Upload
alyssa-delamar
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Smart Management Practices in the Field
Derek S. LeffertMissouri One Call System
Mike GowenArkansas One Call
OVERVIEWCost Overview/Situational Awareness Service/Installation Contractors
- Problematic Ticket Submissions Contract Locators
- Issues With Ticket Management Your Response & Responsibilities
- Recommendations/Suggestions- Available Tools
HISTORICAL STATISTICS
TYPE 2009 2010 2011 (YTD)
Routine 2,371,580 2,411,440 1,170,134
Renewal 382,165 425,722 189,735
Emergency 204,075 235,855 111,950
Non-Compliance
102,988 100,189 10,523
No Response
46,265 46,973 17,692
Dig Up 32,639 33,505 12,659
Design 19,646 15,439 7,168
TOTALS 3,159,358 3,269,123 1,519,861
AGGREGATE COST IMPACT
Average Cost Per Locate (Missouri) = $22.75 (Inclusive of Labor, Overhead, Ticket Cost, etc.)
TYPE 2009 2010 2011 (YTD)
Routine $53,953,445 $54,860,260 $26,620,548
Renewal $8,694,253 $9,685,175 $4,316,471
Emergency $4,642,706 $5,365,701 $2,546,862
Non-Compliance
$2,342,977 $2,279,299 $239,398
No Response $1,052,528 $1,068,635 $402,493
Dig Up $742,537 $762,238 $287,992
Design $446,946 $351,237 $163,072
TOTALS $71,875,392 $74,372,545 $34,576,836
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 & INSTALLATION
CONTRACTORS: 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 REQUESTSSubmitting emergency requests under false
pretenses is a direct violation of Missouri lawEmergencies require a 2 hour response by
utilitiesFalse emergencies unnecessarily cause a shift
of resources and drive up total costsApproximately 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 TICKETSFailure 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
CONTRACT LOCATORS:
Identified Issues and The Relative Costs
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 – RENEWALSMost locating contractors are paid per ticketRenewals require far less time and laborRecent 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
& RESPONSIBILITIES
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 CONTROLSMinimize 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
CONTRACTORSStatutory ComplianceEmployee Education (Online Modules, MOCS
Training) Periodic Review of Submitted TicketsInspections on Permitted Projects
(Particularly on MODOT R-O-W)Pre & Post Excavation Photos &
DocumentationDamage 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 ConfirmationsIndependent Damage Investigations (Third
Party or Utility Employee rather than Locate Contractor)
FEEDBACK & PARTICIPATION
MOCS is Member-Owned & GovernedMOCS is Non-ProfitTelecommunication Industry is heavily
representedQuarterly Operating Committee MeetingsQuarterly Board of Directors MeetingsCoalitions for Legislative SupportSuggest Changes for Greater Efficiencies/Cost
SavingsAttend MOCS Seminars, Meetings, and Events
TOOLS/RESOURCES AVAILABLE
MOCS Board of Directors & Operating Committee
MOCS Management TeamMOCS Website & NewslettersOnline Training ModuleOnline Ticket Database for Research/AuditingOn-site seminars/educationPublic relations and awarenessEducational Materials
REPORTS
Main Member Reports Page
Click on Caller Header Report
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 Date Range Specify District
Code
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
Click on Ticket Reports
Click on Relocate Report
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
Click on Ticket Search
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
Click on Ticket Transmission Report
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