Presentation to the Canadian Association of Movers Major

Presentation to the Canadian Association of Movers Major Katherine Vigneau Department of National Defence Transportation Management 22 November 2004 1

Topics -Federal Government Move Management -FEAMS (Furniture & Effects Automated Management System) -Alternative to Scaling Trial - Value Index Results: -Carrier compliance -Customer satisfaction -Claims satisfaction 2

Move Management in the Federal Government 3

CONTRACTS Contract Geographical location Parties Domestic Canada and US IDC International Overseas DND 4

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 5

Peak Period 2003 21 June – 21 July 2004 3534 4161 627 additional moves in peak period 6

Domestic Contract • • 2 years contract + 3 times 1 year option Started on 1 April 2001 On 1 April 2005 3 rd option year End of contract 31 March 2006 7

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 8

International Moves • 500 - 550 Moves per year • DND only • 1 Service Provider 9

International Contract • • 2 years contract + 3 times 1 year option Started on 1 November 2001 On 1 November 2004 2 nd option year End of contract 31 October 2006 10

International Contract • Draft RFP - 1 May 2005 • Final RFP - 1 Nov 2005 • New contract - 1 Nov 2006 11

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 12

IDC Mandate • To collectively contract with the moving industry for the move of household goods of federal government employees 13

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 14

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 15

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 16

Furniture and Effects Automated Management System FEAMS 17

CENTRAL REMOVAL SYSTEM • • • (CRS) Antiquated system Connectivity problems Poor management tool User fees to PWGSC Decommissioned in 2005? 18

FEAMS Corporate Benefits • Possibility of early payment incentive • Improved tracking of expenditures – actual costs • Effective management tool • Bilingual 19

FEAMS User Benefits: • User friendly, GUI • Web-based • Central payment • Time for more quality control - better QOL 20

FEAMS Modules • FEAMS V 1. 1: – Long Term Storage • FEAMS V 2 – All other F&E business processes: • Domestic • Cross border • International 21

FEAMS V 1. 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 22

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 23

ALTERNATIVE TO SCALING 24

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. ” 25

ATS Objective • Increase transparency and auditability as per the OAG recommendation. • Answer QOL requirement that members have a legible inventory of goods being shipped. 26

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 27

Alternative to Scaling • Working Group Standard weight List (SWL) • SWL introduced in HGRS contract : 1 April 2001 • Electronic Inventory introduced 1 April 2002 28

ATS Observations April – September 2004 – Good Points: • Inventories had improved (neater manual additions) • Some contractors doing electronic estimates 29

ATS Observations Challenges: - Number of manual entries did not decrease - Printing updated inventories for member 30

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 31

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 32

Value Index Carrier Compliance Customer Satisfaction Claims Satisfaction 33

Carrier Compliance 34

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 35

QCI Results 2002 -03 Satisfaction Rate 2003 -04 2004 -05 (to date) 87. 1% 86. 7% 89. 4% 36

Service Shortfalls 2003 -04 2004 -05 (to date) Total Service Shortfalls 480 Packing 152 186 37

Liquidated Damages 2003 -04 Total LD 333 2004 -05 (to date) 261 Late delivery 87 132 Late pick up 26 24 Scaling 76 53 Although few penalties were given, there was no improvement in L 12 – clear inventory. 38

Customer Satisfaction 39

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 40

GESS Average satisfaction score (scale of 1 -5): • • Overall Pre-move briefing Packing Loading Unloading Unpacking Destination assistance • • 3. 76 3. 94 3. 82 4. 03 3. 88 3. 46 3. 61 3. 86 3. 81 4. 02 4. 04 3. 90 3. 80 4. 13 4. 07 3. 96 3. 83 3. 61 3. 54 3. 77 3. 63 41

GESS Breakdown of "Yes"/"No" responses 42

Average claims satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 5) • • • Overall Destination advice, assistance Courtesy and professionalism Timeliness of response Value of settlement • • • 3. 25 3. 08 3. 19 3. 47 3. 73 3. 29 3. 55 3. 57 3. 45 3. 16 3. 18 3. 69 3. 22 3. 51 43

Claims Survey - Breakdown of "Satisfied"/"Dissatisfied" responses 44

Value Index - Overall • Better – QCI – LD – Courtesy • Worse – Packing – Late deliveries – Timely claims settlement 45

QUESTIONS 46