy is belittling--IMHO.

I'm remembering these words that seem to be falling fast into the past:

"Our commitiment is to be relevant to what Canadians want, and we are
going to be capable on the ground and have what our soldiers need when 
a condition is set for them. [Underline my edit]

There is a connection here that Canadians have gotten away with ignoring
for too long and that is the fact that these are not my soldiers. They are
Canadian soldiers and they are the sons and daughters of Canadians ..."

                                                  (Ret'd) General Rick Hillier


----------



## Cdnarmybear (7 May 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> Since I am moving from Kingston to Edmonton (7 days driving I think) I expect that I will also have to deal with this stupidity.



Yes, you might, but I am hoping that there will be further clarification on this issue before we all go to our next postings   have you spoken with IRP yet?

I should have a better idea on how this is going to unfold after I go on my HHT next week. I do have the CANFORGENS and will be speaking with IRP....if I need to get a clarification, I have no problems doing so, as I  had issues with them on my last posting. 

The last time I was posted I did have to get an ajudication because I was posted out of APS and had issues with IRP letting me leave my F&E in my house at the old location even though the new owners were not taking possession until 2 months after I left.(It was an old FY posting, so I could not move my COS past 01 Apr)

 I was staying in the shacks for 2 months (which I ended up paying for) and still paying for my house until I could get into my house here(which was fine too, since I still owned it) because, lo and behold, the people I bought the house from were military too and couldn't move their dates to match with my COS.

 I challenged the interpretation of the definition of what constituted a sold residence (which wasn't in the policy book at the time) as IRP said my house was sold (which legally was not until the funds were disbursed and the keys went to the new owners).... they wanted to ship my F&E and have it stored at my own expense (and then I would also be responsible for moving it out of storage) for the 2 months until I took possesion of the house here...I was pretty stressed out about it at the time, and just wanted to get on with things, but I was glad that I did challenge it. In the end the F&E stayed at my old residence and I was granted a trip back for pack,load,clean since I didn't take it before I left.

I would assume that I wasn't the only person that had ran into that situation, because I read that particular definition in the policy manual I recieved for this year. So if by speaking out and asking for clarification/ ajudication makes things less stressful for the next guy/gal that's a good thing.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is that if there is something that needs to change WRT IRP policy, then challenge it or ask for clarification...even if you think it's just not worth the hassle, nothing will change unless the policy folks are aware there is a problem. If enough people step up and speak out, then eventually it will change.(And, yes, I actually believe this, because sometimes it does happen :nod

My apologies for the long post, hope I wasn't too off topic. Hope everyone has a somewhat stress-free posting this year.


----------



## McG (8 Jun 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> Apologies if snippets of this has already been mentioned. On our splash page today May 5th 2009





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Link or source?  The blurb about packing and loading over a weekend would be nice to show to IRP when I go in to sort my own move.


A link would be nice as (now more than a month later) the pers at IRP do not seem to have changed their tune on any of this.  In fact, I keep hearing new and exciting ways through which they will seek to make soldiers pay for their hotels, meals & storage.

I know a lot of people who start their travel on the same day the load is done (or the same day as the clean if they spend an extra day to clean).  Apparently, if you finish things up early and start driving for 1 - 2 hours after supper, then that will be counted against you as a travel day.  So, if you are entitled to 7 days travel and drive for two hours on the day your possessions are loaded onto a truck, then IRP will only give you 6 full days to get where you are going.

I've also learned that you will be responsible for food, hotel & storage if you arrive early (by a day or more), your truck is also available early, but your home is not available until the day you expected to arrive.  So, if you are entitled to 9 days travel and your closing date has assumed 9 days travel, then do not arrive early.  Alternately, if you are entitled to 9 days travel but planed to use only 8 days in order to provide yourself time to meet agents & lawyers (and to do the closing) then you will pay for that day.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2009)

Such diversity of interpretation.

I had my IRP interview yesterday in Winnipeg, and was told that there has always been a requirement to have as efficient a move as possible, it just wasn't being enforced. I was also advised that my IL&M will initially come from core funding, up to the point that my HG&E is available in my new location. After that, the funding comes from the custom envelope. I was told that my hotels start on the pack day, and continue to the unpack day. Travel is advised on the first full day after loading. If I've spent all the funds available in custom, then I'll be out of pocket, so it behoves me to be as efficient as possible. All of which sounds reasonable to me. I don't want two weeks in a hotel. I'd rather be in my new home getting sorted.

I accept that there's never a certainty that you will be able to arrange the disposal and acquisition of a home with absolute precision. I was able to, but many can't.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jul 2009)

New CANFORGEN regarding this (not yet on the DWAN site):

01  01  201717Z JUL  09  RR  RR    UUUU                 CMP 056/09

		NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
		CANFORGEN
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 130/09 CMP 056/09
SIC VAC/WAC
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF THE CF RELOCATION POLICY ON DOOR TO DOOR 
MOVES
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFERENCE: CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) 
2009
1. IN THE PAST YEAR MORE THAN 100 IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE TO THE CF 
RELOCATION POLICY. THESE CHANGES WERE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM CF 
PERSONNEL WHO MOVED THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER, DESPITE THESE 
CHANGES, THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT BENEFITS HAVE BEEN REDUCED AS 
OPPOSED TO ENHANCED
2. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA 
THAT CF PERSONNEL DO THEIR UTMOST TO ARRANGE FOR THE MINIMUM NUMBER 
OF GOVERNMENT PAID MEALS AND HOTELS WHEN POSTED. REINFORCING THE 
TREASURY BOARD RELOCATION POLICY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PERIOD OF 
GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT HAS LEFT THE IMPRESSION THAT SAVING MONEY ON 
RELOCATION COSTS AT THE EXPENSE OF CF PERSONNEL AND THEIR FAMILIES 
IS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE
3. THE CF APPROACH TO DOOR TO DOOR MOVES REMAINS FAIR, FLEXIBLE AND 
UNCHANGED. WHEN YOU ARE POSTED, YOU ARE EXPECTED TO DO YOUR BEST TO 
ENSURE THE NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR CURRENT 
RESIDENCE AND WHEN YOU OCCUPY YOUR NEW RESIDENCE IS MINIMIZED. YOU 
AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE AT LEAST TWO DAYS TO MOVE OUT AND TWO MORE 
DAYS TO MOVE IN, AS WELL AS A GENEROUS NUMBER OF DAYS TO TRAVEL FROM 
YOUR LOSING UNIT TO YOUR GAINING UNIT
4. IF YOU ARE WAITING FOR AN MQ OR SQ, A PRIVATE RENTAL RESIDENCE, A 
HOME PURCHASE POSSESSION DATE, OR ARE OPTING FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF 
IMPOSED RESTRICTION, THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS IN THE CF RELOCATION 
POLICY TO ASSIST YOU IN COVERING ANY ADDITIONAL TIME BEFORE YOUR NEW 
HOME IS AVAILABLE TO YOU. FOR EXAMPLE:
A. THE POLICY REIMBURSES PROVINCIALLY MANDATED PENALTIES IF YOU MUST 
BREAK THE LEASE ON THE RESIDENCE YOU ARE RENTING
B. IT COVERS EARLY REPAYMENT PENALTIES FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS IF YOU 
HAVE TO BREAK A MORTGAGE
C. IT PERMITS TEMPORARY DUAL RESIDENCE EXPENSES FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS 
IF YOU DECIDE YOUR BEST OPTION IS TO MAINTAIN TWO RESIDENCES FOR A 
BRIEF PERIOD
D. IT ALSO PAYS THE INTEREST ON A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT USED AS 
A SECOND MORTGAGE IF YOUR HOUSE AT YOUR LOSING UNIT HAS NOT SOLD 
BEFORE YOU CHOOSE TO BUY A NEW HOUSE AT YOUR GAINING UNIT
5. WHEN PREPARING YOU FOR YOUR MOVE, YOUR RLRS AGENT WILL PROVIDE 
YOU WITH FULL DETAILS OF ALL YOUR OPTIONS WHICH ARE ALSO CLEARLY 
EXPLAINED IN THE 2009 CF RELOCATION MANUAL THAT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE 
AT http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/doc/aps-paa-2009-eng.pdf
IF YOU REMAIN UNSURE OF YOUR RELOCATION OPTIONS, ENGAGE 
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND
6. MOST CF PERSONNEL ARE ABLE TO ORGANIZE A DOOR TO DOOR MOVE 
HOWEVER SOME CANNOT FOR REASONS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. FOR ANY PERIOD 
OF TIME YOU ARE SEPARATED FROM YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND EFFECTS FOR 
JUSTIFIED SERVICE REASONS, SUCH AS DELAYS IN TRANSPORTING YOUR 
FURNITURE, THE KEYS TO YOUR NEW HOUSE NOT BEING AVAILABLE, OR 
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY ARRIVING ON A WEEKEND OR A HOLIDAY, YOU AND YOUR 
FAMILY WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR HOTEL, MEAL, AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES 
AT THE APPROVED RATES. IN OTHER INSTANCES, WHEN IT IS CLEAR YOU HAVE 
MADE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO ARRANGE A DOOR TO DOOR MOVE, THE CF 
RELOCATION POLICY PERMITS ADDITIONAL DAYS OF INTERIM LODGINGS AND 
MEALS TO BE APPROVED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. IN CASES WHERE A DOOR 
TO DOOR MOVE PROVES IMPOSSIBLE, AND WHEN THE MANY AVAILABLE OPTIONS 
OUTLINED ABOVE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, YOU CAN STILL APPLY TO THE 
DIRECTORATE OF COMPENSATION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION FOR SPECIAL 
CONSIDERATION. IN SHORT, THE POLICY WAS DESIGNED TO ENSURE YOU DO 
NOT GO OUT OF POCKET FOR EXPENSES THAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 
CF
7. I REMAIN COMMITTED TO THE CF RELOCATION POLICY ON DOOR TO DOOR 
MOVES. LET ME REINFORCE THAT CF MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE 
FAIRLY COMPENSATED AND THAT YOU WILL NOT BE DISADVANTAGED FOR THE 
BRIEF PERIODS THAT YOU ARE SEPARARED FROM YOUR FURNITURE AND EFFECTS 
AS YOU MOVE FROM ONE PLACE OF DUTY TO ANOTHER
8. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMINAIW, CMP

Funny, but the link in the email received at work was:

HTTP Error 404 - Page Not Found

DND has really got to stop changing their sites.  I have to update my Favourites weekly!  :


----------



## McG (21 Jul 2009)

... and now there is a stick for any who need it to fight for their benefits.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2009)

DWAN/IntraNet link to the CANFORGEN here.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Jul 2009)

Doesnt work - or just not for those who arent on the DWAN I suppose...


----------



## CountDC (24 Jul 2009)

For those that are having the problem of weekend unpack/unload talk to your F&E section.  They should be able to provide you with the ammo you need.  I remember when I was there that we did not do weekends as it often cost too much (I think it was time and a half for Sat and double time for Sun) plus the member was allocated time off for it.  We only did one weekend and that was because the ship was sailing, it was a small load completed in one day and the company agreed to do it on Sat for only $100 extra. Royal may want you to do things on the weekend but F&E has their regulations that have to be considered too and weekends were out.


----------



## Occam (24 Jul 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Doesnt work - or just not for those who arent on the DWAN I suppose...



DWAN and *intra*net are different words for the same thing - DIN is yet another.  If someone says it's a DWAN/DIN/intranet link, it won't be accessible from the internet.

Precious few general messages are posted to the internet, except via sites such as this one.  We can't afford to pay someone to convert CFAOs to the Common Look and Feel v2 for posting to the internet, I'm not going to hold my breath for general messages.  ;D


----------



## Pusser (19 Aug 2009)

There are a few misconceptions here.  The biggest one is that of the COS Date.  In all my years of service I have never seen such a simple concept cause so much confusion.  The COS Date is nothing more than an administrative point in time when you cease to be part of one unit and become part of another unit.  That's ALL it is.  Nothing more.  It is not the day you have to start traveling.  It is not the day you have to finish traveling.  It is not the day you have to report to your new unit.  It is not the last day at your old unit.  The date you need to report to your unit is arranged between the losing and gaining CO and can be at any point within 30 days either side of the COS Date.  That leaves a 60 day window in which to arrange a door to door move.  Is this such an arduous task?  

Some other things to remember:

1)  Travel time and ILM&I are two separate things.  Arranging a door to door move is supposed to reduce ILM&I.  It has nothing to do with travel time.  Moving companies often use two drivers so that their trucks can move 24 hrs a day.  This means that your HG&E will often arrive at destination before you do.  You do NOT have to be there when the furniture arrives in your new location.  You are entitled to whatever number of days have been calculated for you to drive safely between locations.  If you are still traveling when you HG&E arrive in your new location, the moving company will store it until you get there.  In my last move, my HG&E arrived at my new location eight days before I did!  

2)  There is no new policy here.  This whole thing is strictly an increased effort at enforcement of long existing policy.  It is in response to a number of individuals pulling a few stunts and expecting to the CF to foot the bill for months in hotels.  Unfortunately, innocent folks sometimes get caught in the crossfire.

3)  If the 60 day window is still not enough, there are some other options available that enable folks to effect a door to door move.  For example, if the old house doesn't sell fast enough, the member can still proceed on IR to the new location (ie. reports within the 60 day window).  Once on IR, the member can scout out the local market at leisure (this is actually better than an HHT).  In the meantime, the member can develop a short list of houses.  When he/she feels the time is right, he/she then arranges for the spouse to join him/her on an HHT.  Hopefully, the old house has been sold at this point and all that remains is to arrange closing dates at appropriate times.  Closing dates in this case can be at any time (have nothing to do with either COS or reporting dates), but should be close enough for the member to a) return home to pack/load and pick up family and b) travel to the new location with family.  This is how I did my last move and it worked out without a hitch.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Aug 2009)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There are a few misconceptions here.  The biggest one is that of the COS Date.  In all my years of service I have never seen such a simple concept cause so much confusion.  The COS Date is nothing more than an administrative point in time when you cease to be part of one unit and become part of another unit.  That's ALL it is.  Nothing more.  It is not the day you have to start traveling.  It is not the day you have to finish traveling.  It is not the day you have to report to your new unit.  It is not the last day at your old unit.  The date you need to report to your unit is arranged between the losing and gaining CO and can be at any point within 30 days either side of the COS Date.  That leaves a 60 day window in which to arrange a door to door move.  Is this such an arduous task?



The misconceptions don't neccesarily start 'here', but they certainly occur everywhere else.  The points you made should already be known to members in the chain of command, yet many of them are the ones who incorrectly interpret what a COS date is in the first place.  My example being that almost every new 'supervisor' I ever dealt with during a move treated a COS date as if it were a deadline for showing up at a new unit - basically a 'you belong to me now' date, followed by 'why weren't you here by the assigned date?'.


----------



## Pusser (20 Aug 2009)

Sadly, you are correct.  There are too many folks in the chain of command who do not seem to understand that if they help their people through the moving process, instead of regarding it as an inconvenience, we would all be much better off in the long run.  I distinctly remember when they approved the special leave policy for relocation.  I thought to myself, we need a policy for this?  I had always considered the days spent packing a loading your F&E to be "duty," but was dismayed to find out when I asked that some supervisors/COs used to make people take Annual Leave to do this.  Now that's leadership!  The good example I can give is that of one CO who summed it up very simply to state that if you give the member all the time he/she needs to sort his/her personal life when they arrive at a new posting, they likely won't need to leave for other problems later.  Being reasonable generates loyalty and improves morale.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2009)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sadly, you are correct.  There are too many folks in the chain of command who do not seem to understand that if they help their people through the moving process, instead of regarding it as an inconvenience, we would all be much better off in the long run.  I distinctly remember when they approved the special leave policy for relocation.  I thought to myself, we need a policy for this?  I had always considered the days spent packing a loading your F&E to be "duty," but was dismayed to find out when I asked that some supervisors/COs used to make people take Annual Leave to do this.  Now that's leadership!  The good example I can give is that of one CO who summed it up very simply to state that if you give the member all the time he/she needs to sort his/her personal life when they arrive at a new posting, they likely won't need to leave for other problems later.  Being reasonable generates loyalty and improves morale.



And, some COs, rather than making their pers take 'annual' for this activity, simply sent those pers to the field on ex their first day at location - not to be home for a month. By then, the spouses had already 'weathered the storm' all alone in a new town. Some of those guys/gals would have been "happy" to be allowed to take annual. Thus, the enactment of this policy gets them the time required to perform this task ... wherein the past - their spouses just got tasked with doing it all alone. So yes, we needed a policy for this - sadly.


----------



## Pil (1 Sep 2009)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 2)  There is no new policy here.  This whole thing is strictly an increased effort at enforcement of long existing policy.  It is in response to a number of individuals pulling a few stunts and expecting to the CF to foot the bill for months in hotels.  Unfortunately, innocent folks sometimes get caught in the crossfire.



So you agree with subscribing to a "punish them all" mindset for a few individuals that took advantage of the system rather than punishing the guilty.

This shit may seem simple to you my friend. I don't know who to go to, what channels exist for me to find information and no one gives a shit if I complain just like you were saying in your post above. My last move and this move are the most confusing and frustrating things administration wise in my career so far.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, some COs, rather than making their pers take 'annual' for this activity, simply sent those pers to the field on ex their first day at location - not to be home for a month. By then, the spouses had already 'weathered the storm' all alone in a new town. Some of those guys/gals would have been "happy" to be allowed to take annual. Thus, the enactment of this policy gets them the time required to perform this task ... wherein the past - their spouses just got tasked with doing it all alone. So yes, we needed a policy for this - sadly.



Following the old pattern of "that's how i was treated, so I'll treat my troops the same", or just ignorance?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Sep 2009)

Pil said:
			
		

> So you agree with subscribing to a "punish them all" mindset for a few individuals that took advantage of the system rather than punishing the guilty.



It is not a "punish them all", there is nothing new here. The rules that have long been in place are being enforced as it is no doubt required by law. The problems i have seen is related to Royal Lepage ( whatever their freshly rolled out new name is) broke the rules in the process of enforcing them.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (1 Sep 2009)

Is anyone here familiar with "non IRP" moves for people still on the BTL?  I am told that I will be undergoing one of these moves shortly but havent been able to find any information here or on the DIN, though my search skills are notoriously bad.

I have an appointment with the admin folks for next month (earliest time they had available) so I am trying to get some information together before that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

More on this issue, in so far as it concerns the relocation _service_, in this report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen:


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Royal+LePage+unit+only+bidder+massive+relocation+contract/2017280/story.html



 MPs ask why Royal LePage unit only bidder on massive relocation contract

By Kathryn May , The Ottawa Citizen

September 21, 2009 

OTTAWA — The biggest employee relocation contract of its kind in Canada went up for grabs this summer and attracted only one bidder. 

That result concerns MPs who want to know why, after so much controversy and scrutiny, Royal LePage Relocation Services once again won the multimillion-dollar deal to relocate the 18,500 military, bureaucrats and RCMP moved to new posts every year. 

It’s a question the Commons government operations committee is asking and has called Public Works Minister Christian Paradis to explain.

“It’s one of the largest contracts of its kind in North America so I am puzzled that the department, when it was forced to go through the bidding process again, allowed it to evolve in such a way that it had only one Canadian bidder,” said Liberal MP Derek Lee, who chairs the committee. 

But some say the outcome shouldn’t be a surprise. Critics warned that Public Works’ April 29 tender call forced an impossibly tight bid deadline and an even tighter deadline to start delivering the service. 

The most vocal critic was Brice Atyeo, president of Envoy Relocation Services, the firm that is suing Public Works for bungling the 2004 contract that he lost to Royal LePage. He warned that only Royal LePage, which already had a national service up and running, could meet the tight timelines.

Public Works, the government’s procurement arm, has been dogged by controversy over its handling of the contract for years. It has been at the centre of an internal investigation, lawsuits, and several Canadian International Trade Tribunal hearings.

The last furor erupted when Auditor General Sheila Fraser found Public Works bungled the 2004 tender call with wrong information that stacked the deal in favour of LePage. As a result, the government promised to re-tender the contract in 2009.

With that promise, the industry waited to get a crack at this massive contract, which one supplier called a “kingmaker” for any firm that lands it. The contract involves expenditures of $1 billion and fees worth about $148 million.

But when bidding closed June 22, Royal Lepage — now called Brookfield Global Relocation Services — was the only bidder. It was awarded the contract Aug. 18. It is the fourth time Royal LePage has won the contract since the relocation program began as a pilot project in 1998. 

Companies in the relocation industry have a string of reasons they didn’t bid, from the huge start-up cost, including new technology, hiring and training staff, opening offices across Canada and fulfilling bilingual requirements. American firms were blocked because the data base containing the files of workers being transferred had to be housed in Canada.

But the biggest obstacle was time. 

“I’m sure they all have their own reasons for not bidding but the most important reason is that if any of them had bid and won they would fall flat on their face because they would not have enough time to get set up. Public Works had total control over that aspect of the RFP (request for proposal) so we can only conclude that they did not want any bidders other than the incumbent to submit a bid,” says Atyeo.

Public Works had more than two years to re-tender the contract. It issued a request for information in August 2008, but didn’t go to tender until April 29 and set a deadline of June 22 for bids.

The winning bidder was required to start taking over 20,000 active files by September and be ready to begin assuming new files by December. The old contract expires Nov. 30.

Liberal MP Martha Hall-Findley has written to Public Works Minister Christian Paradis demanding an explanation about how a fair and open competition could yield only one bidder. She said the way it was handled has raised serious questions whether the contract was bungled or deliberately “tailored” to ensure it went to LePage.

“The participants in the process and indeed all Canadians must be satisfied that the process was open and fair. If not, a new contract awarding process must be undertaken,” she wrote Paradis.

The contract attracted notoriety long before Fraser’s report on the 2004 deal. The 2002 contract, also won by LePage, was also scrapped and re-tendered in part because a bureaucrat who oversaw the contract took a Caribbean cruise with a Royal LePage executive. At the same time, competing bidders took Public Works to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal over an unfair bidding process and eventually won.

Jon Hanson of Procurement Insights says the case is symptomatic of Public Works’ push for large, multi-year contracts. 

Over time, Hanson argues bureaucrats get comfortable with a supplier and don’t want to rock the boat or worse, face glitches in today’s risk-averse government, by trying a new one. This erodes the base of suppliers, prices creep up, competition all but vanishes and monopolies develop.

In contrast, the U.S. government breaks up its relocation contracts to ensure it attracts multiple competitors for each bid and gets best value.

Graham Badun, CEO of sole bidder Brookfield, said the industry had plenty of time to prepare because it knew the deal was coming for two years. He said the RFP’s timelines were “as long or longer” as previous ones and the contract allowed room for extensions.

Public Works says, in a written response, that it went out of its way to ensure it ran a fair and open competition. Officials say the department sought industry input last August and considered 400 suggestions when designing the bid process and preparing the final tender. It argued the June 22 bid deadline was plenty of time and longer than its previous tenders. And it gave a six-month start-up period in two phases to accommodate a new supplier. The industry argued this six-month start-up was useless because firms had to be up and running for Sept. 1.

The department insisted it was receptive to concerns. It says it received 140 questions and suggestions during the bid, but since no one complained about the start-up period the department could not address the problem.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

Click to expand...



This “business” has bedevilled PWGSC and DND for years and years. Almost everyone involved seems to do constant reverse Bennis manoeuvres, they do the wrong things and they do things wrong.
_


----------

