460 likes | 619 Views
SUCCESS IN THE TRENCHES :. Smart Management Practices in the Field Derek S. Leffert Missouri One Call System Mike Gowen Arkansas One Call. OVERVIEW. Cost Overview/Situational Awareness Service/Installation Contractors - Problematic Ticket Submissions Contract Locators
E N D
SUCCESS IN THE TRENCHES: Smart Management Practices in the Field Derek S. LeffertMissouri One Call System Mike Gowen Arkansas One Call
OVERVIEW • Cost Overview/Situational Awareness • Service/Installation Contractors - Problematic Ticket Submissions • Contract Locators - Issues With Ticket Management • Your Response & Responsibilities - Recommendations/Suggestions - Available Tools
AGGREGATE COST IMPACT Average Cost Per Locate (Missouri) = $22.75 (Inclusive of Labor, Overhead, Ticket Cost, etc.)
COSTS VS. REVENUE • Budgets have decreased precipitously in the past 5 years • Cost-containment measures are increasingly important • Unnecessary outlays undermine already small margins and decrease shareholder equity • With a commitment of time, cost-savings relative to the One Call process is attainable
SERVICE & INSTALLATIONCONTRACTORS: A Review of Problematic Issues
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #1 – RENEWAL TICKETS • Renewals are NOT required every 10 days, ONLY when markings are no longer usable • Approximately 55% - 60% of Renewals are illegitimate • Approximately $5.3 Million annually is spent on illegitimate renewal tickets • MTIA Member Example: Contractors for 1 Member totaled 9,954 Renewals in 2010 9,954 X 55% = 5,474 Illegitimate X $22.75 (ACPL) = $124,550 in UNNECESSARY Costs from 1 Company’s Contractors
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #1 – RENEWAL TICKETS (Continued) • Ticket #102570166 – 6 Tickets on the Project Renewed 62 times in a 1 year period • 62 X $22.75 (ACPL) = $1,410.50 • 8 Utilities Per Ticket X $1,410.50 = $11,284 • $11,284 X 6 Tickets Per Submission = $67,704 on 1 Project that was 1 ½ miles long
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #2 – NON-COMPLIANCE TICKETS • Non-Compliance requests are in violation of Missouri law • Failure to provide adequate notice forces utilities to shift resources and increases costs significantly • More than 100,000 Non-Compliance Requests were made in 2010 • MTIA Member Example: 1 MTIA Member’s Contractors accounted for 898 illegal tickets in 2010
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #3 – FALSE EMERGENCY REQUESTS • Submitting emergency requests under false pretenses is a direct violation of Missouri law • Emergencies require a 2 hour response by utilities • False emergencies unnecessarily cause a shift of resources and drive up total costs • Approximately 40% of emergency requests are not true emergencies as defined by law • MTIA Member Example: 1 MTIA Member’s Contractors submitted 3,395 Emergency requests in 2010 (approximately 1,358 were likely inconsistent with Missouri law)
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #4 – FALSE NO-RESPONSE REQUESTS • Approximately 72% of the No-Response Requests received by MOCS are false • False no-response requests create two issues: #1 – Utilities pay for the second request #2 – Utilities are forced to make a second trip to the site to verify markings thereby increasing costs unnecessarily • Potential impact to ALL Missouri utilities in 2010 = $769,417
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #5 – DIG UP TICKETS • Failure to report the damage or disturbance of a underground utility line is a violation of state AND federal law • Significant problems can result from an unreported damage • Particularly problematic with explosive increase in directional drilling
INSTALLATION/SERVICE DROP CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #6 – DEPTH OF LINE INSTALLATIONS • Shallow depth of buried utilities is the #1 complaint from professional excavators and utility excavators alike • Shallow installation poses greater risk to system reliability and consumer satisfaction and invites increased scrutiny from regulators • MODOT has vocally expressed significant interest in addressing shallow installations through legislative and permitting/inspection initiatives and/or costly utility relocations
LOCATE CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #1 – LACK OF UTILITY RESPONSE • In 2010, utilities failed to respond to requests approximately 28,000 times • Failure to respond is a violation of Missouri law and is being closely examined by regulators • Failing to mark facilities can lead to catastrophic service interruptions and consequently – legal liability • Failure to respond is costly for excavators who have machines on site • Failure to meet statutory obligation negatively impacts the system as a whole and the utility’s public perception
LOCATE CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #2 – DIG UPS/DAMAGES • Recent responses to Dig Up tickets submitted is fraudulent in nature and must be prohibited • Unaltered, documented responses with photographs are critical to supporting damage claims • Adequate damage investigations by the Utility are essential • Timely, accurate invoicing for claims increases likelihood of payment and enhances relationships with contractors
LOCATE CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #3 – RENEWALS • Most locating contractors are paid per ticket • Renewals require far less time and labor • Recent concerns have been expressed regarding locate contractors who “encourage” renewals unnecessarily • Unnecessary renewals account for approximately $5.3 million annually • There are some documented circumstances where renewals are ignored but still billed to the utility
LOCATE CONTRACTORS PROBLEM #4 – INCONSISTENCY IN BILLING • Recent inquiries by utilities have revealed disparities in invoices between what MOCS sent and what was ultimately billed by contractors • Daily, monthly, and yearly reports are available to verify the number of tickets transmitted to locate contractors • Close scrutiny is essential to controlling costs and monitoring performance
YOUR ROLE IN THE SYSTEM • Control Costs • Ensure Contract Deliverables Are Met • Ensure Compliance with Statutes • Develop Performance Standards • Audit/QA Contractors • Require Employee & Contractor Awareness & Education • Provide Feedback & Participate in the One Call System
COST CONTROLS • Minimize unnecessary tickets submitted by contractors & employees ($22.75+ per ticket) • Ensure that proper planning/design/engineering gives contractors adequate preparation time • Reduce liabilities by requiring compliance with statutes • Minimize at-fault damages and subsequent liability through proper excavation techniques • Ensure timely cost-recovery on damages with thorough damage investigations
CONTRACT DELIVERABLES • Establish practical, reasonable, and safe measures in contracts to enhance quality, reliability, and consumer satisfaction • Consistently review and enforce defined criteria • Conduct periodic discussions with contractors regarding deliverable attainment • Enforce penalties for unmet provisions
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND AUDITING CONTRACTORS • Statutory Compliance • Employee Education (Online Modules, MOCS Training) • Periodic Review of Submitted Tickets • Inspections on Permitted Projects (Particularly on MODOT R-O-W) • Pre & Post Excavation Photos & Documentation • Damage Ratio (Damages vs. Amount Installed)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND AUDITING (Continued) LOCATORS • On Time Locates • Accuracy of locates (Damages Due to Mismarks) • Damage Ratio (At-Fault Damages vs. Total Ticket Volume) • Ticket Transmission Confirmations • Independent Damage Investigations (Third Party or Utility Employee rather than Locate Contractor)
FEEDBACK & PARTICIPATION • MOCS is Member-Owned & Governed • MOCS is Non-Profit • Telecommunication Industry is heavily represented • Quarterly Operating Committee Meetings • Quarterly Board of Directors Meetings • Coalitions for Legislative Support • Suggest Changes for Greater Efficiencies/Cost Savings • Attend MOCS Seminars, Meetings, and Events
TOOLS/RESOURCES AVAILABLE • MOCS Board of Directors & Operating Committee • MOCS Management Team • MOCS Website & Newsletters • Online Training Module • Online Ticket Database for Research/Auditing • On-site seminars/education • Public relations and awareness • Educational Materials
Specify Date Range Specify County Specify Type of Caller
This provides a breakdown by caller and the type of tickets that they called in
Specify District Code Specify Date Range Specify County Specify Email Address if you wish to export the data to a spreadsheet
This report will provide the number of total tickets requested by the caller in the specified date range
Specify Date Range Specify number of Renewals
This report will show how many times a specific ticket has been renewed and who called it in
Specify District Code Specify parameter to search by Specify County Specify Date Range
This report will return all tickets that match the defined parameters and allow you to look at each ticket individually
Specify Date Range Specify District Code Specify Email Address if you want to export to a spreadsheet
This report shows all tickets received in the specified date range
QUESTIONS? Derek S. Leffert 573.280.8500 Cell 573.635.1818 Office derekl@mo1call.com