By John Sheehy; President, NSRMCA
Postal suppliers who have been around for a few years know that the changes occurring around the Postal Service has definitely increased the number of service change requests. The stability the industry once enjoyed has been replaced by a much more fluid system. The suppliers and the Contracting offices have all struggled to keep pace with the direction of the USPS.
In any changing climate, adaptation is one of the hardest things to control and perfect. As participants in this process, everyone (suppliers and USPS) has had to relearn how to work together. Many of the processes have changed or have been adjusted. In many instances suppliers were not accustomed nor equipped to handle the multitude of changes being requested. Contracting offices were severely understaffed causing delays in negotiations, renewals and payments. To say the climate has been tense is probably understating the magnitude of the situation.
The association and the leaders of the USPS have challenged each other to work closer together. Decisions have been made to educate each other, understand the goals and challenges that need to be addressed. The environment that has been created over the last few years is a healthy cooperative one. The business partnerships that are developing will serve the industry well moving forward.
A discussion of changes cannot be fully developed unless an understanding for “what” and “how” is addressed. Most of the industry understands the common acronyms used. SCR for example means “Service Change Request”. Most are familiar with this term, but do we understand what it means. An SCR is a process wherein the Contracting Office notifies the supplier that a change in the service is requested. The change might include a schedule change, stop changes, addition or subtraction of work being done, equipment modifications etc. In this situation the contracting office and the supplier are required to come to a mutual agreement for the service and the future payments. (Dave Hendel has written and presented on this topic many times) What is important to understand is that this request has to come from the Contracting Office.
Unfortunately the Contracting Office does not make the changes that the supplier is being asked to do; that comes to them from operations or networks. There is confusion of who needs the changes, who orders them and who is ultimately responsible for changing the contract. This is what has caused the industry many of its heartaches recently.
Getting to the point, as suppliers we need to understand the process. Recently a new acronym was introduced that may help all of us understand how to deal with all the requests and how to insure they are being executed correctly; UCC (Unauthorized Contractual Commitment). There is a distinct difference in an SCR and a UCC and understanding the difference can make all the difference working together with your CO and local offices.
Many of the Suppliers work very closely with the local offices, which in most cases this a great thing and keeps the mail moving effectively. However, if a local office or someone from networks asked you to change the service you provide on your contract and it is not a temporary change (backed up by a 5397 form for exceptional service) then you are most likely in a UCC situation. The contracting office cannot deal with a UCC because in many cases they do not know the UCC exists, and the opportunity for a mutual agreement did not take place. The supplier now is at risk of not being paid for this additional work, and the USPS may not get the financial benefit of reduced work.
So what should the supplier do when this happens? The contracting officer is the only person that can change your contract. Understanding this will greatly improve your chances for a successful mutually agreed future contract and a continued good relationship with your local offices. If a supplier is asked to change the work being done going forward by someone other than their contracting officer, the supplier should inform the requester (in a businesslike respectful manner) “I am happy to provide the service as soon as I get permission from my contracting officer.” Then the supplier should contact the contracting officer preferably by email, noting the contract number in the subject line, outline the change that has been requested, estimate the potential cost differential caused by the change and the timing of the start of the service requested. This will provide you and the contracting officer a written trail of the transaction. The contracting office will respond to your email as soon as possible with a yes or a no. Only after the supplier gets the nod from the CO should they start the service. Once the service is started, the SCR should follow then negotiations for a mutually agreed change should take place. Of course negotiating the change before operations is the best and least risky scenario for both the supplier and USPS.
By Bob Keller, LoadTrek Software.
Read the entire article from Well Servicing Magazine here…
By Jim Griffin – Chief Technology Officer, Fleet Advantage
Transportation and fleet managers have wrestled for years with the cost versus benefit of incorporating telematics on their trucks. The term telematics derives from the combination of telecommunications and informatics and represents a variety of devices also known as onboard computer systems. Although telematics devices have been around for decades, the percentage of Class 8 tractors outfitted with them ranges between 27% and 40% — percentages that speak volumes about the perceived value of telematics.
Now that the electronic logging device, or ELD, mandate is being placed into law, fleet managers who have yet to incorporate telematics are being forced to make an important initial decision: Do I view the telematics mandate as a “necessary evil” and spend the least amount to meet compliance, or do I go “all in” and realize the value of the data that it provides?
Amid the overload of applications, hardware and services available in the everchanging telematics world, deciding on the range of system functionality and associated costs can be overwhelming. This can be especially true for fleet managers who have not yet immersed themselves in telematics research — and I can say with confidence that a lot of research must precede a decision. Pricing for hardware can range from free to several thousand dollars, while functionality can range from basic GPS tracking to a fully integrated, mobileasset management system. The new mandate will be a key factor in the decision of which system to choose. With options on vendors, applications, features and costs, where do you start?
First, you need to recognize that decision time has come, and you must take action to be compliant. Factors that must enter into this decision equation include hardware pricing of the newly available and enhanced data sets you will need and financing options. Thinking strategically about the data you need to manage your fleet’s performance, your drivers’ behavior and vehicle life cycle options ultimately will pay off in improved fuel economy, lower operating costs and improved driver retention. So a thorough and methodical due diligence approach is recommended.
So now what?
Now that you know that a decision is imminent, what do you do? If you are a fleet manager venturing into the telematics landscape for the first time, you need to understand that this is a journey for your organization, as the data and reporting options available to fleet managers can be as overwhelming as choosing the best service provider. It is an onerous task to simply digest the tidal wave of functionality and data that will be available. So you need to establish and prioritize your needs to understand the telematics value proposition.
Second, you need to choose a provider or partner that is there for the long haul, that has the ability to support your organization and your fleet well into the future. A shortsighted decision to simply meet the ELD mandate without understanding the “actionable data potential” for greatly reducing operating costs is illadvised. Since you must make the investment per the ELD mandate, the incremental costs to acquire systems and services that provide additional data and applications to modernize your fleet are minimal and the return on investment is substantial.
By attempting to minimize your initial step into telematics too much, you will find that, in the long run, you will have lost substantial operational savings and actually increased your costs by not having access to decisionmaking data that can assist in optimizing your fleet’s performance and safety. For example, at Fleet Advantage, we have found that by using the right data to monitor only fuel economy, a tractor’s performance can be increased by 5% to 12% on average and more in some cases. That can be thousands of dollars of savings per year for each tractor.
Is it more than just the technology?
The selection of your telematics product and partner goes beyond the technology. Let’s be clear, these systems are much more complicated than they get credit for. These systems are inherently challenging and, because no two fleets operate the same, there will be additional challenges. Your technology selections need to be determined by answering these important questions:
- Is the technology limited to meeting only my current needs to be compliant with the ELD mandate?
- Does the technology allow for easy access to reliable applications and reports that can provide actionable information for improving my fleet’s operating performance and safety?
- Does the technology provide a growth path to leverage the value of predictive and descriptive diagnostics? Many providers will tell you they are providing it today. However, this is an emerging area that no doubt is in its infancy and will continue to evolve. Don’t get left behind by choosing a limited technology partner.
- Does the provider have the resources, understanding and cultural climate to navigate this journey with your organization and be a true partner?
Although the thought of implementing the new ELD mandate and a telematics solution can appear to be overwhelming, the benefits of doing so will be well worth the investment of cost, time and effort.
Fleet Advantage is a leading innovator in truck fleet business analytics, equipment financing and life cycle cost management. For more information, visit www.FleetAdvantage.net
The United State Post Office is rolling out the Dynamic Routing Optimization (DRO) contracts in select cities in the US. The DRO contracts are cost-saving measures designed to minimize the total mileage and equipment requirements for the area-wide deliveries to postal facilities.
LoadTrek is currently involved with the DRO project in Dulles, VA, and through this project, we have refined our understanding of DRO contracts. In this post, we discuss our insights and important implementation details to consider in executing DRO contracts.
Read the entire article here……
Source: The Modern Maintenance Manager: Managing Today’s Technicians
Source: Todd Bryant
Trucking is undoubtedly one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. The past few years have been especially turbulent with the adoption of the 2012 highway bill, the cost increase of freight broker bonds and the controversial hours of service rule, among others.
This year is going to be no exception. Several important laws and regulations have been announced and are awaiting their implementation, affecting motor carriers and freight brokers alike. Let’s look at them in more detail to see what shape trucking industry trends will take in 2016.
#1. Тhe Unified Registration System Will be Implemented
Phase one of the roll-out of the URS already began late last year, and phase two is scheduled for September 30th. It will affect all motor carriers, freight brokers and other entities currently registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
The URS will do away with all registration numbers currently in use, such as the MC, MX and the FF, and replace them with the USDOT numbering system in one comprehensive database. This is predicted to save time and money for the industry, thanks to reduced paperwork and processing times. It will also make it easier for FMCSA to track down high-risk small and mid-sized carriers trying to evade enforcement action.
#2. New Safety Fitness Rule Proposed by the FMCSA
In January, FMCSA proposed a new rulemaking that aims to make it easier to evaluate safety fitness of motor carriers and identify non-compliance.
The proposed Safety Fitness Determination rule will introduce a new safety ranking “by integrating on-road safety data from inspections, along with the results of carrier investigations and crash reports, to determine a motor carrier’s overall safety fitness on a monthly basis.” The currently used model has three levels: satisfactory, conditional, unsatisfactory. The new rule will replace it in favor of an “unfit” score, meaning that a motor carrier would have to take immediate action and improve its rating or discontinue operation.
#3. Driver Coercion Mandate Has Just Begun
FMCSA has been working on a coercion mandate, which is finally taking effect this year. It aims to prevent fleet owners from harassing their drivers, but the rule also applies to freight brokers and shippers.
FMCSA defines driver coercion as an action occurring when motor carriers, shippers or freight brokers “take employment action against, or punish a driver for refusing to operate in violation of certain provisions” of regulatory authorities. Drivers are now able to file complaints with FMCSA within a 90-day period of when the coercion occurred.
#4. More Training Required for New Drivers
For much of the past two years, there has been talk of updating training requirements for entry-level drivers. At the end of last year, the proposal moved into the Office of Management and Budget for approval, which is the last step before it gets published in the Federal Register.
The new requirements are not yet publicly available but are expected to be published this year. The publication will be followed by the customary period for public comment. Some of the details known so far are that Class A drivers will be required a minimum of 30 hours behind the wheel, while Class B drivers will need 15. Many trucking groups, however, disagree with the minimum hours rule on the basis that there is no statistical evidence to back it up. In addition to that, the Entry Level Driver Training Advisory Committee has compiled a 10-page curriculum of performance-based requirements every new driver must fulfill.
#5. Speed Limiters Installed on Heavy Trucks
This is an issue FMCSA has been trying to tackle for several years, and progress has been slow. In the middle of last year, the administration postponed setting a deadline for implementation once again, but 2016 may be the year it finally happens.
The rule is simple: FMCSA wants carriers to install speed limiters on heavy trucks (defined as vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds or more) in an effort to reduce the number of fatal crashes. According to the administration, the measure will not prove be costly, as most of these trucks already have speed limiters installed but have not set limiting parameters.
#6. A CDL Testing Database to be Established
In the first half of 2016, we are expecting to see the publication of the final rule of the drug and alcohol testing clearinghouse, a requirement of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century highway funding act.
When implemented, the rule will establish a database of drivers who have refused to submit to or have failed a drug and alcohol test. Carriers will be required to query the database before hiring a new driver. They would also have to report all incidents in which one of their drivers was cited for driving under the influence.
