1

Presentation to the Canadian Association of Movers

Major Katherine Vigneau

Department of National Defence Transportation Management

22 November 2004

2

Topics-Federal Government Move Management

-FEAMS (Furniture & Effects Automated Management System)

-Alternative to Scaling Trial

- Value Index Results:-Carrier compliance-Customer satisfaction-Claims satisfaction

3

Move Management in the Federal Government

4

CONTRACTS

Contract Geographical location

Parties

Domestic Canada and US IDC

International Overseas DND

5

Domestic Moves

• 12,000 - 15, 000 moves per year– Department of National Defence: 75%– Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 12%– Public Works Government Services Canada /

Central Removal System: 13%

• Average Shipment Weight: 9000 lbs

• 3 Service Providers

6

Peak Period

2003 2004

21 June – 21 July

3534 4161

627 additional moves in peak period

7

Domestic Contract

• 2 years contract + 3 times 1 year option

• Started on 1 April 2001

• On 1 April 2005 3rd option year

• End of contract 31 March 2006

8

Domestic Contract

• Draft RFP - 1 Nov 2005– 4 years plus 3 one year options

• Final RFP - 1 Apr 2005

• Bid evaluations – summer 2005

• Contract in place - 1 Apr 2006

9

International Moves

• 500 - 550 Moves per year

• DND only

• 1 Service Provider

10

International Contract

• 2 years contract + 3 times 1 year option

• Started on 1 November 2001

• On 1 November 2004 2nd option year

• End of contract 31 October 2006

11

International Contract

• Draft RFP - 1 May 2005

• Final RFP - 1 Nov 2005

• New contract - 1 Nov 2006

12

Interdepartmental Committee on Household Goods Removal Services (IDC)

• Established in 1968• DND: Department of National Defence• PWGS/CRS: Public Works Government Services

Canada / Central Removal System• RCMP: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

M a jor K a th erin e V ign e auD N D

M r P F eu e rs ta ckP W G S C /C R S

M r D a n ie l V a n ie rR C M P

L ie u ten a n t-C o lon e l K S H arrisonC h a ir, ID C

13

IDC Mandate

• To collectively contract with the moving industry for the move of household goods of federal government employees

14

IDC Roles & Responsibilities

• Sets the policies, conditions and tariff for the transportation and storage of household goods belonging to government employee

– Provisions of moving services, (i.e. ordering, quality control, billing, payment and audit) done by each member department

15

IDC Objectives

• To improve and maintain the quality and the reliability of services provided by the Service Providers

• To optimize management efficiencies

• To ensure shipper satisfaction

• To ensure cost-effective delivery of contracted services

16

IDC Objectives (Suite)

• To ensure built-in flexibility (trials)• To ensure compliance with all applicable

regulations and standards• To ensure that the contracted functions are

performed in a safe manner• To ensure that electronic commerce supports all

functions of transportation management• To foster co-operative interaction between the

government and the moving industry

17

Furniture and Effects Automated Management System

FEAMS

18

CENTRAL REMOVAL SYSTEM (CRS)

• Antiquated system

• Connectivity problems

• Poor management tool

• User fees to PWGSC

• Decommissioned in 2005?

19

FEAMS Corporate Benefits

• Possibility of early payment incentive

• Improved tracking of expenditures – actual costs

• Effective management tool

• Bilingual

20

FEAMS User Benefits:

• User friendly, GUI

• Web-based

• Central payment

• Time for more quality control - better QOL

21

FEAMS Modules

• FEAMS V 1.1:– Long Term Storage

• FEAMS V 2– All other F&E business

processes: • Domestic

• Cross border

• International

22

FEAMS V1.1 Status:

• First module (Long Term Storage) piloted successfully on five bases April 2003

• Remaining bases piloted successfully October 2003

• All LTS lots (approximately 1500) are now being processed by FEAMS

23

FEAMS V 2 Timelines

• Pilot roll-out: Jun 04

• Re-engineer/re-development: Jun – Sep 04

• Testing Sep-Nov 04

• Training Oct-Dec 04

• CRS use ends: 24 Jan 05

24

ALTERNATIVE TO SCALING

25

Alternative to Scaling Trial (ATS)

• 1997 OAG Report

Recommendation at paragraph 21.100

“Public Works and Government Services Canada, in consultation with the Interdepartmental Committee and the moving industry, should minimize the risk of overcharging due to weight bumping and strengthen the auditability of invoices from contractors. Consideration should be given to introducing an alternative to the existing basis for pricing moves.”

26

ATS Objective

• Increase transparency and auditability as per the OAG recommendation.

• Answer QOL requirement that members have a legible inventory of goods being shipped.

27

ATS Vision

• Move of household goods becomes an automated, streamlined process from initial estimate to final invoicing.– Initial electronic estimate– Updated electronic estimate– Electronic invoicing– Automated claims processing– Auditable using SWL

28

Alternative to Scaling

• Working Group Standard weight List (SWL)

• SWL introduced in HGRS contract : 1 April 2001

• Electronic Inventory introduced 1 April 2002

29

ATS Observations April – September 2004

– Good Points:

• Inventories had improved (neater manual additions)

• Some contractors doing electronic estimates

30

ATS Observations

Challenges:- Number of manual

entries did not decrease

- Printing updated inventories for member

31

Working Group –Major Recommendations

• Master list of exception codes• Parameters for driver inventories and schedule for

improvement• Refined weights• Include non-standard boxes in SWL• Reweigh if discrepancies exist• Emphasize member responsibility

32

ATS – The Future

• Further refine SWL to be within 3% error

• 100% electronic inventories– Cooperation between IDC/industry

• IDC to ensure better knowledge of the process among members– Meetings with relocation specialists

• Use of scaling/SWL as primary/audit

33

Value Index

Carrier Compliance

Customer Satisfaction

Claims Satisfaction

34

Carrier Compliance

35

QCI Results

Time 1 Apr 03 to 31 Mar 04

1 Apr 04 to 15 Nov 04

QCI 5563 5827

Satisfactory 4822 5212

Unsatisfactory 741 615

36

QCI Results

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

(to date)

Satisfaction Rate

87.1% 86.7% 89.4%

37

Service Shortfalls

2003-04 2004-05

(to date)

Total Service Shortfalls

480 480

Packing 152 186

38

Liquidated Damages2003-04 2004-05

(to date)

Total LD 333 261

Late delivery 87 132

Late pick up 26 24

Scaling 76 53

Although few penalties were given, there was no improvement in L12 – clear inventory.

39

Customer Satisfaction

40

Customer Satisfaction Surveys

• Two methods of gauging satisfaction through Government Employee Satisfaction Survey (GESS) and Claim Settlement Satisfaction Survey (CSSS)

• Hard copies (at any time, although not included in statistics / reports)

• Semi annual phone surveys in conjunction with Value Index calculations

41

GESSAverage satisfaction score

(scale of 1-5):

• Overall • Pre-move briefing • Packing • Loading • Unloading • Unpacking • Destination assistance

• 3.76 3.86 3.81

• 3.94 4.02 4.04

• 3.82 3.90 3.80

• 4.03 4.13 4.07

• 3.88 3.96 3.83

• 3.46 3.61 3.54

• 3.61 3.77 3.63

42

GESSBreakdown of "Yes"/"No" responses

Yes No DNK/DNA

Satisfied with courtesy at origin 94.1% 5.4% 0.6%

Satisfied with courtesy at destination 90.4% 7.4% 2.2%

Picked up on schedule 84.5% 14.4% 1.1%

Delivered on schedule 78.2% 19.5% 2.3%

Filed claim or intend to 47.5% 50.0% 2.5%

Would use same mover again 75.4% 22.7% 1.9%

43

Average claims satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 5)

• Overall • Destination advice, assistance• Courtesy and professionalism• Timeliness of response• Value of settlement

• 3.2 3.25 3.16

• 3.08 3.19 3.18

• 3.47 3.73 3.69

• 3.29 3.55 3.22

• 3.57 3.45 3.51

44

Claims Survey - Breakdown of

"Satisfied"/"Dissatisfied" responses

Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied DNK/NA

Overall 48.8% 18.2% 31.4% 1.7%

Destination advice and assistance 38.0% 28.1% 31.4% 2.5%

Courtesy 54.5% 15.7% 25.6% 4.1%

Timeliness of response 48.8% 24.8% 24.8% 1.7%

Value of settlement 50.4% 19.0% 19.0% 11.6%

45

Value Index - Overall

• Better– QCI

– LD

– Courtesy

• Worse– Packing

– Late deliveries

– Timely claims settlement

46

QUESTIONS