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

2. 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. 3 Move Management in the Federal Government

4. 4 CONTRACTS ContractGeographical location Parties DomesticCanada and USIDC InternationalOverseasDND

5. 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. 6 Peak Period 20032004 21 June – 21 July 35344161 627 additional moves in peak period

7. 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. 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. 9 International Moves 500 - 550 Moves per year DND only 1 Service Provider

10. 10 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

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

12. 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

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

14. 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. 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. 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. 17 Furniture and Effects Automated Management System FEAMS

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

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

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

21. 21 FEAMS Modules FEAMS V 1.1: –Long Term Storage FEAMS V 2 –All other F&E business processes: Domestic Cross border International

22. 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. 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. 24 ALTERNATIVE TO SCALING

25. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29 ATS Observations April – September 2004 –Good Points: Inventories had improved (neater manual additions) Some contractors doing electronic estimates

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

31. 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. 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. 33 Value Index Carrier Compliance Customer Satisfaction Claims Satisfaction

34. 34 Carrier Compliance

35. 35 QCI Results Time1 Apr 03 to 31 Mar 04 1 Apr 04 to 15 Nov 04 QCI55635827 Satisfactory48225212 Unsatisfactory741615

36. 36 QCI Results 2002-032003-042004-05 (to date) Satisfaction Rate 87.1%86.7%89.4%

37. 37 Service Shortfalls 2003-042004-05 (to date) Total Service Shortfalls 480 Packing152186

38. 38 Liquidated Damages 2003-042004-05 (to date) Total LD333261 Late delivery87 132 Late pick up2624 Scaling7653 Although few penalties were given, there was no improvement in L12 – clear inventory.

39. 39 Customer Satisfaction

40. 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. 41 GESS Average satisfaction score (scale of 1-5): Overall Pre-move briefing Packing Loading Unloading Unpacking Destination assistance 3.76 3.863.81 3.94 4.024.04 3.82 3.903.80 4.03 4.134.07 3.88 3.963.83 3.46 3.613.54 3.61 3.773.63

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

43. 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 3.253.16 3.08 3.193.18 3.47 3.733.69 3.29 3.553.22 3.57 3.453.51

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

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

46. 46 QUESTIONS