Decision Making for Outsourcing and Privatization of Vehicle and Equipment Fleet Maintenance (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

50 A P P E N D I X B Forms and Templates

Form 1. Summary of internal and external condition analysis. This form will be used to document the Process 1 analysis. The column headers shown are suggested and should be adapted to highlight relevant issues based on the overall objective of this outsourcing analysis. Legal and Policy Drivers Legal and Policy Constraints Multiple Vendors Available Vendors Are Capable Potential for Market Monopoly DOT's Past Experience With Vendors Determin- ation of Competing Market Conditions (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) Notes: (a)—District or region that is considered for outsourcing or where the identified facility is located (b)—Facility or garage considered for outsourcing analysis (c)—Equipment class from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (d)—Maintenance type from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (e)—Documentation of key operational considerations driving the outsourcing analysis for the identified candidates (f), (g)—Legislative and regulatory drivers or constraints to outsourcing (h)—Criticality of the outsourcing candidate to the agency's mission (i)—Initial determination on the availability of multiple vendors to provide maintenance and repair for the fleet and equipment (j)—Initial determination on the capability of the vendors to provide the maintenance and repair (k)—Evaluation of possibility of market monopoly as a result of outsourcing (l)—Assessment of DOT's experience with the vendors (if any) (m)—Initial determination of the strength of the external market condition (n)—Result of Process 1, determination to either conduct maintenance in-house or consider further analysis of outsourcing candidates District or Region 1.1—Internal Operating Conditions 1.2—Legal and Policy Drivers and Constraints Internal and External Condition Analysis 1.3—Mission Critical Facility or Garage Name Outsourcing Candidates Equipment Class Maintenance Type 1.4—Availability of Competitive Market (n) Process 1 Determin- ation

52 Form 2. Maintenance demand analysis. This form can be used to compute the demand for maintenance services for a facility. A separate analysis for each facility may be required. Equipment Class Maintenance Type Number of Assets Annual Maintenance Hours per Vehicle or Equipment Annual Maintenance Technician Hours (a ) ( b) (c) (d ) (e) Notes: (a)—Equipment class categories used in the outsourcing analysis (b)—Maintenance type categories used in the outsourcing analysis (c)—Number for assets by equipment class (d)—Annual maintenance hours per vehicle or equipment (e)—Annual maintenance technician hours computed by multiplying columns (d) and (e) (f)—Technician availability estimated by subtracting the vacation, time off, sick leave, training, breaks, etc., from annual pay hours (g)—FTEs required computed by dividing (e) by (f) Form 3. Technician availability. This form can be used to compute the net technician availability to perform maintenance services. Maintenance Technician Availability Hours Total paid hours Vacations Holidays Sick time Breaks Training and meetings Other .. .. Available man hours per technician Note: Available man hours per technician is computed by subtracting vacations, holidays, sick time, etc., from total paid hours. Form 4. Assessment of facility staffing levels. This form can be used to compare the estimated and available facility staffing levels. A separate analysis for each facility may be required. Title Estimated Actual Difference (a) (b) (c) (d) Notes: (a)—Maintenance shop position title (b)—FTEs by staff title estimated based on the demand analysis and shop practices in staffing (c)—Actual FTEs available in the shop by staff title (d)—Difference between (b) and (c) Technician Availability FTEs Required (f) (g )

53 Form 5. Staffing capability assessment . This form can be used to evaluate the capabilities of the maintenance facility staff. A separate assessment for each facility may be required. Equipment Class Maintenance Type Skill 1 Skill 2 Skill 3 Evaluation Result (a ) ( b) (c) (d ) (e) (f) Notes: (a)—Equipment class categories used in the outsourcing analysis (b)—Maintenance type categories used in the outsourcing analysis (c), (d), (e)—Column labels should be the required skills to provide the maintenance services. The cell contents should reflect the evaluation of the available skills against the needs. (f)—Result of the evaluation: “adequate” or “inadequate.” Form 6. Facility capability assessment . This form can be used to evaluate the adequacy and sufficiency of the available infrastructure in the facility. A separate assessment for each facility may be required. Notes: (a)—Key infrastructure items that are evaluated (b)—Evaluation of the facilities and equipment (c)—Result of the evaluation: “adequate” or “inadequate.” Facilities and Equipment Evaluation Evaluation Result (a ) ( b) (c) Bay s Lifts Storage A dd items as needed

Form 7. Summary of internal demand and capability analysis. This form can be used to summarize the results of Process 2 – Analyze Internal Demand and Capabilities. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Notes: (a)—District or region that is considered for outsourcing or where the identified facility is located (b)—Facility or garage considered for outsourcing analysis (c)—Equipment class from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (d)—Maintenance type from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (e)—Results from the analysis to determine whether the facility has adequate staffing levels to meet the demand (f)—Results from the assessment of staffing capabilities (Form 5) (g)—Results from the assessment of facility and equipment capability (h)—Determination of whether it is feasible to adjust capability to meet demand (i)—Result of Process 2, determination of whether the candidates have an insource or outsource inclination Outsourcing Candidates District/Region Facility or Garage Name Equipment Class Maintenance Type Assessment of Optimal Staffing Levels (f) (g) (h) (i) Feasibility of Adjusting Capability to Meet Demand Process 2 ResultAssessment of Staffing Capabilities Assessment of Facility and Equipment Capabilities Internal Demand and Capability Assessment

55 Form 8. Data collected from external service providers. This form can be used to collect relevant data on external service providers. The column labels shown are illustrative only. Contact Information Services Offered Location Certified Technicians Vendor Name Data Collected from Vendors Add columns as needed Form 9. Cost comparison. This form can be used to compare the cost of insourcing and outsourcing and arrive at a recom A separate cost comparison analysis may be required for each outsourcing candidate. In-House Cost s Cost ($ ) Outsourcing Costs Direct labor costs Contractor cost Indirect costs Contract administration Overhead Procuremen t Facilities and equipment Contract management Utilities Payables managemen t Other overhead expenses Quality managemen t Other direct costs Other contract administration costs Fuel and lubricants Dislocation cost Parts Personnel expenses Other materials and supplies Termination of existing leases Other expenses Other costs Total in-house costs Total outsourcing cost s Cost Compariso n A bsolute differenc e = Percent differenc e = Ratio = (in-house cost/outsourced costs ) Cost Comparison Decisio n Determinatio n = cost favors insourcing or outsourcin g Recommendatio n = Insource or outsource mendation. Cost ($ )

Form 10. Summary of Process 4 results – cost and performance analysis. This form can be used to summarize the analysis of the cost and performance. (a ) ( b) (c) (d) (e ) Notes: (a)—District or region that is considered for outsourcing or where the identified facility is located (b)—Facility or garage considered for outsourcing analysis (c)—Equipment class from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (d)—Maintenance type from the facility and/or region that are considered for outsourcing analysis (e)—Determination of whether insourcing options are satisfactory. The results can be “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable.” (f)—Determination of whether outsourcing options are satisfactory. The results can be “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable.” (g), (h)—Result of cost comparison analysis. The results can be “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable.” (i)—The strategic choice for the agency is recorded here only in select cases when cost-quality trade-off analysis is required. (j)—Considering the results of cost and performance analysis, a recommendation to insource or outsource is recorded. Outsourcing Candidates District/Region Facility or Garage Name Equipment Class Maintenance Type Satisfactory Insourcing Options (f) (g ) ( h) (i) (j) Process 4—Recom- mendation Satisfactory Outsourcing Options Cost Favors Insourcing Cost Favors Outsourcing Cost–Quality Trade-Off Analysis Result Cost and Performance Analysis

Form 11. Comprehensive summary of outsourcing analysis results by facility . This form can be used to summarize the results of the entire outsourcing analysis. This exhibit provides the summary by facility. Fleet/equipment size Average age Utilization PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair Mission critical Vendor availability External market condition Analyze demand and capabilities Capability-demand analysis In-house cost External cost Service satisfaction and quality RECOMMENDATION Fleet/equipment size Average age Utilization PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-road Repair Mission critical Vendor availability External market condition Analyze demand and capabilities Capability-demand analysis In-house cost External cost Service satisfaction and quality RECOMMENDATION Maintenance Type Critical internal and external factors Cost and performance Medium Dut y Maintenance Type Critical internal and external factors Cost and performance Small Engine FACILITY NAME: FACILITY NAME: PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab Specialized Attachment Heavy Dut y Light Dut y On-Road Repair On-Road Repair

Form 12A. Aggregation of results by facility. This form can be used to summarize the results of the outsourcing analysis by facility . PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 Facility 5 PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 Facility 5 Form 12B. Aggregation of results by region. This form can be used to summarize the results of the outsourcing analysis by region. all facilities within the region. PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Region Small Engine A Region Medium Duty Small Engine A Facility Facility Medium Duty Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 The cell values are either insource or outsource. Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair This is generated by aggregating the results of the outsourcing analysis from Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair PM Minor Major Overhaul & Rehab On-Road Repair ttachments Light Duty Heavy Duty Specialized ttachments Light Duty Heavy Duty Specialized