VAM Report - Appendices

Document Sample
VAM Report - Appendices Powered By Docstoc
					Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Appendices to Vehicle Allocation Study

   Research and Evaluation of Business Processes for the Caltrans Division of Equipment",
   Interagency Agreement Number IA-65A0210, Task Order 06-23.
   Table of Contents
   Quick Start _________________________________________________________________________ 1
       Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
       Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 1
            Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
            Strategy............................................................................................................................................ 2
            Communications Piece .................................................................................................................... 3
       Vehicle Allocation ................................................................................................................................... 4
            What is a Vehicle Allocation Model?................................................................................................ 4
            For example ..................................................................................................................................... 5
            Example of a Simple Vehicle Allocation Model: Move People Around............................................ 5
            But things get more complex for tasks unique to the agency.... ...................................................... 6
            Frequently Asked Questions............................................................................................................ 7
   Industry Best Practices _______________________________________________________________ 9
       Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9
       Best Practice Approach ........................................................................................................................ 11
            Policy.............................................................................................................................................. 12
            Organizational Considerations....................................................................................................... 12
            Financial Practices ......................................................................................................................... 14
            Fleet Replacement Program .......................................................................................................... 14
            Information Management ............................................................................................................... 22
            Fleet Size Study Approach ............................................................................................................ 23
            On-going Management of Fleet Size ............................................................................................. 30
   Other States Best Practices___________________________________________________________ 33
       Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 33
       State Fleet Management Overview ...................................................................................................... 33
       Reduction of Fleet Size Through Forced and Effective Planning, Use of Fleet Technology,
       Creativity, and Innovation ..................................................................................................................... 35
       Customer Service Accountability, Integrity, Communication, and Reporting Interface........................ 39
       Establishing Utilization Standards ........................................................................................................ 42
       Miscellaneous Trends........................................................................................................................... 43
   Federal Fleet Management ___________________________________________________________ 44
       Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 44
       GSA Bulletin FMR B-9 Requiring Creation of a "Vehicle Allocation Methodology".............................. 45
       Excerpt from the "Guide to Federal Fleet Management"...................................................................... 49
       Structure of Agency VAM Programs..................................................................................................... 51
       Federal Fleet Management Appendices .............................................................................................. 54
            Attachment to Bulletin FMR B-9..................................................................................................... 54
            Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 41CFR101-39.3.01............................................................... 55
   California Requirements _____________________________________________________________ 57



                                                                                                           Appendices to Vehicle Allocation Study — i
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 57
       Current Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 57
            4106 Passenger Mobile Equipment Usage Report........................................................................ 58
            4107 Travel Logs ........................................................................................................................... 58
            4109 Home Storage ....................................................................................................................... 58
            4114 Annual Inventory of Mobile Equipment ................................................................................. 58
            Management Memo 06-05............................................................................................................. 59
       California Requirements Appendices ................................................................................................... 60
       Management Memo 05-08 — Requirements for the New Acquisition or Replacement of Motor
       Vehicles and General Use Mobile Equipment...................................................................................... 60
            Management Memo 06-06 — State Vehicle Utilization Standards................................................ 66
            State Fleet Asset Management Plan Template ............................................................................. 69
            Passenger Vehicle Usage Report.................................................................................................. 70
            OFA Forms Overview..................................................................................................................... 71
            Management Memo 06-07 — Revised Vehicle Acquisition Request Form OFA 160 ................... 72
            OFA 160 — Vehicle Acquisition Request Form, November 2005 ................................................. 74
            OFA STD-273 — Monthly Travel Log ............................................................................................ 76
            Public Resources Code 24722.5 - Reporting Form - February 2006 ............................................ 77
   California Draft Memo _______________________________________________________________ 81
       Outline of VAM Fleet Size Management Program ............................................................................... 81
       Draft ...................................................................................................................................................... 85
   Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size ______________________________________ 93
       Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 93
       AVL SYSTEMS..................................................................................................................................... 95
            Types of AVL Systems................................................................................................................... 96
            Passive System (Stored Data)....................................................................................................... 97
            Active Systems (Real-Time) .......................................................................................................... 97
            Hybrid Systems (Combined) .......................................................................................................... 98
            L-E-O Satellite System................................................................................................................... 98
            Equipping a Business for GPS....................................................................................................... 98
            Managing Fleet Size with an AVL System ..................................................................................... 99
       RFID Technology................................................................................................................................ 100
            Areas of Application for RFID ...................................................................................................... 100
            Types of RFID Systems ............................................................................................................... 101
            Frequency Ranges ..................................................................................................................... 102
            Equipping a Business for RFID.................................................................................................... 102
            Managing Fleet Size with a RFID System ................................................................................... 103
       Fuel Management Technology ........................................................................................................... 103
            Types of Access Control .............................................................................................................. 103
            Smart Key & Magnetic Stripe Card Technology .......................................................................... 103
            Equipping a Business for Smart Key & Magnetic Stripe Card Technology ................................. 104
            Passive Systems.......................................................................................................................... 105
            Managing Fleet Size with a Fuel Management System............................................................... 106
       Pricing................................................................................................................................................. 106
            AVL Pricing .................................................................................................................................. 107
            Passive Systems ........................................................................................................................ 107
            Active Systems........................................................................................................................... 107
            Hybrid Systems .......................................................................................................................... 107



                                                                                                           Appendices to Vehicle Allocation Study — ii
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



           RFID Pricing................................................................................................................................. 107
           Passive Systems ........................................................................................................................ 107
           Active Systems........................................................................................................................... 107
           Fuel Management Pricing ............................................................................................................ 108
           Smart Key and Magnetic Stripe Card Systems....................................................................... 108
           T-Ring Systems .......................................................................................................................... 108
       References ......................................................................................................................................... 108
   Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes__________________________________________ 110
       Overview of Meeting........................................................................................................................... 110
       Agenda — Issues and Concepts ........................................................................................................ 111
       Welcome and Overview...................................................................................................................... 112
       Presentations...................................................................................................................................... 113
           National Trends............................................................................................................................ 113
           Best Practices: Federal Government ........................................................................................... 114
           Best Practices: Minnesota and Other States ............................................................................... 115
       Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 115
           Technical Overview of Data Collection ........................................................................................ 115
           Qualcomm Presentation............................................................................................................... 117
           Econolite Presentation ................................................................................................................. 118
           TransCore Presentation ............................................................................................................... 118
           SmartDrive Presentation .............................................................................................................. 119
           Vendor Quick Compare................................................................................................................ 119
       Round Table Discussions................................................................................................................... 120
           Data Comments ........................................................................................................................... 120
           Fleet Management Comments..................................................................................................... 121
           Closing Comments....................................................................................................................... 123
   Vehicle Allocation Survey Results _____________________________________________________ 124
           Please provide us some basic information about you and your fleet. ......................................... 124
           What does your Fleet Management Group do?........................................................................... 127
           What are your usage standards?................................................................................................. 128
           In general, what factors are used to justify requests for vehicles that do not meet usage
           standards? ................................................................................................................................... 131
           After user groups make requests, how are actual allocations made? (check all that apply)....... 134
           How do you collect usage data? .................................................................................................. 136
           If you collect usage data electronically, how do you do it? (check all that apply)........................ 137
           Who reports fleet inventory and utilization to outside agencies? (check all that apply) .............. 138
           Please describe your reporting system........................................................................................ 139
           What are your most pressing current issues? — What "lessons learned" can you share? —
           Do you have any general comments? ......................................................................................... 145
   Caltrans — Selected Findings ________________________________________________________ 149
       Caltrans Tracking of Vehicles............................................................................................................. 149
           Caltrans Maintenance Vehicle Classifications ............................................................................. 149
           Major Organizational Groupings .................................................................................................. 149
           Now You Can Count .................................................................................................................... 150
       Caltrans Construction Division ........................................................................................................... 154
           Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 154
           Project Management Work .......................................................................................................... 154
           Project Management Personnel................................................................................................... 155



                                                                                                      Appendices to Vehicle Allocation Study — iii
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



           Vehicle Allocation Model .............................................................................................................. 156
           Next Steps.................................................................................................................................... 160
       Caltrans Maintenance Division ........................................................................................................... 161
           Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 161
           Families of Tasks ......................................................................................................................... 161
           One Kind of Vehicle / One Kind of Task ...................................................................................... 165
           Vehicle Allocation Model and Next Steps .................................................................................... 166
       Caltrans Annual Replacement Plan.................................................................................................... 167
       Appendices to Caltrans Selected Findings......................................................................................... 169
           Vehicle Classifications ................................................................................................................. 169
           Caltrans Division of Equipment Organization .............................................................................. 169
   Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices __________________________________ 173
       Overview of Departments ................................................................................................................... 173
           California Highway Patrol............................................................................................................. 173
           Department of Forestry and Fire Protection................................................................................. 174
           Department of Corrections........................................................................................................... 175
       Current Practices Related to Fleet Size Management ....................................................................... 176
           California Highway Patrol............................................................................................................. 176
           Department of Forestry and Fire Protection................................................................................. 176
           Department of Corrections........................................................................................................... 177
       Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 177
   Selected Conference Notes__________________________________________________________ 179
       ITS America Annual Meeting — Vehicle Infrastructure Integration.................................................... 179
           Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 179
           Background: World View.............................................................................................................. 179
           GoCalifornia Forum...................................................................................................................... 181
           More on VII................................................................................................................................... 182
           Exhibitors ..................................................................................................................................... 183
       AASHTO-TRB Maintenance Management Conference — Fleet Management / Outsourcing........... 185
           In Brief .......................................................................................................................................... 185
           Outsourcing Maintenance Activities............................................................................................. 185
           Vehicle Allocation and Utilization ................................................................................................. 187
           Other ............................................................................................................................................ 189
   Selected Meeting Notes_____________________________________________________________ 190
       Fleet Utilization Workshop — Department of General Services ........................................................ 190
       E.J. Ward Fuel System — Phone Interview with Alan Mills ............................................................... 191
       E.J. Ward Fuel System — Interviews at Homeland Security ............................................................. 192
       Voyager Fuel Card System — Interview with Alan Mills .................................................................... 193
       Voyager Fuel Card System — Interviews with Division of Equipment Staff....................................... 193
       Fleet Anywhere (aka Fleet Focus) — Interviews with Division of Equipment Staff............................ 195
       Fleet Anywhere — Screen Shots ....................................................................................................... 196
           Onramp ........................................................................................................................................ 196
           FleetFocus (FleetAnywhere) Web Interface ................................................................................ 201
       Federal and State Best Practices — Informal Notes from Two Meetings .......................................... 222
       Caltrans Maintenance Division — Interview Notes ............................................................................ 224




                                                                                                        Appendices to Vehicle Allocation Study — iv
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Quick Start

   This document was prepared for the Vehicle Allocation Colloquium.


   Issues


   •   What is the best way to collect usage data? — Each month, for every vehicle, we want to
       know days, miles, and hours used and where that data was collected.
   •   What is the best way to allocate vehicles? — We want to allocate every vehicle per metrics,
       standards, business cases, and best practice guidelines in a way that is visible and agreed
       upon by all stakeholders.


   Data Collection


   You cannot manage what you don't measure.

   Background

   Each month, for every vehicle, we want to know days, miles, and hours used and where that
   data was collected.
   At present, in California, mileage data is primarily collected from the following sources.
   •   Gas cards — When users refuel at commercial stations, they use a Voyager Credit Card
       and enter their mileage at a keypad on the pump. This accuracy of this data is inconsistent.
       Upgrading the Voyager system to collect usage data electronically would require
       modifications to virtually every gas station in the State of California. This is not practical.
   •   Maintenance shops — When vehicles are serviced, shop mechanics enter mileage and/or
       hourly usage data on work orders. This data is generally accurate, but it is manually
       collected at infrequent intervals.
   •   Bulk fuel stations — An automated data acquisition system has been implemented at many
       Caltrans bulk fuel sites. The performance of this system is disappointing. Completing
       installation of systems to collect usage data at bulk fuel stations would primarily affect a
       small portion of the State fleet: some CHP vehicles and most Caltrans heavy equipment.
       This is not adequate.
   •   Shop reports — At time of maintenance, usage data is entered manually on shop work
       orders. This data is not entered monthly, and the manual records would require a significant
       level of work effort to enter into an electronic system. Also, much of the light fleet
       maintenance is outsourced.




                                                                                                Quick Start — 1
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Maintenance project reports — Only one Caltrans division creates daily work logs. The
       primary purpose of these logs is to track work effort and does not include data about moving
       people around.
   We recognize that Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) will be implemented in the US over the
   next ten years. But we can't wait. So, we are willing to consider a stove-pipe solution tailored to
   our immediate needs.
   We recognize that all computer and communication technologies are obsolete in five years. Still,
   since vehicles are often kept for 10 years or more, we hope to find a solution based on open
   standards in which components can be replaced over time without incompatibility issues
   overwhelming the system.

   Strategy

   In conceptual terms, an automated strategy to collecting mileage and hourly data on each
   vehicle might involve the following elements.
                      Item              Description
   VEHICLE            Port              An access point built into all cars and most trucks and heavy
                                        equipment. On cars, this port is called an ODB-II port. Heavy
                                        equipment have either a J1708 or J1939 port. Each vehicle
                                        knows its own mileage and hours of use and can
                                        communicate this information through its access port.
                      Reader            A device that connects to a data port on a vehicle. It reads
                                        and stores current mileage and engine hours and makes this
                                        information available upon demand.
                      Communicat        A device that sends data to a collection point. An RFID tag or
                      or                WiFi device waits passively until it is pinged by a collector. A
                                        cellular phone device actively wakes up at periodic intervals
                                        and sends its data to a telephone network.
   WIRELESS           Frequency         The communications frequency depends upon the solution,
   CONNECTION                           such as cellular phone, radio frequency, WiFi, or DSRC.
   STATIONARY         Data              The nature of this device varies by communication
   COLLECTOR          Collector         technology.
                                        A cellular phone solution would use a phone network, but
                                        would require (prohibitive?) monthly fees for each vehicle.
                                        Other solutions would require "by-the-post" data collection
                                        stations, enough so that every car would pass by a station at
                                        least once a month.
   INTERNET           TC/IP             Once collected, data is immediately sent to a central database
   CONNECTION                           using a conventional internet connection.
   CENTRAL            Computer          A site that reads data and inserts it into a data warehouse.
   DATABASE           and software




                                                                                               Quick Start — 2
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   WEB SITE            Software         A public or private web site that fetches data and displays it in
                                        standard report formats.

   Communications Piece

   We think that communications might be handled by any of the following technologies. Costs are
   based upon conversations at ITS America 2006.

     WIRELESS CONNECTION                VEHICLE — Reader and            STATIONARY COLLECTOR
                                        Communicator

     Radio frequency                    $1200 per vehicle               $3000 each, 2 per station
     For example: Motorola 2.4          Allows any length data. Each    Mesh architecture usually
     GHz.                               vehicle gets a custom device    requires multiple units per
                                        with a radio card.              station.

     Passive transponder tag            $20 tag + $70-200 (?) reader    $10,000 each, one per station
                                        per vehicle.
     Like FastTrak.                                                     System integrators and
                                        64 bytes of data.               canned software are available.

     Active transponder                 $1000 per vehicle plus          $10,000 per station
                                        mandatory license fee
     For example: Mark IV, 5.9                                          This is taking a chance on the
     GHz (DSRC)                         Any length data.                future. No solutions now exist.

     WiFi                               $300 per vehicle (?) -- a       $1000 per station
                                        PDA-like device.
                                                                        A stripped down Linux laptop.
                                        Any length data. WiFi card
                                        built into data collector.

     Cellular                           Equipment costs are unclear. This is the only technology with
                                        monthly usage charges other than the internet costs, and
                                        those charges are substantial. Cellular is currently the
                                        dominant technology in US and Europe, although Europe is
                                        doing a restart because of excessive costs.




                                                                                               Quick Start — 3
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Vehicle Allocation


   Either there is trust, accountability, and transparency or each allocation involves a long and
   drawn out process.

   What is a Vehicle Allocation Model?

   A Vehicle Allocation Model is an asset management tool that associates vehicles with the tasks
   they perform in a way that is useful for allocating and monitoring fleet assets in a practical and
   cost effective manner. For each task, a Vehicle Allocation Model defines appropriate metrics
   and standards based upon best practices, and then collects data that enable business-case,
   asset-management decisions to be made in a way that is understandable and visible to all
   stakeholders.
   There are several key concepts in this definition of a Vehicle Allocation Model. The primary
   concept is a first focus on tasks: the assets needed to perform a task and the value to the
   organization of the task. Another concept is data, for you cannot manage what you do not
   measure. Another key concept is stakeholders, for decisions not made without transparency of
   process and outcome can foster mistrust. A related concept concerns the way many agencies
   are organized: in a matrix organization, trust and cooperation among workgroups are the only
   practical and persistent way to accomplish anything. Another concept is best practices, for an
   open process allows benchmarking. A final concept is a business-case analysis of tasks which
   assesses all factors involved in a formal manner. When these concepts are taken together, the
   result can be an encouragement of innovative practices and technology and a more effective
   use of assets.
   By contrast, a first focus on vehicles can lead to distortions in logic. For example, a vehicle with
   heavy usage may be actually supporting a low value task, or a low-usage vehicle may be
   supporting a high value task that may in fact need additional capitalization. Classic examples
   involve pot-hole filling and snow removal. Both of these tasks tend to be supported by low
   usage vehicles. In the case of pot-hole filling, the task is typically under-capitalized and would
   benefit from, say, using a high-cost specialty vehicle with a single operator rather than using a
   large crew brought to sites with a pickup. In the case of snow removal, under-utilization of a
   snow plow can actually be a good thing when the cause is a warm winter, and, in any case,
   under-utilization is inevitable during summer months. In these classic examples, vehicles that
   are under-utilized at first glance actually support high-value tasks that are essential to
   performing agency missions. Identifying the true situation requires a business-case analysis that
   recognizes all factors involved.
   In a broad context, the FHWA defines asset management as a "strategic approach to the
   optimal allocation of resources for the management, operation and expansion of transportation
   infrastructure." In a fleet context, a Vehicle Allocation Model focuses on capital costs, because
   depreciation represents, by far, the largest cost of managing a fleet. In computing fleet capital
   costs, life-cycle costs are often included along with depreciation, because maintenance and
   down-time costs are, in many cases, also significant.




                                                                                             Quick Start — 4
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   For a particular agency, a Vehicle Allocation Model first identifies meaningful geographic and
   functional organizational groupings, then lists the broad activities and specific tasks of each of
   these groupings, and then lists vehicles, metrics, and best-practice standards appropriate for
   each task. To implement a Vehicle Allocation Model, data is collected for the metrics and
   decisions are made per the standards.

   For example

   Some vehicles and tasks are so similar that the metrics and standards cut across virtually all
   organizational groupings. For example, the task of "moving people around" is common to
   virtually all organizational groupings, as are the vehicles such as cars, pickups, and vans used
   to perform the task. In this example, the metrics are usually miles and hours of use, the best
   practice standards can be expressed in terms such as "6,000 miles in a six month period and
   usage during 80% of business days," and the management data you want is actual miles and
   days of use for each vehicle used for this task.

   Example of a Simple Vehicle Allocation Model: Move People Around

   So, a simple Vehicle Allocation Model for the task of moving people around might look like the
   following.
   Agency Name

   Functio      Area     Group     Task       Vehicle types                  Metrics and standards
   n

   ALL          ALL      ALL       Move       Bus, 32 Passenger              Miles — 6000 miles each
                                   people     Sedan, Compact                 six months
                                   around     Sedan, Subcompact,
                                              Electric                       Days — 80% of business
                                              Station Wagon, Compact         days
                                              SUV, Small Size, 4x2, Gas
                                              SUV, Mid-Size, 4x2, Gas        Years — 10 years
                                              SUV, Full Size, 4x2, Gas       Life cycle costs —
                                              SUV, Full Size, 4x2, Diesel    Approved vendor list
                                              SUV, Small Size, 4x4, Gas      based upon
                                              SUV, Mid-Size, 4x4, Gas        maintenance records
                                              SUV, Full Size, 4x4, Gas
                                              SUV, Full Size, 4x4, Diesel    Exceptions — Business
                                              Van, Mini, Commuter,           case by vehicle
                                              7-Passenger, CNG
                                              Van, Mini, Gas                 Alternate Fuel — 75% of
                                              Van, Full Size, CNG            non-safety fleet
                                              Van, Full Size, Gas
                                              Van, Mini, 4x4, Gas

   And a management report might look like this:
   Period — Last 6 months




                                                                                             Quick Start — 5
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Functio      Area       Group        Task      Veh     Veh        Year   Miles   % of      Days      % of
   n                                              ID      Type                      Std                 Std
   Admin        Nor Cal    Account      Move      24072   Van,       2000   7400    123%      82        103%
                           ing          people            Full
                                        around            Size,
                                                          CNG
                                                  26901   Sedan,     2003   4100    68%       58        73%
                                                          Compac
                                                          t
                                                  28514   Sedan,     2002   8500    142%      96        120%
                                                          Compac
                                                          t
                           Purchas      Move      ...     ...        ...    ...     ...       ...       ...
                           ing          people
                                        around
                So Cal     Account      Move
                           ing          people
                                        around
                           Purchas      Move
                           ing          people
                                        around



   But things get more complex for tasks unique to the agency....

   Caltrans
   Function         Area        Group            Task              Vehicle types          Metrics and
                                                                                          standards
   Administratio
   n
   Engineering
   Managemen
   t
   Transportati
   on Planning
   Project
   Developmen
   t
   Engineering
   Services
   Traffic
   Managemen
   t




                                                                                            Quick Start — 6
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Right of Way
   Construction
   Maintenance      District 1   ...         ...
                                 Roadway     ...
                                             Clear basins and    Catch Basin and         1000 hours
                                             sewers              Sewer Line Cleaner      20% of working
                                                                                         days
                                                                 Vacuum Debris           1500 hours
                                                                 Vehicle                 35% of working
                                                                                         days


                                             Weed
                                             abatement
                                             ...
                                 ...         ...
                    District 2
                    District 3
                    District 4
                    District 5
                    District 6
                    District 7
                    District 8
                    District 9
                    District
                    10
                    District
                    11
                    District
                    12

   Frequently Asked Questions

   What is the best way to classify vehicles? Begin with defined agency tasks or by weight?
   Mostly it does not matter how you classify vehicles so long as the list includes all vehicles used
   by all agencies involved. The Caltrans classifications are inclusive of most vehicles, although it
   does not include specialty vehicles used by other agencies, such as, for example, CHP patrol
   cars. The NAFA (National Association of Fleet Administrators) list is more comprehensive and is
   in wide general use.




                                                                                           Quick Start — 7
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   How can innovation be encouraged, as, say, when one heavier vehicle of a different class can
   replace numerous other vehicles? Right-sizing means getting the right mix of vehicles as well as
   increasing average usage.
   A first focus on tasks and business case analysis of each task encourages innovation in
   methods and asset utilization.
   What about Value Based Purchasing?
   Value purchasing based upon life cycle costs and suitability to task is needed. Potential savings
   are huge. Legislation or regulations clarifying value purchasing procedures seem to be needed.
   Can mandates be included in a Vehicle Allocation Model? For example, the mandate the that
   75% of a non-safety fleet be alternate-fuel equipped.
   External mandates do not easily fit into a Vehicle Allocation Model that focus first on tasks.
   However, because of the data collection requirements to make such a model work, progress
   towards meeting a mandate can be more easily monitored.
   How can data -- and vehicles themselves -- be shared?
   The Department of General Services is working on a Data Warehouse for all vehicles. Such a
   data warehouse will play an important and valuable role in monitoring fleet usage and
   encouraging sharing of vehicles.




                                                                                           Quick Start — 8
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Industry Best Practices

   Source: Mercury Associates
   March 6, 2006
   The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the best practices used in the fleet
   industry for managing fleet size. This information is intended to be incorporated into a larger
   report on development of a Vehicle Allocation Model (VAM) for Caltrans rather than as a stand
   alone document. As such, limited analysis and no recommendations are presented at this time
   since conclusions may change as the study team learns more about current Caltrans
   operations, practices, and data sources.


   Introduction


   The primary factors driving fleet related costs for any organization are the size and composition
   of the fleet. The more vehicles an organization owns, the higher the annual cost to that
   organization, because for each fleet asset there are costs associated with ownership and
   operation.
   Even under-utilized vehicles consume fuel and maintenance resources each year. More
   importantly, these units also depreciate and lose value each and every day even if they are
   older and are fully amortized (i.e. paid for). Time and effort are also required to maintain
   appropriate licenses, tags, fleet inventory records, insurance, fuel cards, etc. The units may also
   take up valuable space at maintenance yards, parking lots and garages.
   As indicated in the following chart, depreciation is the top fleet related expense representing
   over half of annual costs for the typical organization. Therefore, any serious effort to lower total
   fleet costs needs to start with an analysis of opportunities to reduce the size of the fleet.




                                                                                    Industry Best Practices — 9
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Source: National Association of Fleet Administrators
   Despite the obvious benefits, most organizations do not actively manage the size and
   composition of their fleets. The reasons for this are varied and are discussed in more detail later
   in this memorandum. A common problem in the industry is a phenomenon known as "fleet
   creep", which describes a situation where both the overall size of the fleet - and the
   size/expense of the units within the fleet - slowly but surely grows over time.
   A comprehensive and well designed fleet size management program is required to counter fleet
   creep. In this project we refer to such a program as a Vehicle Allocation Model (VAM). The
   purpose of a VAM is to provide an organization with standard decision-making criteria and data
   to identify its core fleet needs and the optimal allocation of vehicles in the fleet. More precisely,
   it is a tool for establishing and controlling fleet size and composition - often popularly termed
   "right-sizing." Implementation of a VAM enables an organization to acquire the appropriate
   number and types of vehicles according to a clearly defined set of policies and procedures.
   This does not mean that an organization has to own all of the units necessary to conduct its
   business. It simply has to have access to the equipment when it is needed, for the duration that
   it is needed, and at a reasonable cost. This can be accomplished any number of ways such as
   buying a unit and permanently assigning it to a particular division; buying a unit and assigning it
   to a motor pool for shared use; renting a unit on an as-needed basis; or reimbursing employees
   for using their personal vehicle. A cost effective fleet size management plan usually consists of
   a combination of all of these methods.
   Those organizations that do manage the size of their fleet more often than not were spurred to
   do so in response to legislative action by elected decision-makers. This type of "top down"
   approach normally establishes arbitrary mileage thresholds that must be met in order to justify
   permanent assignment of a vehicle. In our experience, such programs are not effective and
   often are counter-productive.



                                                                                   Industry Best Practices — 10
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Arbitrary usage thresholds are not effective because they fail to take into consideration the
   significant differences that exist in vehicle missions and the usage patterns that result from
   these differences. This approach also inappropriately applies the same mileage thresholds to all
   agencies within an organization. It is obviously invalid to expect a vehicle assigned to an
   organization that operates within a closely defined area (such as a university campus or water
   treatment plant) to meet the same level of use as a vehicle that travels state-wide.
   There are two basic limitations of this arbitrary approach to managing fleet utilization. One is
   that it forces fleet managers into the role of "car czar" requiring them to approve vehicle
   purchases and demand return of units that fail to meet annual use thresholds. This approach
   inappropriately vests decision-making authority in fleet managers who usually lack the intimate
   knowledge of user agencies’ operations and work methods needed to make sound vehicle
   acquisition and usage decisions. The other limitation is that this approach creates, due to this
   lack of operational knowledge, adversarial relationships between fleet managers and fleet
   users.
   Fortunately, there are many strategies that organizations can employ to effectively improve fleet
   utilization. One of the keys to their success, however, is close collaboration between fleet users
   – who are best equipped to define how vehicles and equipment enable them to fulfill their
   missions – and fleet managers – who have technical expertise and access to jurisdiction-wide
   fleet data that individual user agencies lack. The other is using economic incentives to motivate
   fleet users to make sound vehicle acquisition and utilization decisions out of enlightened self
   interest.


   Best Practice Approach


   A VAM based on industry best practices has the following components:
   1. A policy that clearly sets forth the organization’s fleet size management principles;
   2. An organizational approach that fosters cooperation among fleet program stakeholders;
   3. Financial practices for fleet operations that raises awareness among fleet users of the fixed
      and variable costs associated with fleet ownership;
   4. An effective fleet replacement program;
   5. An information management approach that provides for the efficient collection, analysis, and
      distribution of fleet utilization data;
   6. A baseline authorized allocation of vehicles for each organizational unit established through
      a detailed study of fleet size requirements that considers mission activities, staffing, vehicle
      use, and the feasibility of employing other transportation alternatives;
   7. A procedure for demonstrating the need for acquiring new vehicles (whether they are
      replacement units or additions to the fleet).
   Each of these elements of a VAM is discussed briefly below.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 11
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Policy

   Securing upper management and fleet user support for a VAM policy is a crucial element of
   success for a fleet size management program. The policy should clearly communicate the need
   to use taxpayer funds wisely, acknowledge the essential role that vehicles and equipment play
   in achieving the organization’s mission, and outline management expectations for employees.
   Following is a policy statement adopted by the U.S. Department of General Services (GSA) as
   part of a VAM study that was completed last year:
       The most efficient and economical means of transportation will be used when the transport
       of people and/or materials, tools, etc., is essential to the performance of official government
       business. The policy of GSA is to base the assessment of efficiency and economy on a
       "Total Cost" approach that includes employee productivity, administrative process cost, and
       safety as well as transportation costs. User groups shall limit the provision of government
       owned or leased vehicles to the minimum number of appropriate vehicles required to fulfill
       the organization’s mission after consideration of all alternative transportation methods.
       Vehicles shall not be authorized for reasons of grade, prestige, or personal convenience.
       GSA shall maintain a "Zero Growth Policy." This policy states that (following establishment
       of a fleet Table of Allowance, or TOA) the overall size of the fleet shall not exceed
       established limits of the TOA unless approved by Agency Director.

   Organizational Considerations

   Evaluating fleet size and usage patterns of a group of fleet assets should always be done in the
   context of an organization’s mission, the types of functions performed, and the levels of service
   required. Vehicles and equipment are necessary tools used to accomplish these goals. It is an
   organization such as Caltran’s fiduciary responsibility to provide these tools in the most efficient
   and economical manner possible.
   Traditionally, fleet managers (rather than user agencies) were held to account for fleet size
   decisions. However, fleet managers have come to recognize that it is difficult to regulate your
   customers’ behavior and have them want to continue to do business with you. Charge-back
   systems have forced fleet managers to become much more customer service oriented for the
   simple reason that fleet users are more protective of their vehicle usage prerogatives and their
   treatment by fleet management organizations when they are footing the bill for the vehicles they
   use and the services they consume.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 12
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   This does not mean that fleet management organizations should be relieved of any
   responsibility for managing fleet size, composition, and utilization. On the contrary, these
   organizations usually are the only central repositories of data on the jurisdiction-wide
   deployment and use of vehicles and equipment. As the buyers, maintainers, fuelers, and
   disposers of vehicles, moreover, they are uniquely positioned and qualified to observe and
   collect information on how (and how much) fleet assets are used and to determine the suitability
   of the size and composition of the fleet to such usage habits. It is safe to say, therefore, that
   managing fleet size, composition, and utilization is a shared responsibility between 1.fleet users;
   budget analysts and decision makers (from whom user agencies must secure the funds needed
   to acquire, operate, and replace vehicles); and fleet managers. The most appropriate role for
   fleet management organizations is to provide information and guidance to their customers and,
   when asked, to management decision-makers and elected officials aimed at helping fleet user
   organizations optimize their vehicle acquisition and assignment decisions and utilization
   practices.
   To the fullest extent possible, fleet managers should resist calls from management to decide
   whether specific assets should be retained or removed from the fleet. As convenient and
   tempting as it might be for management to be able to hold one individual or organization
   accountable for the size and composition of the fleet, such expectations are unfair to both fleet
   managers and their customers. Making the fleet manager responsible for controlling fleet size is
   analogous to holding the personnel director accountable for the size of the government payroll.
   Effective implementation of an enterprise-wide process improvement initiative such as a VAM
   also is dependent on the existence of an organizational structure that supports development of
   centralized policies and programs. A management culture that promotes implementation of
   cross-functional/cross-organizational management improvement programs, based on
   collaboration and a strategic perspective – is essential to success in implementing a VAM.
   Development and implementation of a VAM is a time-consuming process. Many organizations
   find that the use of outside research assistance, such as consultants, is necessary in order to
   devote the staff time necessary to complete such an arduous project. Regardless of the
   availability of staff, an outside party can also provide the independent perspective
   unencumbered by perceptions of self-interest that is a key to providing a VAM project with
   credibility and acceptance.




                                                                                 Industry Best Practices — 13
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Financial Practices

   As alluded to earlier, there has been a significant increase in the past 15 years or so in the use
   of internal service funds and charge-back systems to finance fleet capital and operating costs
   (note that an organization need not have an internal service fund in order to charge fleet related
   costs back to its customers). This trend has opened many fleet managers’ eyes to the potential
   impact of user charges on fleet utilization levels. In fact, some organizations have experienced
   voluntary reductions in fleet size of close to 20 percent as a result of switching from cash
   financing of vehicle purchases to a reserve fund or lease purchasing and monthly user charges
   for vehicle replacement. How does this happen? When fleet assets are paid for with cash from
   direct, lump-sum appropriations, fleet users have little economic incentive to pay attention to, let
   alone turn in for disposal, under-utilized vehicles and equipment. This is because the acquisition
   cost of a vehicle appears to the agency that uses it to be a sunk cost, meaning that they cannot
   reduce this cost by increasing their use of the vehicle, or eliminate it by removing the vehicle
   from the fleet. The reality, however, is that it is not a sunk cost because vehicles depreciate over
   time (not all at once when they are first put into service) and this depreciation cost can be
   stopped at any time by selling a vehicle and recouping a portion of its original purchase price.
   The problem here is that cash financing of vehicle purchases does a poor job of illustrating this
   relationship between a vehicle’s capital cost and its usage.
   Certain types of charge-back rate structures do a good job of illustrating this relationship to fleet
   users and thus create economic incentives for them to get rid of — or not replace – vehicles
   they don’t really need. A chargeback process that distributes the full purchase price of a new
   vehicle to the agency to which it is assigned obviously does not do this; nor does a rate
   structure that distributes vehicle capital costs based on the number of miles or hours a vehicle is
   used each month. Neither of these charge-back approaches illustrates the linkage between a
   vehicle’s capital costs and its day-to-day and month-to-month availability to a user agency.
   Fixed monthly replacement charges, on the other hand, continually confront fleet users with the
   fixed costs of having vehicles at their disposal. No matter how much or how little they use an
   asset in a particular month, these charges don’t change – just as the actual depreciation of the
   asset doesn’t change (at least in the short-term). Consequently, there is a clear fiscal
   (budgetary) benefit to maximizing fleet utilization under this type of rate structure: getting rid of
   underutilized vehicles lower an agency’s monthly fleet replacement charges. With usage-based
   charge-back rates, on the other hand, there often is a powerful economic incentive to hang on to
   underutilized vehicles because users are only charged for the amount of time or number of
   miles they actually use a vehicle. There is no financial penalty, in other words, for not driving a
   vehicle very much. In the absence of minimum monthly usage requirements, this type of rate
   structure can seriously understate (and under recover) the capital costs of owning and utilizing
   vehicles.

   Fleet Replacement Program

   There is a clear relationship between fleet size and the age of an organization’s fleet. Old
   vehicles are unreliable compared to new ones and are prone to unpredictable breakdowns.
   Consequently, fleet users who are allocated old vehicles take steps to add additional units to the
   fleet to provide a pool of backups and spares so they can continue to operate when a front-line
   vehicle breaks down.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 14
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The following charts illustrate these concepts. The first chart shows data from a public sector
   fleet that correlates age and annual maintenance to repair (M&R) costs. Note that not only does
   the trend clearly indicate that older vehicles have higher operating costs, but also that data
   points for older vehicles are much more dispersed than for younger vehicles, which are tightly
   grouped around the trend line. This illustrates that M&R costs (and, therefore, visits to the shop)
   for younger vehicles are much more predictable than for older vehicles.
   Impact of Vehicle Age on Annual Costs




                                                                                 Industry Best Practices — 15
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   As previously noted, the fact that fleet users cannot rely on older vehicles to operate without
   breaking down puts upward pressure on fleet size by requiring more spares and backup units.
   The second chart plots average annual mileage for a California County fleet against months in
   services.
   Impact of Vehicle Age on Utilization




   The correlation between age and annual use is obvious and is a condition that we observe often
   in fleet operations – older vehicles are driven less than newer ones. While this is an intuitive
   (some would say obvious) finding, it has important implications for managing fleet size.
   Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement. Vehicles and equipment should be replaced at
   various points in their service lives depending on the type of vehicle, the nature and intensity of
   its use, and various other factors. Timely replacement is important for controlling vehicle
   availability, safety, reliability, and efficiency. The often reported economic theory of vehicle
   replacement holds that vehicles should be replaced when the sum of ownership and operating
   costs is at its lowest historical point. The chart at right, which shows three cost curves, illustrates
   this concept. The capital cost curve shows the decreasing cost over time of a fleet asset as it
   ages and depreciates. The operating cost curve illustrates the increasing maintenance, repair,
   and fuel costs for the same asset over its life cycle. The total cost curve combines the two. The
   optimal point at which to replace this asset from an economic perspective is when the "total
   cost" curve is at its lowest point on the Time/Usage axis. That is, when the combined cost of
   owning and operating the unit is at a minimum, just before it begins to increase.
   As can be seen in this illustration, the bottom of a vehicle’s total life cycle cost curve is relatively
   flat. This means, in practical terms, that there is not a single point in time at which a vehicle
   should be replaced. Rather, there is a period of time during which the combination of capital and
   operating costs are at or near their lowest point. Depending on how old a vehicle – or a fleet –
   is, delaying its replacement somewhat may or may not have a material impact on the total life
   cycle cost of that vehicle or fleet. For example, for the typical sedan and other light-duty vehicles
   in a fleet, this flat section usually represents a period from age 5 to 7 years or from 75,000 to
   100,000 miles.




                                                                                     Industry Best Practices — 16
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The total cost curve is different for every type of vehicle. This variability is caused by differences
   in the design and engineering of different types of vehicles, the effects of differences in
   operating environments, the quality of care the vehicle receives, and other factors. As a result,
   most organizations develop recommended replacement cycles for a class or type of vehicles,
   which will approximate the optimal replacement cycle for most of the units in that particular
   class. This is most often accomplished in an informal manner based on discussions with
   mechanics and drivers, and a comparison of replacement cycles with peer organizations.
   Some organizations, however, employ an empirical approach to determining fleet replacement
   cycles. This approach, which is known as life-cycle cost analysis (LCA), involves modeling the
   stream of costs associated with acquiring, maintaining, and disposing of vehicles over various
   replacement cycles, and then determining the cycle with the lowest cost. To determine the
   minimum cost cycle, the equivalent annual cost (EAC) of each cycle is computed and
   compared. The EAC of a capital asset such, as a vehicle, is a uniform dollar amount, expressed
   in today’s dollars that one could pay to produce the net present value of a stream of future costs
   associated with owning and operating the asset. It is a useful statistic for comparing the costs of
   alternative replacement cycles (i.e., streams of future costs of different durations) for an asset in
   order to determine which cycle results in the lowest cost.

   While completing a LCA is data intensive and requires significant effort, the payoff can be
   substantial. The following table shows the results of a LCA that MAI recently completed for
   another client for compact sedans.

   Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement




   LCA for Compact Sedans
                        Year 5          Year 6      Year 7         Year 8        Year 9          Year 10




                                                                                    Industry Best Practices — 17
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




    Incremental
    Total Cost          $3,300.87       $3,358.13   $3,594.13    $3,318.78     $3,381.99       $3,386.44
    Cumulative
    Total Cost          $17,717.97 $21,019.68 $24,565.46 $28,867.17 $33,912.95 $40,714.66
    Average Annual
    Total Cost          $3,543.59       $3,503.28   $3,509.35    $3,608.40     $3,768.11       $4,071.47
    Cycle in Miles      57,125          68,550      79,975       91,400        102,825         114,250
    Average Cost
    per Mile            $0.31           $0.31       $0.31        $0.32         $0.33           $0.36
    Equivalent
    Annual Cost         $3,720.72       $3,723.05   $3,774.58    $3,843.19     $4,040.01       $4,764.28
   Note that the cycle with the lowest EAC is five years. With over 1,000 sedans in their fleet, this
   client saved a significant sum by changing from a policy of replacing sedans after ten years of
   service to a cycle of five years.
   Impact of Financing Approaches. Even the best replacement cycle estimation efforts (or
   policies, for that matter) will not ensure the timely replacement of vehicles, however, if an
   organization does not make funds available to replace vehicles in accordance with established
   guidelines or policies. This means that an understanding of the characteristics of different
   approaches to financing or paying for the replacement of a fleet of vehicles is every bit as
   important as an understanding of the nature of vehicle life cycle costs.




   The graph above shows the projected replacement costs over a period of 20 years of a
   municipal government fleet of about 4,600 vehicles and pieces of equipment. As can be seen,
   year-to-year fleet replacement spending requirements are somewhat volatile, with peaks and
   valleys of varying magnitude occurring routinely throughout the 20-year period (near-term
   spending requirements are relatively flat because the organization manually "smoothed" the
   plan to make them that way). This lumpiness is common in virtually all mixed-vocational fleets
   whether in the public or private sector and whether they are comprised of 460, 4,600, or 46,000
   vehicles.



                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 18
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The biggest impediment many organizations face to replacing vehicles in a timely manner is the
   lack of a replacement financing program that can effectively deal with fleet replacement
   spending needs that fluctuate from year to year. Specifically, they do not have a good
   mechanism for accommodating year-to-year changes in spending requirements when the
   source of funds for such expenditures is relatively static. The solution to this problem lies in
   pursuing one of two courses of action: eliminating the volatility in fleet replacement spending
   requirements, or eliminating the volatility in replacement funding requirements.
   The graph below shows the distribution of light-duty vehicles by model year in two states with
   which we have worked in the last year. One state relies on ad hoc appropriations of cash to pay
   for the purchase of replacement vehicles while the other leases the majority of the vehicles in its
   fleet using open-ended operating leases. Clearly, the state that is leasing vehicles has replaced
   its vehicles in a more consistent manner and thus has a newer fleet with lower operating costs
   than the state that is buying vehicles. This is because leasing is better equipped to manage the
   peaks and valleys in fleet replacement spending requirements than is buying vehicles with cash
   from direct appropriations.




   The graph below compares the age of the light-duty vehicles in the fleet that relies on direct
   appropriations with that of a third state that utilizes a replacement reserve fund and charge-back
   system. Once again, the state that uses a financing approach that allows it to spread the capital
   costs of each vehicle over a period of several years (i.e., the reserve fund) has done a better job
   of replacing its fleet and keeping average vehicle age at a reasonable level.




                                                                                 Industry Best Practices — 19
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   The 20-year replacement plan shown in the first graph above illustrates the funding
   requirements associated with financing the replacement costs of a particular fleet using a
   particular type of financing approach: annual, ad hoc appropriations or allotments of cash.
   Under this financing approach, the entire capital cost of each asset in the fleet is paid at the
   beginning of the asset’s service life. Consequently, if year-to-year replacement spending
   requirements are lumpy, the funding requirements associated with financing these expenditures
   also will be lumpy. Although the long-term replacement costs shown in the above replacement
   plan graph may appear to be relatively smooth, there are some pronounced peaks and valleys
   in future spending needs that any organization would have difficulty accommodating. For
   example, projected replacement costs in 2014 are almost double those in 2011.
   As the two previous graphs illustrate, most organizations that purchase replacement vehicles
   utilizing a cash financing approach have difficulty dealing with fluctuations in fleet replacement
   spending needs because the amount of funds they can devote to such purchases each year
   generally does not fluctuate. In fact, while the number of fleet assets that need to be replaced
   may "zig" upward (say, by 100 percent) in a given year, government or company revenue in that
   year may not only not increase by a corresponding percentage, but may actually "zag"
   downward. When this happens, some fleet replacement purchases must be deferred and a
   backlog of replacement spending needs begins to accumulate. For instance, the red bars in the
   previous two graphs indicate that the state utilizing a cash financing approach replaced more
   than 1,400 light-duty vehicles in 1995 and fewer than 100 in 2000.
   As just indicated, there are two fleet replacement financing approaches, both widely used by
   public-sector jurisdictions, that allow an organization to spread the capital cost of each vehicle
   and piece of equipment over its useful life – leasing or lease-purchasing, and a replacement
   reserve fund. For example, rather than require an organization to budget $60,000 every tenth
   year for the replacement of a truck and $0 in the intervening years, these approaches allow it to
   budget, say, $6,000 every year for the replacement of the vehicle. Clearly, such financing
   approaches make year-to-year fleet replacement funding requirements less volatile and more
   predictable. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood that critical vehicle replacement purchases will
   be deferred to avoid paying the full cost of an asset in a single year or because typical funding
   levels are insufficient to accommodate an upswing in spending needs that results from the
   necessity of replacing more vehicles then usual in a particular year.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 20
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   The graph above shows the long-term funding requirements associated with financing the
   replacement costs of the 4,600-vehicle fleet shown in the earlier graph using a reserve fund and
   charge-back system. Although replacement spending requirements are identical to those shown
   in the earlier graph, funding requirements (represented by the charge-back revenue line) are not
   at all volatile. This is because using a reserve fund permits vehicles to be paid for incrementally;
   it is a true pay-as-you-go approach to fleet replacement financing. As can be seen in this graph,
   the reserve fund balance ebbs and flows in correspondence with peaks and valleys in future
   spending needs.
   The other fleet replacement financing approach that makes year-to-year funding requirements
   smooth and predictable by spreading the capital cost of each asset in the fleet over its useful life
   is leasing or lease purchasing. These financing approaches are widely used in the private sector
   and are increasingly of interest to many cities, counties, and states not only because they
   eliminate the need to manage a replacement fund balance, but because making the switch from
   cash financing or a sinking fund to debt financing can produce very large budget savings in the
   near term.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 21
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   The graph above shows the funding requirements associated with financing the replacement of
   our sample 4,600-unit fleet using lease-purchase financing. Under this approach, the purchase
   of every vehicle and piece of equipment in the fleet would be financed over a period of five
   years, slightly less than the weighted average life expectancy (i.e., replacement cycle goal) of
   the various types of assets in this particular fleet.
   As in the two previous exhibits, the bars represent projected annual replacement spending
   requirements. The line in this graph illustrates projected loan payments and, consequently, the
   fleet’s replacement funding requirements. Although the volatility of future spending needs has
   not changed, funding requirements are relatively smooth and predictable under this financing
   approach.
   An added benefit of switching from a cash or reserve fund financing program to a leasing or
   lease-purchase program is that it significantly reduces near-term funding requirements. This is
   because an organization that finances vehicle purchases through lease-purchasing only has to
   appropriate one-fifth of the purchase price (for a vehicle with a five year replacement cycle) in
   the first year rather than the entire amount.

   Information Management

   A variety of data sources are available for collecting information required to manage the size of
   a fleet. These data sources include:
   •   Daily logs of vehicle use;
   •   Monthly reporting of odometer/hour meter readings;
   •   Recording of meter readings at commercial or agency owned bulk fuel stations;



                                                                                 Industry Best Practices — 22
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Recording of meter readings from shop work orders;
   •   Recording of trips and meter readings by Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems
       when a vehicle leaves its domicile yard; and
   •   Recording of trips and meter readings by Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems.
   Determining which data sources and collection methodologies an organization chooses
   depends on a number of factors including degree that the fleet is dispersed geographically,
   whether it is centrally fueled, other operating characteristics, and the level of investment that
   has been made in information technology. Regardless of the methods employed, procedures
   must be in place to share data from disparate sources and to analyze available data after it has
   been consolidated.
   One of the most effective strategies for getting fleet users to pay attention to fleet
   utilization is to quantify and publicize how much they use their vehicles and equipment.
   Producing a monthly exception report for each user agency that identifies those vehicles that fall
   short of either established utilization guidelines or average utilization levels by class of vehicle is
   a good place to start. Even more effective in promoting efficient fleet utilization is publishing a
   report that summarizes such statistics by user agency and for the fleet as a whole. Peer
   pressure, insights gained from seeing how much other agencies utilize their vehicles, and the
   knowledge that upper management and internal auditors may be scrutinizing such reports, all
   tend to have a salutary effect on agencies’ attentiveness to this aspect of their performance.

   Fleet Size Study Approach

   Establishing a baseline for fleet size is one of the first steps in implementing a VAM. The
   baseline Table of Allowance (TOA) is established through the completion of a detailed fleet
   utilization study. The following diagram illustrates the filtration or screening process that should
   be used in such a study. As can be seen, the approach is to use increasingly fine screening
   techniques in order to home in on specific fleet assets about whose disposition one can make
   recommendations with a high degree of confidence.




   Following is a summary of the steps that are involved in such a study:




                                                                                    Industry Best Practices — 23
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Step 1: Develop Detailed Fleet Profile. The first step in a detailed fleet size study is collection
   of data required to develop a detailed inventory of vehicles and equipment by vehicle type, user
   organization, and physical location. This information is used to create a map of vehicle
   domiciles so that any overlaps in vehicle assignments can be identified and to analyze the
   proximity of vehicle user office and corporation yards to those of other vehicle users, the
   proximity of sites to any existing motor pool locations, and the proximity of sites to commercial
   vehicle rental locations. The following charts provide examples of the outputs that are produced
   from this step:
   Primary Fleet Domiciles




   Summary of Fleet by Type and Domicile
   EQ #         Type          Domicile        Location              Org
   AS426        Backhoe       Haller Lake     North Seattle         Water
   AS427        Backhoe       Haller Lake     North Seattle         Water
   AS431        Backhoe       Haller Lake     North Seattle         Water
   AS433        Backhoe       Haller Lake     North Seattle         Sewer
   AS434        Backhoe       Haller Lake     North Seattle         Solid Waste
   AS438        Backhoe       Lab             Downtown              Sewer
   AS440        Backhoe       Lab             Downtown              Solid Waste


   Step 2: Conduct Initial Screening of the Fleet to Identify Potential Candidates for
   Elimination or Reassignment. In this step vehicle utilization data is analyzed to identify
   vehicles that are clearly highly utilized and need not be subjected to further scrutiny, vehicles
   that are clearly underutilized, and other vehicles that fall somewhere in between.
   The most obvious indicator of the business need for a vehicle is the amount of its use. Usually,
   but not always, vehicles that are genuinely needed to support the performance of employees’
   jobs are used frequently, and that usage is reflected in the number of miles or hours such
   vehicles are driven or operated.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 24
        Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



           As every fleet manager knows, however, annual mileage is not always a good indicator of the
           need for a vehicle. Some vehicles are heavily used even though they do not accumulate a lot a
           miles. Thus, while high mileage rates usually are a good indication that a vehicle is needed and
           should be retained, the opposite cannot necessarily be said of low mileage rates. Low-mileage
           vehicles are not necessarily low-usage or low-importance vehicles. They may or may not be
           vital to the performance of employees’ job duties and agencies’ missions.
           For this reason, any analysis aimed at optimizing fleet size by earmarking vehicles for
           reassignment or removal needs to focus primarily on low-mileage rather than on high-mileage
           vehicles. In scrutinizing seemingly under-utilized vehicles, however, it is critical to develop
           information on their use and importance to the organization that simply is not reflected in a
           single metric such as annual mileage.
           The statistical analysis in this step of the study should focus on determining average annual
           utilization levels by vehicle type and on identifying specific vehicles in the fleet whose average
           usage falls below some agreed-upon threshold of average monthly usage by vehicle type. The
           threshold that MAI typically uses in our consulting work is 50 percent of the mean annual usage
           by vehicle type. In other words, vehicles that average less than 50 percent of the mean annual
           mileage for their class are potential candidates for reassignment or removal from the fleet and
           thus are subject to additional investigation.
           Vehicles whose utilization exceeds this threshold are assumed to be adequately used and
           eliminated from further consideration for possible elimination from the fleet. Needless to say, the
           threshold that is appropriate to use is a function of how widely dispersed around the mean
           individual vehicle mileage levels are in a particular fleet and in particular vehicle classes within
           that fleet. It is important, therefore, to confer with fleet management and fleet user officials on
           the appropriate threshold figure to use to ensure that the organization is comfortable with the
           parameters used in this initial screening process.
           The following table provides an example of the type of analysis of utilization data that should be
           completed during this step:
                                                 Sample Usage Calculations
                                                                                                                Actual     Est
                                                                                       Date                     Months     Annual
                                         Class                     Date                Meter         Analysis   in         Average
Fleet#    DeptCode    Dept Name          Code    Year   Model      Acquired    Meter   Posted        Date       Service    Use
                      GSD-
10130     15900       Administration     B1B     1998   Blazer     7/13/1998   39026   9/17/2004     6/2/2005   83         5642
                      Fleet
10200     15905       Maintenance        C10     1994   Astro      3/15/1994   30959   5/9/2005      6/2/2005   135        2752
                      Communications
10201     15520       Center/9-1-1       C10     2003   Astro      6/16/2003   5371    5/16/2005     6/2/2005   24         2686
                      Finance-
                      Treasury
11101     11470       (General Fund)     A22     1999   CAVALIER   8/26/1999   18256   5/25/2005     6/2/2005   70         3130
                      Risk
11103     11463       Management         A32     2003   MALIBU     3/3/2003    5565    4/26/2005     6/2/2005   27         2473
                      Utility Customer
11104     4101120     Service            A22     2003   CAVALIER   3/3/2003    2672    5/19/2005     6/2/2005   27         1188
                      Technology
12100     11371       Solutions-Comp.    A32     2001   MALIBU     4/19/2001   15729   5/16/2005     6/2/2005   50         3775




                                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 25
        Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



                      Technology
12200     11371       Solutions-Comp.   C10     2001   Astro      4/19/2001   12505   4/22/2005   6/2/2005   50        3001
                      Technology
12201     11371       Solutions-Comp.   C10     2001   Astro      4/19/2001   13604   3/18/2005   6/2/2005   50        3265
                      Risk
14113     11463       Management        A22     1994   CAVALIER   5/1/1994    33704   5/19/2005   6/2/2005   133       3041

           Once the list of "under-utilized" vehicles has been identified, additional analysis must be
           completed by user agency and vehicle class. Cumulative distribution functions should be
           developed that allow a determination of the relevance of established usage criteria to the actual
           usage practices of the various sub-organizations, regions, and locations. The analysis may
           show, for example, that all of the vehicles of a particular type in a particular organization fall well
           below the State usage requirement that has been established for that type of vehicle. This does
           not mean all of these vehicles should be eliminated from the fleet; it means that different, even
           lower, usage thresholds must be used to analyze their use and properly identify candidates for
           further study and potential disposal.
           Step 3: Survey Vehicle Users. Utilization statistics alone, of course, can be misleading
           indicators of the need for a vehicle or piece of equipment. A common definition of a vehicle
           being in use is when it is not available for use by another organization. In many such situations,
           a vehicle that is in use may or may not be accumulating many (or any) miles or engine hours.
           For example, a backhoe may be taken out every morning by a field crew and only briefly be
           used to remove broken pavement and later backfill the excavation – common tasks for a State
           DOT. Analysis of its hour meter will indicate that the equipment is not used very much, but this
           clearly does not mean the unit is under utilized or not needed.
           For this reason, vehicle and equipment utilization must be analyzed from a number of
           perspectives in addition to meter readings to identify low-usage units, and the analysis must be
           tailored to the different types of vehicles that, and conditions under which, user organizations
           operate. Factors that should be considered in examining a line organization’s current use of,
           and need for, specific assets include:
           •   Passenger, cargo carrying, and towing requirements;
           •   Requirements to transport tools and equipment;
           •   Special security needs;
           •   Requirements for special equipment and attachments;
           •   Emergency response requirements;
           •   Typical required times of use, including nature and frequency of after-hours call outs;
           •   Seasonal and peak periods of use; and
           •   The existence of back-up or spare units.
           Information relating to these factors is best gathered using a structured approach such as a web
           based Vehicle Utilization Questionnaire to be completed by employees for each of the units in
           the fleet that have been identified as being potentially underutilized. A screen shot of one such
           survey form that was recently used to conduct a review of fleet size for the State of California is
           shown below.




                                                                                              Industry Best Practices — 26
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   The Questionnaire should be designed so as to elicit information about how each vehicle or
   piece of equipment is used, including the frequency and typical duration of each use; any
   seasonality in the vehicle’s use; the number of individuals who typically use the vehicle; any
   specialized equipment installed, or materials typically transported in the vehicle that would make
   it impractical to share with other employees or organizations; and where the vehicle is domiciled
   and how it is used, if at all, outside of normal work hours.
   Once the vehicle operators participating in the survey complete their questionnaires, the survey
   forms should be reviewed for completeness (following up where necessary to obtain missing
   data) and all response data input to a Microsoft Access database for analysis. Usage
   characteristics and other pertinent information gleaned from the survey data should then be
   analyzed to determine whether or not there are "mitigating circumstances" that would justify the
   retention of specific vehicles in spite of their low usage rates.
   Quantifying Vehicle Need. Some organizations, including the U.S. General Services Agency
   (GSA) have developed a quantitative approach to determining vehicle need as a part of their
   VAM.
   GSA’s determination of need analysis consists of a series of simple survey questions that
   establish estimates of utilization and quantify mission criticality. The two factors are plotted on a
   set of X-Y coordinates, where the X-quantity is utilization and the Y-quantity is criticality. The
   resulting point in the X-Y plane is considered to be the tip of a vector, which has a particular
   length (the distance of the point from the origin). The length of the vector summarizes the
   combination of utilization and criticality.
   The motivation behind combining the factors in this way is that a high score in either factor can
   reflect genuine need. For instance, some vehicles used for basic transportation have high
   estimated utilization but low criticality scores. Conversely, a vehicle can have a high degree of
   criticality but low estimated utilization (as in the case of an emergency response vehicle.) The
   vector approach allows for all possible combinations between these two extremes. The following
   diagram is a typical output from the VAM that has been developed for GSA. The diagram below
   represents the latter case; i.e., it is the result of a model survey that produced low utilization
   estimates and a high criticality score:




                                                                                   Industry Best Practices — 27
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   The length of the vector on the chart above falls between the automatic "pass – fail" regions.
   This means that human judgment will be required to decide whether to assign a vehicle to this
   organization. Note that the angle of the vector is very steep, which implies a very strong
   component of mission criticality while showing very weak need based on utilization. The scales
   on the chart are simply rating values and do not reflect actual measures such as "miles."
   This type of analysis could easily be added to a utilization survey document to arrive at a
   quantitative score in addition to narrative answers to survey questions.
   Step 4: Evaluate Historical Use of Transportation Alternatives. Organizations need for
   transportation can, of course, be met by alternatives other than permanent assignment of
   agency owned vehicles. The extent that alternatives such as public transportation, motor pools,
   commercial rental vehicles, and reimbursement for use of personally owned vehicles (POV) are
   used can all have a material impact on the demand for assigned vehicles. Consequently, it is
   important to develop data on the historical use of transportation alternatives including days
   used, miles driven or engine hours accumulated, and costs.
   In regards to cost, it is important to note that there is a break-even point associated with every
   transportation alternative in comparison to permanent assignment of an agency owned vehicle.
   This break-even point is different for every organization and for every type of vehicle the
   organization owns. A breakeven analysis (BEA) model is a tool that a number of organizations
   use to evaluate transportation options. Such a model should analyze POV reimbursement costs
   relative to assigned vehicles and motor pool usage costs. A BEA can also compare the cost of
   commercial rentals with POV reimbursement and assigned vehicles. Following is a BEA model
   prepared for the California Department of General Services last year:
   BEA for Daily Rentals




   There are many factors impacting the results of a BEA including the mileage reimbursement
   rate; costs for processing pool vehicles, rentals, and mileage claims; depreciation practices,
   maintenance and repair costs, and average monthly utilization of assigned vehicles.
   Regardless, analysis of the historical use of transportation alternatives and the cost-
   effectiveness of expanding such use is an important aspect of a comprehensive fleet size study
   and VAM.




                                                                                 Industry Best Practices — 28
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Step 5: Discuss Results With Impacted Organizations. Once all data has been analyzed
   and preliminary results achieved, it is important to provide impacted organizations an
   opportunity to review the reasonableness and acceptability of findings and recommendations in
   light of considerations such as the following:
       •   Any special operating practices or circumstances that account for the low usage of the
           vehicles earmarked for disposal; and
       •   Anticipated changes in the organization’s size, mission, work methods, or other
           operating needs that might mitigate some of recommended changes to their fleet.
   On the basis of these discussions recommendations regarding eliminating vehicles from the
   fleet or changes in vehicle assignments can be finalized.
   Step 6: Develop Recommended Table of Allocation. Once all of the above steps have been
   completed, the study team should document findings and fleet right-sizing recommendations in
   a formal report. This report should outline the work performed with each organization, each
   organization’s mission, vehicle inventories, list of any vehicles excluded from the review,
   determination of the optimal number of vehicles needed by organization, and identification of
   vehicles to be eliminated from the fleet along with the justification for the recommendation. Any
   recommendations to pool or share vehicles should also be explained in detail. Recommended
   annual budgets for employee mileage reimbursement and equipment rentals should also be
   included in the report.
   The report should also include a Table of Allocation that details the authorized number of
   vehicles and budget for transportation alternatives for each organization. Following is an
   example TOA:




                                                                                Industry Best Practices — 29
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



                         Table of Allocation for the Police Department

                        POLICE DEPARTMENT - ANIMAL CONTROL DIVSION

                                            FLEET COMPOSITION

    Equipment Type:           Extended Cab 4WD Pick-Up with Special Body

    Current Number:                     4

    Number Currently Approved:          4

    Number Recommended for Approval:           4

    Unit #’s Currently in Service:      002, 005, 006, 007

    Utilization Replacement Benchmark: 150,000 miles

    Age Replacement Benchmark:              8 Years

    Estimated Annual Utilization:       25,000 miles

    Estimated Avg. Useful Life:         6 years

    Public Trans. Budget:            None

    Rental Vehicle Budget:              None

    POV Reimbursement Miles/Budget: None


    Justification:          There are currently 3 animal control officers and an animal control
                            supervisor. One vehicle is necessary for each of the officers in order for
                            all to be in active field patrol at the same time. The supervisor needs a
                            vehicle because he is in active field patrol about half-time and his vehicle
                            acts as a spare when other units are down for service. There is no ability
                            to use pooled vehicles, commercial rentals, or mileage reimbursement
                            due the requirement for specialized vehicles and equipment.


   On-going Management of Fleet Size

   Whereas a fleet right-sizing study involves taking a "snapshot" of, and making one-time
   adjustments to, fleet size and composition it does little to promote efficient utilization of vehicles
   on an ongoing basis. For this, fleet managers need to employ other strategies, starting with
   vehicle utilization guidelines and a review of utilization as part of the vehicle replacement
   process. The objective of these two strategies is to ensure that the acquisition of a vehicle or
   piece of equipment constitutes the most effective means of meeting a particular fleet user’s
   need before such an acquisition occurs.




                                                                                    Industry Best Practices — 30
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Part and parcel of the acquisition justification process is the establishment of utilization
   guidelines for the different types of assets in a fleet. The purpose of such guidelines is to help
   fleet users determine when it is appropriate to own a vehicle, when it is more cost-effective to
   rent the vehicle as needed either commercially or from an in-house pool, and (in the case of
   passenger vehicles) when it makes sense to reimburse an employee to use a personally-owned
   vehicle on government business. Many fleet management organizations establish minimum
   usage requirements aimed at ensuring that assigned vehicles generate sufficient charge-back
   revenue to cover their fixed costs; this is unrelated to the use of utilization guidelines for
   evaluating alternative vehicle acquisition methods.
   As indicated earlier, these usage thresholds are different for each organization and region within
   an agency and should take into account a variety of factors. The Code of Federal Regulations
   41CFR101-39.3.01 states that federal agencies, must meet the following standards to justify
   full-time assignment of a vehicle:
   •    Passenger vehicles travel a minimum of 3,000 miles per quarter or 12,000 miles per year.
   •    Light trucks and general purpose vehicles 12,500 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)
        and under--10,000 miles per year.
   •    Trucks and general purpose vehicles, over 12,500 lbs. GVWR to 24,000 lbs. GVWR--7,500
        miles per year.
   •    Heavy trucks and general purpose vehicles over 24,000 lbs. GVWR--7,500 miles per year.
   •    Truck tractors--10,000 miles per year.
   Another example of possible use thresholds is provided by the National Association of Fleet
   Administrators, which conducts periodic surveys of its members on a variety of subjects. The
   most recent survey on fleet utilization was conducted in 2001 and the results are summarized in
   the following table:

       Class                             Quantity            Meter               Use
       < 8500 GVW                        26,830              Miles               10,302
       8,501 - 10,000 GVW                3,925               Miles               10,042
       10,001 - 14,000 GVW               1,133               Miles               10,041
       14,001 - 16,000 GVW               370                 Miles               9,900
       16,001 - 19,500 GVW               309                 Miles               9,010
       19,501 - 26,000 GVW               595                 Miles               9,266
       26,001 - 33,000 GVW               2,946               Miles               9,259
       > 33,000 GVW                      3,135               Miles               10,335
       Off Road and                      4,870               Hours               418
       Construction
                                         55,131




                                                                                Industry Best Practices — 31
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Regardless of the utilization thresholds established, it is important that a reporting process be
   established (as discussed earlier) to communicate performance back managers in fleet user
   organizations. This should be done on at least a semi-annual basis.
   A final best practice for managing fleet size is to require justification of the continued need for a
   particular vehicle or piece of equipment as part of the replacement process. No vehicle should
   be replaced simply because it has reached certain replacement criteria. This is especially true
   for those organizations that use age as their primary replacement criterion. Since a user’s need
   for a particular unit can vary over time with changes in mission and work practices, it is
   important to review the on-going need for an asset before replacing it. As it is likely that many
   years have passed since the justification for a vehicle was first approved, at a minimum a
   different type of vehicle may now better match the job that needs to be done. It is also possible
   that the nature of a user’s mission has changed so much that a particular vehicle is no longer
   really needed. Replacing such a unit would, therefore, be a waste of scarce capital that could be
   much better allocated to another, more worthy function.




                                                                                  Industry Best Practices — 32
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Other States Best Practices

   Source: Mercury Associates


   Introduction


   This memorandum presents an overview of the Best Fleet Management Practices (BMP)
   related to management of fleet size and trends employed in other states around the country.
   Research for this technical memorandum was derived from information received from state and
   public fleet directors, information found on various fleet web pages, articles from fleet related
   publications, and industry trends observed by the National Conference of State Fleet
   Administrators (NCSFA). Below is a list of topics this memorandum will discuss.
   •   State fleet management overview, reporting and auditing initiatives and a trend toward
       centralization and increased economies-of-scale,
   •   Reduction of fleet size through forced or effective planning, using fleet technology, creativity
       and innovation,
   •   Customer service accountability, integrity, communication, and reporting interface,
   •   Establishing utilization standards,
   •   Miscellaneous best practice trends employed by various state fleets.


   State Fleet Management Overview


   It’s not uncommon today in various government circles to come across an opinion, article, press
   release, or another executive order calling for a thorough investigation or comprehensive fleet
   study. Taxpayers, elected officials, legislators, budget officers, and governors alike are being
   forced to take notice of fleet assets by their constituent base and voters.
   The trend toward fleet consolidation of significant fleet activities continues, as elected officials
   seek to become more accountable and save scarce tax dollars they turn their focus toward
   centralization. Many states are seeking to flatten the management of the overall organization,
   which includes fleet operations. In the past, most states operated a highly decentralized
   approach to fleet management. For example, it was not uncommon for a state to have several
   separate fleet departments such as a separate central services fleet manager, public safety fleet
   manager, natural resources fleet manager, DOT fleet manager and others.
   Elected officials are challenging this premise partly out of frustration in getting a single source
   answer to basic fleet questions and partly to eliminate duplication of effort to increase
   efficiencies and reduce costs. Several states are consolidating fleet functions into one agency.
   At some states, these functions are being consolidated into a single fleet manager function.
   [Source: January/February 2005 "Automotive Fleet magazine", 20 Challenges Facing Public
   Sector Fleets in 2005 By Mike Antich.]



                                                                              Other States Best Practices — 33
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   With the threat of privatization and outsourcing of fleet activities many state fleet administrators
   are taking this added scrutiny a lot more serious. Then following is a list of significant events
   relating to management of fleet size in the federal government over the past few years.
   •   Wisconsin — The State of Wisconsin studies centralization of State Vehicle Management
       Functions into Department of Administration. This study affects Department of
       Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, and University of Wisconsin Madison
       fleets. It proposes to shift fleet assets, personnel, and management functions to a
       Department of Administration. Source: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/1999-
       01budgetdocuments/99-01BudgetPapers/149.pdf

   •   Kentucky — Governor Ernie Fletcher orders a comprehensive state vehicle study in an
       intensive review of the state’s vehicle fleet inventory. Source:
       http://transportation.ky.gov/News/4-27-05.htm

   •   South Carolina — Mercury Associates presents to the State Budget and Control Board
       recommendations to promote cost effective fleet operations and enhance efficiency. Source:
       http://www.gs.sc.gov/webfiles/sf/Focus on Fleet/FOFwin06.pdf

   •   Texas — Texas plans to "Introduce Competition Into Texas Government" through
       centralization of fleet operations. This involves consolidating operations of 140 agencies
       owning more than 29,000 vehicles ranging from sedans to heavy equipment such as
       tractors and bulldozers. Source: http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/tpr5/vol1/vol1d.html
   •   Utah — Utah's agency’s of Public Safety and Corrections is to remain in the central fleet
       managed by the Division of Fleet Operations (DFO). Source:
       http://le.utah.gov/lfa/reports/dpsudcfleet.pdf

   •   Georgia — Executive orders require Georgia to centralize state fleet management functions
       into the Department of Administrative Services. Source:
       http://ofm.doas.georgia.gov/00/channel_title/0,2094,27144285_27363338,00.html

   •   Colorado — Colorado begins a comprehensive fleet audit of Colorado State Patrol vehicles.
       Source: http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/
       312FFC8C86D879DC87256E300071057E/$FILE/1337FleetMgtPerf FY02.pdf

   •   Mississippi — The Mississippi legislature creates a Fleet Management Bureau within the
       Office of Purchasing, Travel, and Fleet Management. Source:
       http://www.ms.gov/frameset.jsp?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ls.state.ms.us

   These examples represent only a few of the state centralization initiatives that have surfaced
   these past few years. Mercury's experience working in state government leads us to believe that
   these trends will continue. Each year legislatures from around the country meet together and
   discuss each other’s upcoming strategies and thus we notice these changes as they begin to
   snowball around the various state governments.




                                                                               Other States Best Practices — 34
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Reduction of Fleet Size Through Forced and Effective Planning, Use of Fleet
   Technology, Creativity, and Innovation


   With the ever increasing competition in the business environment many fleet managers find
   themselves forced to look for creative ways to reduce operating costs. With this in mind, it’s
   virtually impossible to reduce costs without establishing an organized plan of attack. The maxim,
   "Fail to plan or plan to fail" very much applies to fleet management.
   Several of the successful state fleet directors Mercury speaks with indicate they’ve established
   a comprehensive strategic plan to guide their organization efficiently and effectively into the
   future. This trend is becoming much more prevalent in the fleet management business
   community. Mercury is being asked more than every to assist our clients with the creation
   effective business plans. However, there still exists those fleet managers who choose not to
   initiate an effective plan and elected officials are forced to mandate fleet size reductions.
   The past couple of years, the state of California-DGS was commissioned in an energy study to
   determine how, "The State of California should examine the best-available scenarios for
   cutbacks in capital and operational budgets of fleets, and how this fiscal situation will affect
   vehicle operations and petroleum consumption."
   Legislators, state officials and fleet managers are reducing and capping the state fleet sizes.
   Below is a summary of fleet reduction trends found in various states around the country:
   •   Excerpt from the State of Texas OVFM business plan — Except in cases of legislatively
       mandated program changes, federal program initiatives, or documented need resulting from
       program growth or changes, agencies and institutions shall not increase fleet size. The chief
       operating officer or designee of an agency or institution must certify in writing to OVFM any
       vehicles purchased due to legislatively mandated program changes, federal program
       initiatives, or need resulting from program growth or changes. All such waiver requests must
       be received in writing from the Executive Director, President, or head of the agency or
       institution making the request. Documentation must fully specify the mandate or need to
       exceed the vehicle cap.
   •   Excerpt from the state of Illinois "2005 Cost Savings Validation Report" prepared by
       Deloite — Approximately 1600 vehicles were disposed from the State fleet of 13,635
       vehicles resulting in reduced fleet size (12,072 vehicles following the disposal).
   •   Excerpt from the 2005 State of Wisconsin Fleet Management Report — The State’s
       vehicle fleet decreased from a high of 7,734 cars, trucks, vans, and buses at the end of
       2001 to a low of 6,669 as of December 31, 2004. This 13.8 percent reduction resulted in
       part from the vehicle reduction initiative announced by the Governor in June 2004.




                                                                             Other States Best Practices — 35
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Excerpt from the state of Ohio DAS/Office of Fleet Management "New State Fleet
       Management Program" — The Governor has directed agencies to reduce passenger
       vehicle fleets by up to 10% by end of Fiscal Year 2005. This 10% fleet reduction target
       should result in nearly 750 fewer state vehicles. Vehicles used to ensure the safety of Ohio
       citizens, such as the Ohio State Highway Patrol, are excluded from reduction efforts.
       Preliminary data indicates a significant number of underutilized state vehicles when
       evaluated against standards established in the State Vehicle Policy. Specifically, agencies
       will be asked to reduce the number of pool vehicles and non-essential vehicles driven less
       than mandated minimum mileage (use) requirements established by OFM for each fleet
       type. Fleet reduction target is based on approximately 7,500 passenger vehicles
       (automobiles, mini vans, passenger vans, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles) identified in
       the Statewide Vehicle Report, Vehicle Count by Class, dated May 2003. Source:
       http://das.ohio.gov/gsd/Fleet/pdf/Fleet Goals7-30.pdf

   •   Excerpt from the state of Utah Division of Fleet Operations web site — The State of
       Utah will see a decrease in fleet vehicles during fiscal year 2003. The cut-backs mandated
       by the Legislature are part of the money-saving plan designed to help cover the anticipated
       budget shortfall during the next 12 months. Originally, the Legislature had requested an 18
       percent cut in the fleet, but through negotiations the percentage was dropped to a more
       manageable five percent.
   •   Excerpt form the state of Missouri "State Fleet Report" — State Agencies Reduce
       Passenger Vehicles by 10% State agencies reported fleet reductions of 969 vehicles since
       the beginning of the state fleet initiative.
   State elected officials and fleet management organizations continue to reduce vehicles in order
   to save fleet capital and operating expenses. Several interesting trends are emerging as a result
   of reducing fleet sizes. These include, effective policies mandating the use of personally owned
   vehicles for state business, use of private short-term vehicle rentals and efforts to monitor
   mileage reimbursement programs.




                                                                              Other States Best Practices — 36
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   At least two state fleets, have proactively designed a “Rate Comparison Model” for users to
   compare and determine the best mode of transportation to utilize for each trip.
   State of Georgia/DOAS Rate Comparison Model




                                                                           Other States Best Practices — 37
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   State of Utah Rate Comparison Model




   The single biggest mantra heard from state and municipal executives is, "We must do more with
   less." The finite funds derived from the depleted tax revenues have become an ongoing reality
   state fleet’s face in today’s conservative political climate. The "More with less", mentality calls
   for creative thinking to come up with solutions to age-old problems.
   The recent boon of technology is becoming a key player in the fleet director’s problem solving
   arsenal. The use of new communications technology like handheld computers (i.e. Blackberries)
   are allowing fleet managers the ubiquity to multi-task anywhere, increasing their productivity,
   and allowing a reduction in traditional fleet staffing levels. The AVL and GPS systems
   technology is forcing vehicle users to become much more conscientious when they operate a
   vehicle.
   Technology is also changing the way we evaluate and hire fleet and operations personnel.
   Several of today’s managers utilize MVR and driver license checks to make sure drivers have
   valid driver licenses prior to a new or potential employee becoming a liability.
   •   The state of Utah checks driver licenses on a bi-weekly basis — using a download from
       the Department of Public Safety to validate driver license status against the authorized
       drivers in the statewide fleet database.




                                                                             Other States Best Practices — 38
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   The state of Montana has implemented the following changes found a recent fleet
       management report — Require MVRs from all prospective drivers. Institute a semi-annual
       motor vehicle record check for all drivers. Set standards for evaluating MVRs and spell out
       what actions are to be taken based upon the number of points or types of violations.
       Establish formal procedure for interviewing, testing, and screening applicants. Require a
       pre-placement physical exam for all new drivers and periodic re-exams for current drivers.
       Require all drivers to take a road or performance test using the vehicle they are to drive.
       Document the results of the test. Periodically review personnel policies regarding
       compensation and benefits to ensure that quality drivers will be attracted and retained.


   Customer Service Accountability, Integrity, Communication, and Reporting
   Interface


   State fleet organizations no longer have a captured based of customers. We live in an age of
   managed competition and outsourcing and many fleets that take their customers for granted find
   themselves out of business. As a former fleet director we found that state customers can be
   even more demanding that those in the private sector, primarily because of the pay differential
   of their counterparts. State fleet customers take it upon themselves to mete out their own
   benefits by demanding better service and treatment from the service providers. The following
   statements is from a recent article in Government Fleet Magazine.
       "Customer service accountability of becoming much more prevalent in today’s state fleet
       management organizations. "Take a look at the mission statement for some of the nation’s
       largest fleets and typically there will be a proclamation that goes something like, "we strive
       to provide the highest level of service to our fleet customers." But ask many fleet managers
       how they measure customer satisfaction, and they might be hard pressed to give a black
       and white answer. Ask the right fleet manager, however, and he or she will be able to spout
       statistics: "We have an average satisfaction rating of 87 percent," or "We’ve increased
       customer satisfaction by an average of 2.5 percent for each of the past four years".
       Source: May/June 2006 “Government Fleet Magazine”, Fleet Metrics – Your Golden Nugget
       By Shelley Mika
   Several states are now implementing measures to quantify customer service within feedback
   their organization. For example, two years ago the state of Utah introduced a new management
   tool called a, "Balanced Scorecard (BSC)" which was developed by two professors from the
   Harvard School of Business. This tool commonly used in the private sector and is sometimes
   referred to as a "dashboard".




                                                                             Other States Best Practices — 39
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The premise behind the BSC concept is to provide top management officials with a list of critical
   indicators visually showing the status of any organization at a glance. Many organizations find
   themselves in a situation called "paralysis by analysis" which usually results from trying to
   interpret mounds of fleet data all at once to make a decision.
   Alternatively, the BSC approach asks managers refocus their efforts on only five primary
   measurements (See example above):
   1. Financial Performance
   2. Customer Service
   3. Employee Satisfaction
   4. Process Effectiveness
   5. Process Efficiency
   If all of the elementary measurements can be satisfied on a periodic basis and improvements
   can take place then the health and viability of the organization will most likely be deemed
   successful. The BSC process starts with managers rewriting their mission statements into
   attainable and real action statements under their direct control. One of the most costly mistakes
   a manager can make is to become bound to a mission statement beyond their scope of control.
   Below is a sample mission statement that most fleet organizations may relate to:
       "The mission of Fleet Operations is to provide our users with exceptional customer service,
       by utilizing safe, reliable, and efficient transportation alternatives at the lowest possible cost
       …"
   As a manager, you need to analyze a mission statement like this and dissect it one word at a
   time and ask yourself, "Is anything is beyond my control?" For example:
   •   Can you provide safe and reliable vehicles if you don’t have the proper budget, resources,
       life cycles, and policies?
   •   Can you provide exceptional customer services if the vehicle purchases are out of your
       control?
   •   Can you provide efficient services if the sale proceeds of vehicles return to the general
       fund?
   •   Can you provide effective and efficient fleet services if you have no control over your rental
       or charge back rates?
   A responsible fleet manager must be able to answer these simple questions affirmatively, if they
   plan to be successful. By monitoring these few basic measurements a fleet manager has control
   over their destiny and overall success of the organization.
   The state of Illinois CMS Fleet Management operation implemented a similar approach during
   the past couple of years by contracting a fleet management consultant to create a baseline and
   measure their continuous improvement a few years after implementing several initiatives. The
   report was able to quantify the several cost reductions over a two year period as a result of the
   state fleet management strategies and initiatives.




                                                                                Other States Best Practices — 40
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   State of Illinois Cms Fleet Management Highlights




   Examples of additional customer service trends emerging around the country to increase
   accountability to fleet customers:
   •   Monthly customer and user face-to-face meeting to discuss fleet issues.
   •   Use of online custom report portals for vehicle user and operators to assist in monitoring
       vehicles.
   •   Use of quartering user and operator training seminars to inform customers of new initiative
       and policies.
   •   Use of customer award programs to recognize and reward users for taking care of agency
       vehicles.
   •   Revenue sharing with customers who aid the fleet in saving fleet costs.
   •   Chargeback systems that bill agencies for abuse and neglect related to the use of vehicles.
   •   Publishing fleet newsletters and information guides to assist customers and stakeholders in
       understanding the fleet department initiatives, saving and successes.
   •   Use of exception reports to identify problems and issues.




                                                                             Other States Best Practices — 41
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Establishing Utilization Standards


   The general rule of thumb concerning underutilized vehicles the maxim should be, "If you don’t
   use ‘em, you simply can’t justify having ‘em!" However, it’s not always this simple when you are
   dealing with customers and the performance of their missions. Not surprisingly, underutilized in
   any fleet is the bane of every fleet manager, primarily because they subject him or her
   unnecessarily to criticism by elected officials. However, fleet managers are generally faced with
   two costly utilization decisions in order to properly manage their fleet; underutilization, and over
   utilization.
   As a result, several states have been developing creative models to more effectively regulate
   and monitor their vehicle utilization. The problem with monitoring utilization is you have to create
   a model that allows the user agency to figure out for themselves when their vehicle is
   unnecessary, so they can police their own vehicles. It is preferred that a user contact the fleet
   manager before being informed they have a vehicle utilization issue. Otherwise, the monitoring
   process can become adversarial and detract from a fleet’s ability to provide quality customer
   service.
   More often than naught many fleets focus on underutilization of vehicle much more than over
   utilization, primarily because they fall prey much more quickly to the political scrutiny of elected
   officials. However, over utilization can prove to be the most costly if a fleet manager fails to
   ignore this element of utilization. Using a fleet asset up before it predetermined life-cycle subject
   fleet managers to fluctuating replacement expenses and loss on sale related to the vehicle at
   the time of disposal. By far, the fleet trends we studied tend to focus on underutilization versus
   over utilization, with the exception of the state of Utah.
   Below is a summary of what some of the states are doing to maintain proper utilization of their
   fleet assets:
   Massachusetts — The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires vehicle users to verify
   before leasing a vehicle they will properly adhere to the prescribed standards. Excerpt from the
   customer vehicle lease agreement: "This vehicle will be driven a minimum of 1,250 miles per
   month. If a waiver from this requirement has been granted from OVM, a copy of that waiver is
   attached to this agreement."
   Colorado — The State of Colorado DOT employs a very simple but effective approach to
   managing underutilized vehicles and equipment. Their policy calculates the average utilization
   of each vehicle class to determine the average percent of use based on their asset life cycle.
   Any vehicle achieving less than 50% of the class average is subject to removal from the fleet.
   Example: Based on a 5-year/75,000 (75,000/60=1,250) mile life cycle with a class average
   utilization of 75% (1,250 x.75=1,175) miles per month. If any unit falls below 588 miles
   (1,175x.50) in a month it is subject to removal from the state fleet.
   Utah — The State of Utah Employs a Process They Called the "Rate Matrix". The Rate matrix
   system calculates the average vehicle utilization each quarter and compares it to its historical
   usage. If the usage changes measurably from the prescribed class standard then the lease rate
   is recalculated accordingly.
   Example: If a vehicle is expected to achieve an average utilization of 1,250 miles per month and
   the lease payment is $300 and the utilization doubles to 2,500 miles per month then new lease
   rate would be increased to $600. This methodology empowers user agencies to rotate their
   vehicle to avoid doubling the lease rate.



                                                                               Other States Best Practices — 42
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Additionally, the state of Utah employs "Underutilization standards that must be followed. These
   standards include different uses for urban, campus and seasonal use.
   Oregon — The State of Oregon’s Utilization Policy States, "Upon determination that a
   permanently assigned vehicle is necessary agencies must submit a Request for Permanent
   Assignment Form to DAS Fleet Administration. · All requests for additional vehicles, exchange
   of vehicle type, change of driver, cost center etc. must be approved by the agencies designated
   approving authority. Permanently assigned vehicles are available for a minimum of one month
   up to the useful life of the vehicle. Vehicles will be assigned based on use and estimated
   monthly mileage. Vehicles are scheduled for replacement based on current criteria of 8 years or
   100,000 miles or until such time as the vehicle is fully depreciated.
   The examples above demonstrate the need to provide oversight over the fleet utilization.
   However, fleet must address both ends of the utilization spectrum to be successful.


   Miscellaneous Trends


   Below are additional observations of management trends by states around the country:
   •   Use of Accident Review Boards that consist of vehicle user department personnel
   •   Fleet review committees consisting of fleet user agencies personnel to aid in regulating fleet
       utilization standards, state-wide fleet policy development.
   •   Selling EPACT AFV credits to agencies in need of compliance and using the proceeds to
       build new fueling infrastructure.
   •   Partnering with private maintenance management companies to manage repair services
       where outsourcing has a more efficient economy of scale and larger more flexible
       infrastructure.
   •   Partnering with private rental companies to provide "as need" or "just-in-Time" short-term
       fleet vehicles. Several states have contract with rental companies like Enterprise and Hertz
       to supplant peak demand or seasonal use periods. The state of Utah is exploring the
       possibility of providing an office to Enterprise at the state capitol to operate their daily motor
       pool. The state of Massachusetts uses several contracts with rental companies and
       encourages state employees to use their personal vehicle first before considering a state
       vehicle to conduct business.
   •   Several states are reviewing vehicle take home policies to decrease fuel costs in the
       organization and to make sure they are in compliance with IRS Publication 15-B.
   •   Fleet managers are using GPS systems to proactively reduce trip miles, communicate with
       fleet operators, and track vehicle transactions.




                                                                                Other States Best Practices — 43
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Federal Fleet Management

   Technical Memorandum On Federal Government Fleet Size Management Initiatives
   Source: Mercury Associates
   Notes —
   FMR Bulletin B-9 Motor Vehicle Management is available online at FMR Bulletin B-9.
   Guide to Federal Fleet Management is available online at Guide to Federal Fleet Management.
   This 165 page document in turn contains links to virtually every significant source of information
   on federal fleet management policies and practices.


   Introduction


   There have been a number of recent initiatives undertaken by the federal government in the
   area of management of fleet size. The government owns the largest fleet of vehicles in the world
   by far. As of 2006, federal agencies owned more than 630,000 cars and light trucks. Counting
   large trucks, construction and landscape equipment, and specialty items (not to mention tactical
   military vehicles) would push this total well past a million units. With this scale of operations,
   even small percentage point gains in efficiency return millions of dollars in savings.
   Management of the federal government’s fleet is somewhat decentralized and organizationally
   is not dissimilar to California. The General Services Agency (GSA), through its Office of
   Government wide Policy (OGP) provides regulatory oversight including reporting of fleet
   utilization. Another arm of the agency, GSA Fleet, provides various fleet services to federal
   agencies including vehicle leasing and coordination of maintenance services for leased
   vehicles. GSA also manages a commercial fueling program (with Voyager) for the federal
   government. Each federal agency is largely responsible for managing its own fleet, for deciding
   whether to lease vehicles from GSA, for assessing the correct size of its fleet, and for managing
   off-highway and specialty equipment.
   This somewhat decentralized organization to fleet management in the federal government led to
   an inconsistent and rather institutionalized approach to providing transportation for employees.
   In most cases, agencies failed to investigate alternatives to owning vehicles and equipment for
   temporary and intermittent use. Alternatives such as annual rental contracts, mileage
   reimbursement for use of Personally Owned Vehicles (POV’s), a reimbursement plan for
   assigned vehicles, increased inter-departmental sharing, new or better ways of managing
   internal motor pools, or even using taxi cabs or buses in certain situations were rarely
   investigated.
   The under-management of the federal fleet did not go unnoticed. Following is a chronology of
   significant events relating to management of fleet size in the federal government over the past
   few years:




                                                                             Federal Fleet Management — 44
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   April 2002 – Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests all Executive Branch
       agencies to take a closer look at their fleet management operations, particularly the size of
       their fleets.
   •   March 2003 – Federal Fleet Policy Council creates "Fleet Management Review" template
       requiring all Executive Agencies to perform a self evaluation.
   •   July 2003 - GSA communicates plan for new regulations, including development of a
       Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM) to federal fleet managers at Fedfleet Conference.
   •   May 2004 – Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues Report 04-664 titled "Federal
       Acquisition – Increased Attention to Vehicle Fleets Could Result in Savings" emphasizing
       evidence of too many vehicles.
   •   September 2004 – General Services Administration (GSA) contracts with a consultant to
       develop a VAM for the agency to serve as a model for other organizations.
   •   July 2005 – Department of Homeland Security hires a consultant to develop an agency-wide
       VAM.
   •   August 2005 – GSA Office of Government wide Policy issues Federal Management
       Regulation Bulletin FMR B-9 encouraging development of a VAM in all Executive Branch
       Agencies.
   •   September 2005 – GSA National Capitol Region contracts Mercury to assess fleet
       management and fleet utilization.
   •   October 2005 – the Smithsonian Institute contracts with a consultant to conduct a review of
       fleet operations including development of a VAM for the organization.
   •   March 2006 – U.S. Department of State contracts with a consultant to assess fleet
       management operations including fleet size.
   •   July 2006 – the National Park Service hires a consultant to develop a VAM for the agency


   GSA Bulletin FMR B-9 Requiring Creation of a "Vehicle Allocation Methodology"


   One of the more significant documents relating to management of fleet size in the federal
   government is GSA Bulletin FMR B-9. This document spells out the rationale for development of
   a fleet size management program (which has generally become to be known as a VAM in
   federal circles). This bulletin is reproduced below.



       GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
       Washington, DC 20405
       August 26, 2005
       GSA BULLETIN FMR B-9
       MOTOR VEHICLE MANAGEMENT
       TO: Heads of Federal agencies




                                                                              Federal Fleet Management — 45
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       SUBJECT: Documented Structured Vehicle Allocation Methodology for Agency Fleets
       1. What is the purpose of this bulletin? This bulletin provides guidance to Executive
          Branch agencies (other Federal entities are encouraged to follow this guidance) on the
          development and maintenance of documented structured vehicle allocation
          methodologies for agency fleets, i.e., vehicles that are agency-owned, leased from the
          General Services Administration (GSA), or commercially-leased. Agency adherence to
          such a methodology will help to ensure that agency vehicle fleets are not over-costly, are
          correctly sized in terms of numbers, and are the of appropriate type for accomplishing
          agency missions.
       2. What is the effective date of this bulletin? This bulletin is effective upon publication.
       3. When does this bulletin expire? This bulletin will remain in effect until specifically
          superseded or cancelled.
       4. What is the background? In April 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
          requested that all Executive Branch agencies take a closer look at their fleet
          management operations, particularly the size of their fleets. In coordination with OMB,
          information was collected from the agencies using a survey developed by the Federal
          Fleet Policy Council (FEDFLEET) and GSA’s Vehicle Management Policy Division. The
          results of the survey indicated a number of deficiencies in the fleet management
          operations of the agencies. An interagency working group of FEDFLEET members
          recommended corrective actions, including the establishment, within each agency, of the
          subject methodology to identify the optimal allocation of the agency vehicles in terms of
          number and configuration of those vehicles. The need for such a methodology was
          further validated in a May 2004 Government Accountability Office report on the
          acquisition and management of Federal motor vehicles.
       5. What is the description of the subject methodology and resultant optimal vehicle
          allocation? An optimal vehicle allocation results not from a formula per se, but from a
          methodology which provides agency fleet managers with a standard way to document
          the objective criteria of a vehicle fleet for a specific or generic (where there are common
          characteristics) office/facility, program, occupational group, or other entity within an
          agency. Objective criteria would include, but not necessarily be limited to: number of
          vehicle users to include, where applicable, user/vehicle ratios; per vehicle mileage; trips
          per vehicle; mission; terrain; climate; and fleet condition and down-time. The input for the
          methodology typically is obtained by surveys and/or in-person interviews of
          stakeholders. The following is a narrative example of the methodology. The example is
          also displayed in a standardized format as an attachment to this FMR bulletin.
           Narrative Example of a Methodology for Border Patrol Station on the Mexican Border




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 46
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



           At a Border Patrol Station (BPS) on the Mexican border, the methodology would display
           the objective criteria and optimal allocation of vehicles assigned to that station. Although
           a ratio between numbers of vehicles and users for some offices, programs, occupational
           groups, etc. may not apply, this illustration uses a ratio determined by the Border Patrol
           Program as applicable to its Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) of a three
           BPAs-to-two-vehicles ratio, except for a one BPA-for-one vehicle ratio for
           managers/supervisors and K-9 officers. Thus, if ABC BPS has 280 BPAs, including 10
           managers/supervisors and K-9 officers, the vehicle count would be 190. Factoring in
           fleet condition and down-time, an additional percentage of "back-up" vehicles for other
           than the managers/ supervisor and K-9 officers might appropriately be as much as 5%
           (9) to have on hand. Based on mission (together with terrain and climate), the 199
           vehicles might be divided into vehicle types such as 68% (129) 4X4 SUVs, 11% (21)
           carryalls, 11% (21) full-size vans, 5% (9) pick-ups, and 5% (19) large sedans. As law
           enforcement vehicles, "greening requirements" are not applicable.
           For related entities at that BPS supporting the BPAs, such as the garage, facilities,
           administration, information technology, etc., their mission (together with terrain and
           climate) and workload would most likely govern the optimal allocation of vehicles for
           those entities; i.e., user to vehicle ratios would not be applicable. The optimal vehicle
           allocation would display a set number of tow trucks; special purpose vehicles such as
           bucket trucks, road graders, and fork lifts; ambulances; fire trucks; vans; pick-up trucks;
           sedans; etc. Greening requirements would apply to those vehicles that are non-special
           purpose. In contrast to the optimal allocation of vehicles at a BPS on the Mexican
           border, would be the optimal allocation of vehicles at a BPS on the Canadian border
           which would be different due to differences in operations, fleet condition and down-time,
           terrain, climate, support entities, etc. Even using the same BPA-to-vehicle ratios, the
           allocation of vehicles at a BPS on the Canadian border used by the BPAs, as well as by
           the entities supporting the BPAs would not be in match to that of the BPS on the
           Mexican border. For example, the condition of the fleet used by BPAs on the Canadian
           border may be better than the condition of the fleet used by BPAs on the Mexican
           border, and the additional percentage of back-up vehicles due to vehicle down-time
           would be less than 5%. In terms of operational differences, the number of illegal aliens is
           less on the Canadian than Mexican border. As a result, the percentage of vehicles of the
           type used by BPAs on the Mexican border for carrying illegal aliens, may not be as great
           on the Canadian border.
           Regarding as vehicles for support entities, if BPS’ fleet operations on the Canadian
           border do not have garages, then unlike BPS’ on the Mexican border, they would not
           have vehicles commensurate with garages, e.g., tow trucks.
       6. How should the subject methodology and resultant optimal vehicle allocation be
          recorded? Because agency vehicle fleet inventories and optimal vehicle allocations
          should be in balance, the methodology and optimal vehicle allocation should ideally be
          integrated into the agency’s vehicle fleet management information system (MIS) and
          linked to the agency vehicle fleet inventory to serve as a tool indicating inventory
          changes as "in match" or "not in match" to the inventory. However, other recording
          formats for the methodology and optimal vehicle allocation may be used, to include a
          stand-alone screen in the agency vehicle fleet MIS or in a personal computer file such as
          Excel, or hard-copy documentation.




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 47
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       7. What are the sources for development of the subject methodology and resultant optimal
          vehicle allocation? The methodology and optimal vehicle allocation may be developed
          in-house by the agency, or contracted out to logistics or management consulting firms.
          For contract resources, the GSA Federal Supply Service Schedules should be
          consulted, and are accessible at http://gsaelibrary.gsa.gov, under first the "Services" link,
          and then under either the "Logistics Solutions" link or "Management Consulting
          Solutions" link.
       8. What should I do as a result of this bulletin? Where not already in place, each Federal
          executive agency is strongly encouraged to develop by the suggested date of
          September 30, 2006 and thereafter maintain the subject methodology and optimal
          allocation for their vehicle fleet. Agency vehicle enhancements and replacements should
          be made to meet the optimal vehicle allocation. Should there be exceptions to the
          methodology or optimal vehicle allocation, they should be justified, documented, and
          appended to the methodology. The methodology and optimal vehicle allocation should
          be updated, as necessary, upon review at least every five years, or upon factors
          changing such as mission, staffing, fleet condition, etc.
           Agencies are advised that the optimal vehicle allocation should not be met at the
           expense of expanding the use of privately-operated vehicles.
       9. Who should we contact for further information and/or to direct comments regarding the
          subject methodology and resultant optimal vehicle allocation? General Services
          Administration
       Office of Government wide Policy
       Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management (MT)
       Washington, DC 20405
       Telephone Number: 202-501-1777
       E-mail Address: vehicle.policy@gsa.gov
       G. Martin Wagner
       Associate Administrator
       Office of Government wide Policy




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 48
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Excerpt from the "Guide to Federal Fleet Management"


   Another document of significant importance to this issue is the sections of the "Guide to Federal
   Fleet Management" that relate fleet size. The guide is an online training, policy, and best
   practice resource that has been developed for federal fleet managers – most of whom are
   charged with additional duties and who rotate out fleet management after a few years. The
   guide, which was developed in 2005, includes the following guidance regarding management of
   fleet size.
   NOTE: To see the complete Guide to Federal Fleet Management, click one of these two links:
   GSA Site - Guide to Federal Fleet Management
   Local Site - Guide to Federal Fleet Management




       5.13 Vehicle Utilization
       An inventory control system should aid a Fleet Manager in accounting for and optimizing the
       utilization of the vehicle fleet. Typically, Fleet Managers measure improvements resulting
       from such effort in miles per vehicle year (MPVY). Searching for and identifying
       opportunities for utilization improvement is critically important because it represents a
       significant opportunity for cost avoidance and fleet right-sizing. Tracking and monitoring
       utilization can help identify possible misuse or abuse of vehicle. Improvements resulting
       from such efforts can be measured in increased miles per vehicle year. Key to use of this
       performance measure is assigning utilization targets to all vehicles to identify normal and
       abnormal variations in utilization. Fleet Managers should analyze utilization data quarterly
       and take appropriate action when usage is falling short or excessively surpassing the
       guidelines. Among the actions Federal Fleet Managers may consider are "pooling" or
       "rotating" vehicles:
       •   Pooling means having employees or organizational activities share the same vehicle
           when usage falls below the requirements for full-time vehicle assignment.
       •   Rotating vehicles can be done when one activity has met or exceeded utilization
           guidelines and another has fallen short during a given time period.
       The practice of rotating vehicles is not an end in itself. It is, however, an essential function of
       fleet management for realizing the objective of establishing and maintaining an efficient, fully
       utilized fleet. The disposal of late-model vehicles due to accumulation of excessive mileage
       while at the same time operating aged vehicles receiving very little usage is inefficient and
       uneconomical in terms of fleet-size required, high maintenance costs, and low disposal
       proceeds.
       5.13.1 Heavy Duty Equipment




                                                                                 Federal Fleet Management — 49
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       For heavy duty equipment in particular Fleet Managers need utilization information to
       conduct detailed analyses of the frequency, intensity, and duration (i.e., how often, how
       much, how long) of use of specialty equipment such as excavators and earthmovers. One
       important outcome of tracking this utilization data is that careful analysis can yield general
       guidelines as to what specific types of assets should be rented rather than purchased.
       Proper analysis of fleet utilization requires data on every motorized unit to show hour-meter
       or mileage readings at two points in time. Fleet Managers should generate utilization reports
       to ensure that data being input are accurate and reliable. For example, if units have no
       meter reading or a reading of "1," then you should follow up to ensure operators are
       capturing and entering data correctly. If you find that units have meter readings ranging from
       20,000 hours to more than 600,000 hours, you should follow up to ensure operators are
       capturing and entering data correctly. In some cases, entry of meter readings may only be
       off due to a decimal point being omitted.
       Equipment is normally at a point of wear that merits retirement at around 6,000 to 7,000
       hours, although 10,000 hours may be possible with proper maintenance. It is difficult to
       determine a general rule for replacement of motorized equipment, such as off-road and
       construction equipment, due to the extreme variations in the types of equipment in this
       class, and the variations in how the equipment may be used. However, the following general
       guidelines are useful benchmarks:
        Group                    Examples                 Life - Years         Life - Hours
        Light Duty               ATV's,                   5                    1500
                                 Snowmobiles,
                                 Grounds equipment
                                 such as mowers
                                 under 20 h.p., etc.
        Medium Duty              Tractors up to 100       10                   3000
                                 h.p., forklifts, small
                                 loaders and
                                 backhoes, etc.
        Heavy Duty               Tracked and              20                   6000
                                 wheeled dozers and
                                 loaders, graders,
                                 scrapers, cranes,
                                 etc.
       5.13.2 Using Utilization for Fleet Right-Sizing
       The National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) conducted a survey of its member
       fleet organizations in 2001, which included an inquiry regarding life expectancy of several
       different classes of vehicles and equipment. The survey results provide a baseline reference
       (but note that the data lumps all off-road and construction equipment into one large group):




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 50
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




       Fleet Managers with diverse fleet assets should take steps to ensure that all mileage and
       meter readings are collected regularly and accurately. After reliable data is available,
       undertaking an annual review of utilization will identify potentially under-utilized units.
       Suggested minimum utilization levels are:
       Passenger vehicles and light trucks: 400 miles per month
       Medium and heavy duty trucks: 200 miles per month
       Motorized equipment*: 20 hours per month
       *Off-road, construction, industrial, and agricultural equipment that is self-powered, drivable,
       and non-licensed.
       Adjust minimum utilization levels to a point where approximately 10% of the units in each
       major class fall below the minimum level, after reliable data becomes available. This
       provides a fundamental tool for fleet right-sizing. Scrutinize fleet units in that 10% most
       carefully and consider them for either disposal, rotation, placement in a pool, or pass-along.
       Also consider whether renting may be more cost-effective than owning or leasing.




   Structure of Agency VAM Programs


   As indicated in the chronology earlier in this document a number of federal agencies have
   developed VAM programs to rightsize their fleets.
   These projects all recognize that the most obvious indicator of the business need for a vehicle is
   the amount of its use. Usually, but not always, vehicles that are genuinely needed to support the
   performance of agency employees’ jobs are used frequently, and that usage is reflected in the
   number of miles or hours such vehicles are driven or operated. As every fleet manager knows,
   however, mileage statistics are not always a good indicator of the need for a vehicle. Some
   vehicles are heavily used even though they do not accumulate many miles. This is particularly
   true in the case of vehicles that are used for security, emergency response, or within the
   relatively limited confines of a facility, such as a college campus or a prison.




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 51
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Thus, while high mileage readings usually are a good indication that a vehicle is needed and
   should be retained, the opposite cannot necessarily be said of low mileage rates. Low-mileage
   vehicles are not necessarily low-usage or low-importance vehicles. They may or may not be
   vital to the performance of employees’ job duties. For this reason, any analysis aimed at
   optimizing fleet size via the establishment of a VAM will focus primarily on low-mileage rather
   than on high-mileage vehicles. In scrutinizing seemingly under-utilized vehicles, however, it is
   critical to develop information on their use and importance to an agency or its organizational
   components that simply cannot be reflected in a single metric such as weekly, monthly, or
   annual mileage.
   A common feature of a federal VAM model is incorporation of both Determination of Need
   (including Mission and Utilization) and Determination of Type parameters. A VAM also applies
   an array of factors that affect vehicle selection and usage, all integrated into a single system
   designed to furnish flexibility to an organization in establishing the model yet providing a
   consistent, standardized system.
   Other common features include consideration of the following parameters:
   Frequency and timing of the vehicle’s use
   •   Typical times of use, including evening and weekend hours
   •   Seasonality of use
   •   Ability to predict and manage when the vehicle is used
   General requirements for the vehicle’s use
   •   Typical number of passengers
   •   Types of passengers (e.g., employees, contractors, VIPs, etc.)
   •   Criticality of the vehicle’s reliability to the user’s job performance
   Special characteristics of the vehicle’s usage requirements
   •   Need to respond to emergency calls and frequency and timing of such calls
   •   Vehicle appearance (e.g., presence of company decals and other markings)
   •   Need for auxiliary equipment (e.g., light bars, radio, mobile data terminal, tool box, security
       cage)
   •   Security of vehicle and contents
   •   Need to transport materials, tools, and/or equipment that are not easily removed from the
       vehicle so that someone else can use it
   Location of the vehicle’s use
   •   Proximity of the vehicle user to other vehicle users with whom the vehicle might be shared
   •   Proximity of the user to an existing or potential motor pool location
   •   Variability in the user’s work place locations and travel destinations (i.e., predictability as to
       where and when the vehicle will be available for use by others)




                                                                                 Federal Fleet Management — 52
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Quantifying Vehicle Need.
   Some organizations, including the U.S. General Services Agency (GSA) have developed a
   quantitative approach to determining vehicle need as a part of their VAM.
   GSA’s determination of need analysis consists of a series of simple survey questions that
   establish estimates of utilization and quantify mission criticality. The two factors are plotted on a
   set of X-Y coordinates, where the X-quantity is utilization and the Y-quantity is criticality. The
   resulting point in the X-Y plane is considered to be the tip of a vector, which has a particular
   length (the distance of the point from the origin). The length of the vector summarizes the
   combination of utilization and criticality.
   The motivation behind combining the factors in this way is that a high score in either factor can
   reflect genuine need. For instance, some vehicles used for basic transportation have high
   estimated utilization but low criticality scores. Conversely, a vehicle can have a high degree of
   criticality but low estimated utilization (as in the case of an emergency response vehicle.) The
   vector approach allows for all possible combinations between these two extremes. The following
   diagram is a typical output from the VAM that has been developed for GSA. The diagram below
   represents the latter case; i.e., it is the result of a model survey that produced low utilization
   estimates and a high criticality score:




   The length of the vector on the chart above falls between the automatic "pass – fail" regions.
   This means that human judgment will be required to decide whether to assign a vehicle to this
   organization. Note that the angle of the vector is very steep, which implies a very strong
   component of mission criticality while showing very weak need based on utilization. The scales
   on the chart are simply rating values and do not reflect actual measures such as "miles."




                                                                                Federal Fleet Management — 53
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Federal Fleet Management Appendices



   Attachment to Bulletin FMR B-9

   Formatted Example of Documented Structured Vehicle Allocation Methodology for Border Patrol
   Station on Mexican Border




    ABC BORDER PATROL STATION
    CRITERIA:
    NO. OF VEHICLE                3 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs)/2 vehicles ratio, except for 1/1
    USERS:                        vehicle ratio for 7 BPA mgrs./supvs. and 3 BPA K-9 officers.
                                  Number of support vehicles for non-BPAs determined by mission
                                  and workload.
    PER VEHICLE                   100 miles/shift for BPA vehicles.
    MILEAGE (AVERAGE):            Indeterminate for BPA mgrs./supvs., K-9 officers, and support
                                  vehicles used by non-BPAs.
    TRIPS PER VEHICLE             In constant use per shift for BPA vehicles.
    (AVERAGE):                    As required for BPA mgrs./supvs., K-9 officers, and support
                                  vehicles used by non-BPAs
    MISSION:                      BPAs patrol border to detect, interdict, and apprehend.
                                  Non-BPAs support BPAs.
    TERRAIN:                      Rough and sandy.
    CLIMATE:                      Warm to hot.
    FLEET CONDITION:              Marginal for vehicles at 3 BPAs/2 vehicles ratio. Requires 5%
                                  extra vehicles as back-up.
                                  Good for BPA mgrs./supvs. And K-9 officer vehicles. No extra
                                  vehicles required.
                                  Good for BPA support vehicles used by non-BPAs. No extra
                                  vehicles required.
    OTHER CRITERIA /              None.
    COMMENTS:


    MISSION                       NO. OF     4X4         CARRY-       FULL-      PICK-UP     LARGE
                                  BORDE      SUVs        ALLS         SIZE       TRUCK       SEDANS
                                  R                                   VANS       S
                                  PATROL
                                  AGENT
                                  S
                                  (BPAs)




                                                                                Federal Fleet Management — 54
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




    BPA MGRS./SUPVS.              7                                                       7
    BPA K-9 OFFICERS              3                                                       3
    BPAs + 5% BACK-UP             270        129        21          21        9           9
    VEHICLES
    TOTALS                        280        129        21          21        9           19
    *VEHICLES FOR BPA SUPPORT FUNCTIONS (USED BY NON-BPAs):
    FACILITIES:                   2 BUCKET TRUCKS, 2 ROAD GRADERS, 3 FORKLIFTS, 1
                                  AMBULANCE, 1 FIRE TRUCK
    ADMINISTRATION:               1 FULL-SIZE VAN, 1 MINI-VAN, 2 PICK-UP TRUCKS
    INFORMATION                   3 MID-SIZE SEDANS
    TECHNOLOGY:
    * Requisite percentage of non-special purpose vehicles meet greening requirements.




   Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 41CFR101-39.3.01

   WAIS Document Retrieval[Code of Federal Regulations]
   [Title 41, Volume 2]
   [Revised as of July 1, 2001]
   From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
   [CITE: 41CFR101-39.301]
   [Page 362]
           TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
          CHAPTER 101--FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
   PART 101-39--INTERAGENCY FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS--Table of Contents
     Subpart 101-39.3--Use and Care of GSA Interagency Fleet Management
                       System Vehicles
   Sec. 101-39.301 Utilization guidelines.
   An agency must be able to justify a full-time vehicle assignment.
   The following guidelines may be employed by an agency requesting GSA Interagency Fleet
   Management System (IFMS) services. Other utilization factors, such as days used, agency
   mission, and the relative costs of alternatives to a full-time vehicle assignment, may be
   considered as justification where miles traveled guidelines are not met.
           (a) Passenger-carrying vehicles. The utilization guidelines for
           passenger-carrying vehicles are a minimum of 3,000 miles per quarter or
           12,000 miles per year.


                                                                             Federal Fleet Management — 55
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



           (b) Light trucks and general purpose vehicles. The utilization guidelines for light trucks
           and general purpose vehicles are as follows:
            (1) Light trucks and general purpose vehicles, 12,500 lbs. Gross
                   Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and under--10,000 miles per year.
                   (2) Trucks and general purpose vehicles, over 12,500 lbs. GVWR to 24,000 lbs.
                   GVWR--7,500 miles per year.
        (c) Heavy trucks and truck tractors. The utilization guidelines for
           heavy trucks and truck tractors are as follows:
           (1) Heavy trucks and general purpose vehicles over 24,000 lbs.
                   GVWR--7,500 miles per year.
           (2) Truck tractors--10,000 miles per year.
           (d) Other trucks and special purpose vehicles. Utilization guidelines for other trucks and
           special purpose vehicles have not been established. However, the head of the local
           office of the agency or his/her designee shall cooperate with GSA IFMS fleet
           management center personnel in studying the use of this equipment and take necessary
           action to ensure that it is reasonably utilized or returned to the issuing GSA IFMS fleet
           management center.
   [51 FR 11023, Apr. 1, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 59890, Nov. 26, 1991; 58
   FR 63533, Dec. 2, 1993]




                                                                               Federal Fleet Management — 56
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   California Requirements

   Current State of California Fleet Utilization Reporting Requirements
   Source: Mercury Associates


   Introduction


   The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide information on the fleet utilization
   standards and reporting requirements currently in place for the State of California. These
   standards are the responsibility of the Department of General Services’ (DGS) Office of Fleet
   Administration (OFA) and apply to all vehicles and equipment owned by agencies or
   departments within the Executive Branch of California state government, as defined by
   Government Code 11000. As with the previous documents provided, this information is
   intended to be used in the development of a Vehicle Allocation Model (VAM) and has limited
   analysis and no recommendations are presented at this time.


   Current Policy


   For the State of California, OFA has specified utilization standards in Management Memo 06-06
   (MM 06-06), attached as Appendix A. MM 06-06, which was issued on January 15, 2006,
   updated previously existing standards. According to OFA staff, the push and direction for
   revising these standards came from the Senate Committee on Government Cost Control and
   the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) in a belief that these new standards would improve
   efficiencies and reduce costs. The basis for these revised standards is reportedly the Code of
   Federal Regulations (CFR) 41CFR101-39.3.01 (see Appendix B).
   The revised standards set forth in MM 06-06 increased the mileage criteria for State vehicles
   from 4,000 miles in a six month period to 6,000 miles and frequency of use from 70 percent of
   business days to 80 percent. A notable difference between MM 06-06 and the federal standard
   is the elimination of the differentiation between passenger-carrying vehicles, light duty vehicles
   and heavy duty vehicles and correspondingly different standards. While the federal codes sets
   specific and different standards for each of these types of vehicles, the California standards do
   not. OFA has stated that all state owned vehicles, within the definition of OFA’s authority
   (Government Code 11000), are included in the MM 06-06 standards. Another key difference
   between the two standards is that 41CFR 101-39.301 is a guideline to be used to justify the
   full-time assignment of a vehicle. MM 06-06 does, however, have a provision for requesting an
   exemption though OFA. When asked about the criteria or justification needed to successfully
   request an exemption from the utilization standard, OFA stated that to date no request has been
   denied.




                                                                               California Requirements — 57
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The process for creating the new standards was a reaction to political (legislative) pressure.
   OFA acknowledges that they do not have the expertise to set regulations that realistically apply
   to all state owned vehicles. It is OFA’s intention to establish teams comprised of
   representatives from various state agencies and departments and to collaboratively create
   standards to replace MM 06-06 when they expire January 31, 2007. OFA sees the utilization
   standard as an opportunity to limit ‘fleet creep’ by requiring agencies and departments to fully
   evaluate and justify all new vehicle needs, both additional and replacement, based on their
   current vehicle utilization.
   In addition to MM 06-06 utilization standards, the State has a number of required reports
   relating to vehicle activity. These include the following as listed in the State Administrative
   Manual (SAM):

   4106 Passenger Mobile Equipment Usage Report

   (Renumbered from 4131 and Revised 06/96)
   In order to insure optimum utilization of state-owned passenger mobile equipment (see Vehicle
   Code Section 465), a Passenger Vehicle Usage Certification form, STD. 276A, will be submitted
   to the OFA bi-annually, February 15 and August 15. Form STD 276A is attached as Appendix
   C.

   4107 Travel Logs

   (Renumbered from 4143 and Revised 6/96)
   Agencies/departments will maintain a Monthly Travel Log form, STD. 273, on all state-owned
   passenger mobile equipment except for motorcycles, trucks over 3/4 ton, and heavy
   equipment. See DPA Section 599.807 and OFA State Fleet Handbook. This form, STD.273, is
   not listed on OFA’s website, see Appendix D.

   4109 Home Storage

   (Renumbered from 4144 and Revised 6/96)
   Storage of state-owned mobile equipment at an employee's residence on a regular basis
   requires an approved Vehicle Home Storage Request/Permit form, STD. 377, be on file with the
   employee's department. Annual renewal of STD. 377 is required.

   4114 Annual Inventory of Mobile Equipment

   (Renumbered from 4102 and Revised 6/96)
   The Annual Inventory of Mobile Equipment form, OFA 53, is required for the self-insurance and
   Inspection Services Program cost allocation. Agencies/departments will submit OFA 53 to OFA
   by July 10.




                                                                                  California Requirements — 58
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Management Memo 06-05

   Management Memo 06-05 mandates the collection of alternative fueled vehicles data. The link
   to this form is:
   http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/ofa/sb552/prc25722_5template.xls
   This report is due to DGS by February 15, annually.




                                                                           California Requirements — 59
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   California Requirements Appendices



   Management Memo 05-08 — Requirements for the New Acquisition or
   Replacement of Motor Vehicles and General Use Mobile Equipment




                                                             California Requirements — 60
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 61
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 62
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 63
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 64
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 65
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Management Memo 06-06 — State Vehicle Utilization Standards




                                                                 California Requirements — 66
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 67
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 68
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   State Fleet Asset Management Plan Template




                                                California Requirements — 69
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Passenger Vehicle Usage Report




                                        California Requirements — 70
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   OFA Forms Overview

   OFA forms are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher is required to view and print the forms.

   You can enter information on-line and then print the form.

    Form No.                          Form Title                     Rev. Date


   OFA 27G     Receipt For Items To Be Sold                          09/02


   OFA 53      Annual Mobile Equipment Inventory Report              08/03


   OFA 53A     Alternative Fuel Vehicles                             08/03


   OFA 54      Request For Monthly Vehicle Assignment                07/05


   OFA 58a     Request for General Services Charge Cards             07/05


   OFA 58b     Cancellation of General Services Charge Cards         06/02


   OFA 66      Parking Cancellation                                  06/02


   OFA 73      Employee Car/Vanpool Parking Rules and Agreement      05/03


   OFA 112     Application for Parking                               02/02


   OFA 151     Waste Reduction and Recycling Program Worksheet       12/02


   OFA 155     Equipment Modification Request                        10/03


   OFA 160     Acquisition of State Vehicles                         11/05


   STD 152     Property Survey Report                                09/00


   STD 158     Property Transfer Report                              07/00


   STD 270     Vehicle Accident Report                               02/02


   STD 276A    Passenger Vehicle Usage Report                        10/98


   STD 377     Vehicle Home Storage Request/Permit                   10/97




                                                                                                California Requirements — 71
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Management Memo 06-07 — Revised Vehicle Acquisition Request Form OFA 160




                                                            California Requirements — 72
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 73
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   OFA 160 — Vehicle Acquisition Request Form, November 2005




                                                               California Requirements — 74
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 75
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   OFA STD-273 — Monthly Travel Log




                                        California Requirements — 76
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Public Resources Code 24722.5 - Reporting Form - February 2006




                                                               California Requirements — 77
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 78
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 79
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Requirements — 80
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   California Draft Memo

   Outline of VAM Fleet Size Management Program




                                                  California Draft Memo   81
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   82
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   83
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   84
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Draft




                                        California Draft Memo   85
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   86
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   87
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   88
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   89
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   90
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   91
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        California Draft Memo   92
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size

   Principal Source: Mercury Associates


   Introduction


   This is a literature search of the types of technology available to assist fleet managers collect
   vehicle utilization (and other) information required to manage fleet size.
   Research for this technical memorandum was conducted by searching the internet, by reviewing
   fleet related publications, by using industry expertise and contacts, and by contacting vendors.
   Three major types of technology are profiled: AVL (Automatic Vehicle Location) systems, RFID
   (Radio Frequency Identification Systems), and Fuel Management systems. All these
   technologies are capable of collecting a wide variety vehicle and fleet data such as:
   •   Validation of System Security Codes;
   •   Employee Information;
   •   Vehicle Information;
   •   Organization Identification;
   •   Site Information;
   •   Odometer Readings;
   •   Hour Meter Readings;
   •   Maintenance Information;
   •   Date and Time of events;
   •   Error Codes; and
   •   Vehicle Diagnostic Information
   Once the data is collected, detailed analytical reports can be generated to help fleet managers
   make well informed business decisions related to a wide range of vehicle management issues –
   including management of fleet size and utilization.
   AVL systems combine Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, cellular communications,
   street-level mapping, and management software to collect specific location, route, speed, and
   stop information to enable real-time analysis and decisions regarding dispatching vehicles to
   service calls. With an additional optional module that communicates to the onboard vehicle
   computer system, the data collected extends to engine performance such as odometer
   readings, temperature, trouble codes, and emissions.
   RFID technology has become pervasive in virtually every sector of industry, commerce, and
   services and its implementation solutions are endless. These systems use low frequency radio
   transmitters and receivers to collect a variety of location and other data about all types of
   assets. Applications for fleet managers include systems placed at gate entries that allow
   authorized vehicles access into a yard. They can also be placed at fuel stations as well and are
   capable of collecting odometer/hour meter readings and other data. One of the major
   advantages of RFID systems is the non-contact, non-line-of-sight technology. The tags can be
   read through a variety of material and can also be read at high speeds. Another major factor is
   that this technology has been proven for several years through highway toll collection systems.



                                                             Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   93
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Fuel Management Systems help fleet managers have continuous control over their fueling
   operations. There are several benefits of fuel management systems. First, they offer a variety of
   data entry methods ranging from manual entries with keypads, magnetic cards, smart keys, and
   even hands-free methods. Second, not only can these systems control access to fuel, they can
   also collect fuel statistics like type of fuel used, amount of fuel dispersed, from which site, driver
   involved, etc. Also, much like GPS and RFID systems Fuel Systems are excellent tools for
   collecting vehicle utilization data for use in scheduling preventive maintenance services,
   planning fleet replacement, and controlling fleet size.
   All of these technologies provide many similar benefits but also are focused on different
   business applications. While all are capable of providing the data required to assist in managing
   fleet size, choosing between the various technologies is mostly a matter of budget and the
   ancillary business problems that an organization is seeking to solve (such as opening a gate,
   controlling access to fuel, or optimizing vehicle routing). This technical memorandum provides
   an overview of each type of system, their pros and cons, and estimated implementation costs.




                                                              Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   94
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   AVL SYSTEMS


   AVL systems1, often also called GPS systems, rely on a network of 24 active NAVSTAR
   satellites, orbiting the Earth at an altitude of over 12,000 miles (20,000 km) and constantly
   transmitting radio signals to ground-based stations and GPS receivers. The satellite transmits
   its own proximate location to Earth, as well as the precise time of transmission using
   synchronized atomic clock data. The following graphic illustrates how AVL systems work:




   Figure provided by a Karta Inc. Brochure.

   A receiver placed in a vehicle is able to calculate its latitude and longitude based on the signal
   strength and location of the satellite. With this information the system can accurately pin point a
   vehicle’s location to within ten meters. This method is referred to as triangulation. The system
   uses signal information from at least three satellites to determine a location on the ground. The
   greater the number of satellites within line-of-sight ranges of the receiver, the greater the
   accuracy of the location data.
   Using permutations of the same data, the GPS receiver can also calculate the vehicle's speed
   and direction. GPS technology, combined with analysis and mapping software, provides a
   "bird's eye view" of the fleet vehicle activity, instant locations, and graphic explanations of key
   events, such as:
   •   Service stops;
   •   Customer locations;
   •   Vehicle speeds;


   1
     It is important to note that GPS and AVL are not the same solution. GPS uses a receiver
   device to communicate with satellites to determine its exact location (i.e. its global position in
   longitude and latitude). The GPS receiver is part of a mapping solution that tells its user their
   current location. Additional features, like driving directions, are available with most GPS
   devices; however, these GPS units are only receivers and do not transmit any data outside the
   device. AVL systems, on the other hand, combine the GPS receiver and other features, (e.g.
   on-board vehicle sensors) and a wireless transmitter, usually cellular-based, to send data about
   the vehicle and its location back to a central database. Once the data is in a database there are
   various management applications (e.g. vehicle location) that can be realized.



                                                             Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   95
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Onboard equipment usage;
   •   Route tracking, including driver stops and variations from route;
   •   Geo-fencing - verification to ensure vehicles stay within a defined geographical area; and
   •   Fleet vehicle location, on demand or at pre-set intervals, for immediate dispatch or periodic
       update
   Management software that comes with the system (often web-based) provides detailed analysis
   tools to measure driver efficiency, review vehicle maintenance history, assess fuel usage, and
   instantly spot anomalies such as excessive speed, unauthorized vehicle usage, and vehicle
   stops that are inconsistent with business requirements.
   Companies that provide AVL fleet management systems claim that they are designed with one
   primary goal: to save business managers time and money. Access to vehicle efficiency and
   driver productivity data helps a business manage the costs related to fleet operations, including:
   engine service and vehicle maintenance, fuel, tires, insurance, customer service issues,
   employee overtime, workers compensation and liability from accidents.
   AVL fleet management systems also provide managers with a way to capture opportunity
   costs, such as more efficient service or delivery routes, identification of problem areas,
   verification of sustained customer service, and protecting the company's reputation and
   substantial vehicle investment.
   Following are some of the typical advantages reported by companies with AVL fleet
   management systems in place:
   •   Reduced overtime — as inefficient routes, unscheduled stops and unauthorized trips are
       identified; many companies have reported an immediate decrease in reported hours on time
       sheets, as well as an overall reduction in hours due to productivity improvements.
   •   Reduced fuel costs — vehicles driven at excessive speeds waste fuel. This cost is further
       compounded by unauthorized and/or after-hours company vehicle use, both of which can be
       identified and controlled using a fleet management system.
   •   Reduced accident and liability claims — left unchecked, some drivers put the company at
       risk with behaviors and activities such as making unnecessary cross-town trips that require
       speeding to the next scheduled job, or driving in a way that exposes a business to higher
       insurance costs and liability.
   •   Reduced maintenance costs — vehicle abuse adds up over time; an engine left idling all day
       to keep the air conditioning on takes its toll; speeding leads to wear and tear and premature
       replacement of tires; and a vehicle that misses scheduled oil changes inevitably breaks
       down. All of these factors have an impact on a business fleet; with the right system in place,
       they can be monitored and controlled.

   Types of AVL Systems

   A key differentiation between AVL systems on the market today is how they handle vehicle
   information, how they ultimately communicate back to the home office, and where information is
   stored in the process.
   There are four principal categories of GPS-enabled AVL fleet management systems on the
   market today. This is a general overview of each type of system, with an observation of the
   potential pros and cons associated with each.




                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   96
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Passive System (Stored Data)

   An on-board device records GPS signal data during the vehicle operations. Information is stored
   for retrieval and uploads to the principal fleet management computer when the vehicle returns to
   home base.
   Alternatively, removable memory modules can be exchanged in the field, away from the office
   by mail or during scheduled meetings. The passive GPS system is often the best solution for
   data collection on vehicles that are on the road away from the home office for weeks or months
   at a time.
   Pros
   •   Provides a workable solution for fleets and company vehicles that do not return to a motor
       pool or home office every day.
   •   Gives specialized staff, such as sales representatives, the ability to distinguish between
       personal and company business vehicle use.
   •   This is frequently the most economical choice, managed hands on by the company that
       purchases the system and requiring no communication service contracts.
   Cons
   •   May require the use of a data module or other removable/exchangeable device in order to
       retrieve vehicle information.
   •   Does not allow for real-time location or remote accountability.

   Active Systems (Real-Time)

   Again, relying on a vehicle-mounted GPS receiver, the active system also requires a wireless
   communication conduit such as a cellular data line built into the device. At a set time interval,
   the system transmits location data, speed and direction of travel over the wireless network to a
   dedicated data collection point. This data can be transmitted directly to the fleet home office or
   compiled for transfer to an Internet site where the subscribing company can view its fleet
   activity.
   Pros
   •   Provides vehicle locations back to the home office at a set interval, allowing the fleet
       manager to keep track of vehicle activity without calling the drivers.
   •   Facilitates on the fly adjustments to routes to accommodate special situations, by locating
       the vehicle in the best position to make a service call or complete a requirement.
   Cons
   •   This type of a system may actually require additional manpower to observe fleet status
       updates throughout the day.
   •   Depending on the interval of data transmission, monthly access costs can add up quickly. It
       is important to know how often updates will be required.
   •   Data stored on the internet is available for a limited time only, making it difficult to perform
       trend analysis over long periods of time.




                                                             Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   97
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Hybrid Systems (Combined)

   The hybrid system combines the functionality of passive and active systems into a package that
   gives companies the immediacy of real-time vehicle data as well as the comprehensive
   information storage of a stored data system. By combining the best features of each system, the
   hybrid GPS fleet management systems is an ideal tool for giving managers real-time vehicle
   locations and status update, as well as the data logging that would be too costly and
   cumbersome over internet-based services.
   Pros
   •   Companies have access to comprehensive vehicle data as they need it, in real-time
       transmissions and in stored data.
   •   Even in the event of interrupted communication, vehicle data is stored in the on-board
       device for evaluation and long-term business needs.
   Cons
   •   Using the communication features of a hybrid system requires an active internet connection
       or other conduit, and may require a dedicated computer.
   •   Service contracts, connectivity and transmission charges apply when using the active part of
       the system.

   L-E-O Satellite System

   Using a dedicated constellation of Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) satellites, this two-way mobile satellite
   tracking system allows for instant digital communications between drivers and their respective
   operational bases.
   Typically used by over-the-road trucking companies, this is the most expensive approach to
   GPS fleet management. It is also the most comprehensive in terms of connectivity and range
   and provides service where conventional communications are not feasible, such as in marine
   shipping, remote areas of the world, and rural area where cellular service is not established.
   Pros
   •   System allows true global real-time two-way communication with highest accuracy of all
       available systems.
   Cons
   •   Generally this is the most expensive system on the market; infrastructure and monthly
       service costs are prohibitive for most small to mid-sized companies.

   Equipping a Business for GPS

   Vehicles will require an onboard GPS receiver, typically installed inside the vehicle with a GPS
   antenna mounted to receive satellite signal data. Depending on the specific monitoring needs,
   additional sensors can be installed on doors, access points, and special equipment. These
   sensors are typically linked to the vehicle unit using input/output ports, similar to peripheral
   devices on a computer.




                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   98
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The onboard vehicle unit is responsible for receiving GPS satellite information, interpreting the
   data to determine a location, using changes in location to compute speed and direction,
   communicating with the base station and logging vehicle movement data.
   The active and hybrid fleet management systems generally require internet connectivity and
   possibly a base station antenna for receiving incoming data. Passive fleet management systems
   require an office-based device that accepts the vehicle data and transfers information to a
   computer for analysis.
   It is recommended to have one computer dedicated to fleet management operations. Typically,
   the computer will have the MS Windows operating system, at least 128 MB of RAM to support
   the data management requirements, and specific software application designed for the
   supported fleet management system. Some systems allow integration of the fleet data into an
   existing enterprise resource program or other selected databases.
   The linchpin for modern fleet management systems is the software that enables interpretation
   and analysis of comprehensive and historic vehicle data.
   While not all fleet management software packages offer identical features and functionality, here
   are some of the common modules and components on the market:
       System Interface. Support software for fleet management systems is typically designed to
       have the look and feel of standard business applications, including the drop-down menus
       and graphical user interface functionality found in most MS Office or comparable products.
       On the best systems, the data management portion of the software works directly with the
       mapping software to provide seamless reporting and facilitate ease of use. Reports and
       comparative data can be viewed on screen or printed, and many programs offer the ability to
       drill down for more detailed assessment of vehicle data.
       Business Record Keeping. Data-driven fleet management systems, ones that feature
       download capability and transfer of a broad spectrum of vehicle operational information, also
       help to simplify record-keeping, verification of employee hours, customer service and other
       aspects of the business where vehicle use becomes an issue.
       Daily logs can be completely automated, making historical review of driving trends, route
       efficiency and time spent with customers an intuitive process. Many fleet management
       systems are able to provide graphical displays of key data sets, such as miles driven,
       engine idling, on-board systems use; and isolate exceptions for careful evaluation, including
       instances of speeding, driving after authorized hours, or use of equipment outside the scope
       of the business.
       Interface with existing Enterprise Resource Program (ERP). Existing database-driven
       maintenance management systems, such as Hansen or Maximus, make it possible for a
       manager to make decisions based on facts and real-time business information. A fully
       optimized GPS fleet management system can enhance this capability. Integrating vehicle
       use and route data into the existing ERP streamlines the decision-making process and
       facilitates more efficient operations.

   Managing Fleet Size with an AVL System

   AVL systems provide the most robust and comprehensive data available for managing fleet
   size. In addition to frequent and automatic collection of accurate odometer readings, AVL
   systems can provide the following information:



                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   99
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Documentation of the number of times during a day that a vehicle leaves its home base;
   •   Documentation of the number and address of all stops a vehicle makes during a day;
   •   Trip and stop information that enables identification of overlaps in routing. This information
       can be used to consolidate functions and reduce the size of a fleet;
   •   Other important fleet management information such as average vehicle speed, engine
       diagnostics, maintenance scheduling, and time spent idling.

   RFID Technology


   RFID systems may be roughly grouped into four categories:
   •   EAS (Electronic Article Surveillance) systems
   •   Portable Data Capture systems
   •   Networked systems
   •   Positioning systems
   Electronic Article Surveillance systems are typically a one bit system used to sense the
   presence/absence of an item. The most common use for this technology is in retail stores where
   expensive items are tagged and read by large antenna readers placed at each exit of the store
   to detect unauthorized removal of merchandise.
   Portable data capture systems are characterized by the use of portable data terminals with
   integral RFID readers and are used in applications where a high degree of variability in sourcing
   required data from tagged items may be exhibited. The hand-held readers/portable data
   terminals capture data which is then either transmitted directly to a host information
   management system via a radio frequency data communication (RFDC) link or held for delivery
   by line-linkage to the host on a batch processing basis.
   Networked systems applications can generally be characterized by fixed position readers
   deployed within a given site and connected directly to a networked information management
   system. The transponders are positioned on moving or moveable items, or people, depending
   upon application.
   Positioning systems use transponders to facilitate automated location and navigation support for
   guided vehicles. Readers are positioned on the vehicles and linked to an on-board computer
   and RFDC link to the host information management system. The transponders are embedded in
   the floor of the operating environment and programmed with appropriate identification and
   location data. The reader antenna is usually located beneath the vehicle to allow closer
   proximity to the embedded transponders.

   Areas of Application for RFID

   Potential applications for RFID may be identified in virtually every sector of industry, commerce
   and services where data is to be collected. The attributes of RFID are complimentary to other
   data capture technologies and thus able to satisfy particular application requirements that
   cannot be adequately accommodate by alternative technologies. Principal areas of application
   for RFID that can be currently identified include:
   •   Electronic article surveillance - clothing retail outlets being typical;
   •   Protection of valuable equipment against theft, unauthorized removal or asset management;
   •   Controlled access to vehicles, parking areas and fuel facilities - depot facilities being typical;



                                                              Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   100
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Automated toll collection for roads and bridges - since the 1980s, Electronic Road-Pricing
       (ERP) systems have been used in Hong Kong and are now in wide use in the United States;
   •   Controlled access of personnel to secure or hazardous locations;
   •   Time and attendance - to replace conventional "slot card" time keeping systems;
   •   Animal husbandry - for identification in support of individualized feeding programs;
   •   Sport time recording;
   •   Electronic monitoring of offenders at home; and
   •   Vehicle anti-theft systems and car immobilizer.
   A number of factors influence the suitability of RFID for given applications. The application
   needs must be carefully determined and examined with respect to the attributes that RFID and
   other data collection technologies can offer. Where RFID is identified as a contender further
   considerations have to be made in respect of application environment, from an electromagnetic
   standpoint, standards, and regulations concerning use of frequencies and power levels.
   The significant advantage of all types of RFID systems is the non-contact, non-line-of-sight
   nature of the technology. Tags can be read through a variety of substances such as snow, fog,
   ice, paint, crusted grime, and other visually and environmentally challenging conditions, where
   barcodes or other optically read technologies would be useless. RFID tags can also be read in
   challenging circumstances at remarkable speeds, in most cases responding in less than 100
   milliseconds. The read/write capability of an active RFID system is also a significant advantage
   in interactive applications such as work-in-process or maintenance tracking. Though it is a more
   costly technology (compared with barcode), RFID has become indispensable for a wide range
   of automated data collection and identification applications that would not be possible otherwise.

   Types of RFID Systems

   Passive System. Passive RFID tags operate without a separate external power source and
   obtain operating power generated from the reader. Passive tags are consequently much lighter
   than active tags, less expensive, and offer a virtually unlimited operational lifetime. The trade off
   is that they have shorter read ranges than active tags and require a higher-powered reader.
   Read-only tags are typically passive and are programmed with a unique set of data (usually 32
   to 128 bits) that cannot be modified. Read-only tags most often operate as a license plate into a
   database, in the same way as linear barcodes reference a database containing modifiable
   product-specific information.
   Pros
   •   Light weight.
   •   Inexpensive compared to the active tags; this is because it does not need an additional
       power source for the tag itself.
   •   Unlimited operational lifetime.
   Cons
   •   Shorter read ranges compared to active tags; this is because of a lack of additional power.
   •   Requires a high powered reader.




                                                             Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   101
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Active Systems. Active RFID tags are powered by an internal battery and are typically
   read/write, i.e., tag data can be rewritten and/or modified. An active tag's memory size varies
   according to application requirements and some systems operate with up to 1MB of memory. In
   a typical read/write RFID work-in-process system, a tag might give a machine a set of
   instructions, and the machine would then report its performance to the tag. This encoded data
   would then become part of the tagged part's history. The battery-supplied power of an active tag
   generally gives it a longer read range. The trade off is greater size, greater cost, and a limited
   operational life (which may yield a maximum of 10 years, depending upon operating
   temperatures and battery type).
   Pros
   •   Data can be written/read/modified
   •   Typically longer read ranges
   Cons
   •   More expensive
   •   Bigger in size
   •   Limited operational life (max. 10 yrs.)
   Frequency Ranges
   RFID systems are also distinguished by their frequency ranges. Low-frequency (30 KHz to 500
   KHz) systems have short reading ranges and lower system costs. They are most commonly
   used in security access, asset tracking, and animal identification applications. High-frequency
   (850 MHz to 950 MHz and 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz) systems, offering long read ranges (greater
   than 90 feet) and high reading speeds, are used for such applications as railroad car tracking
   and automated toll collection. However, the higher performance of high-frequency RFID
   systems incurs higher system costs.

   Equipping a Business for RFID

   A basic RFID system consists of three components:
   •   An antenna or coil
   •   A transceiver (with decoder)
   •   A transponder (RF tag) electronically programmed with unique information
   The antenna emits radio signals to activate the tag and read and write data to it. Antennas are
   the conduits between the tag and the transceiver, which controls the system's data acquisition
   and communication. Antennas are available in a variety of shapes and sizes; they can be built
   into a door frame to receive tag data from persons or things passing through the door, or
   mounted on an interstate toll booth to monitor traffic passing by on a freeway. The
   electromagnetic field produced by an antenna can be constantly present when multiple tags are
   expected continually. If constant interrogation is not required, the field can be activated by a
   sensor device.
   Often the antenna is packaged with the transceiver and decoder to become a reader (a.k.a.
   interrogator), which can be configured either as a handheld or a fixed-mount device. The reader
   emits radio waves in ranges of anywhere from one inch to 100 feet or more, depending upon its
   power output and the radio frequency used. When an RFID tag passes through the
   electromagnetic zone, it detects the reader's activation signal. The reader decodes the data
   encoded in the tag's integrated circuit (silicon chip) and the data is passed to the host computer
   for processing.


                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   102
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   RFID tags come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Animal tracking tags, inserted beneath
   the skin, can be as small as a pencil lead in diameter and one-half inch in length. Tags can be
   screw-shaped to identify trees or wooden items, or credit-card shaped for use in access
   applications. The anti-theft hard plastic tags attached to merchandise in stores are RFID tags. In
   addition, heavy-duty 5- by 4- by 2-inch rectangular transponders used to track containers or
   heavy machinery, trucks, and railroad cars for maintenance and tracking applications are RFID
   tags.

   Managing Fleet Size with a RFID System

   RFID systems provide comprehensive data for managing fleet size. RFID systems can provide
   the following information:
   •   Documentation of the number of times during a day that a vehicle leaves its home base;
   •   Automatic collection of accurate odometer readings;
   •   Other important fleet management information such as engine diagnostics and maintenance
       scheduling.

   Fuel Management Technology


   Fuel management systems allow constant control over an organization’s entire fuel operation.
   They work with all available pumps including: durable hand-operated pumps, compact AC or DC
   electric pumps, and high volume 50 GPM (188 LPM) super fuelers. They allow unattended
   around-the-clock fuel operations, while maintaining full control and accountability of all fuel
   usage.
   Any combination of card, smart key, keypad, or hands-free access method allows an
   organization to customize data entry to meet specific business requirements. Even previously
   issued cards can be accepted, enabling an organization to add users without forcing them to
   change or carry an additional card. Most systems also provide the ability to issue user-
   selectable PINs and send personalized messages per user or vehicle.

   Types of Access Control

   Access control methods can range from traditional smart key readers with embedded
   microchips, keypads, or a combination of both, magnetic stripe cards, to passive systems
   employing the latest intelligent vehicle modules which allow direct communication to the vehicle
   without driver interaction. Vehicle, employee, and department information is maintained in the
   system memory, so it can be easily changed at any time.

   Smart Key & Magnetic Stripe Card Technology

   This technology is designed to control a single site or network of fueling sites. It identifies users
   and/or vehicles and controls access to fuel dispensing equipment, types of fuels, and the
   maximum amount of fuel which can be dispensed. All this information is encoded on a tiny
   integrated circuit embedded and protected in a rugged plastic key or magnetic stripe card.




                                                              Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   103
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   When either a Smart Key or Magnetic Stripe Card is inserted into the fuel system, the fuel
   system reads information from and writes information back to the device. The information
   travels with the user or vehicle assuring that up-to-date information is used.
   Single or dual operations are provided. In a dual operation the employee and vehicle
   information are kept on separate media. This is handy in operations where drivers use different
   vehicles. Dual systems allow an organization to keep track of which driver fueled which vehicle.
   The following encoded information is typically recorded on cards and keys:
   •   Type of card/key – employee/vehicle
   •   System security code
   •   Key lockout number
   •   Employee, vehicle, department identification
   •   Expiration date
   •   Amount of product allowed
   •   If required – keypad entries – odometer, PIN, etc.
   •   Previous and last odometer entry
   •   Restriction rules for odometer entries (reasonable entries only)
   •   Number of odometer retries allowed
   •   Min and Max miles for reasonable odometer
   •   Vehicle class
   •   Odometers and dates of last maintenance
   Pros
   •   Benefits of online communication between multiple sites without the high cost of dedicated
       phone lines.
   •   10 Years plus on operational lifetime of Smart Keys
   Cons
   •   Odometer readings are susceptible to human error
   •   Key Pads need to be purchased as well

   Equipping a Business for Smart Key & Magnetic Stripe Card Technology

   A typical Smart Key configuration consists of:
   •   Smart Key or Magnetic Stripe Card system (for 2-8 hose setups with 1-2 receptacles)
   •   An ASCII CRT, PC or host computer
   •   Optional logger-printer
   •   Optional encoder
   These systems are typically connected to existing fuel pumps or dispensers. Only one system is
   needed per site (depending on the size of the site). The system is then connected to the CRT or
   PC through a short haul modem. The CRT or PC is used to enter system commands and to
   print reports. The optional logger printer provides direct printout of system activity. Also, the
   optional encoder enables an organization to encode keys or cards as required.




                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   104
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Passive Systems

   With a passive system (such as ring technology, which is used as an example below) drivers
   stop, fill up and get back on the road without human intervention. With all fueling data collected
   and stored automatically, the driver is removed from the data entry process, eliminating human
   error and providing fleet managers with the control and precision they require to keep
   management, maintenance and operating costs under control. On every transaction, the data is
   communicated, recorded and stored electronically, guaranteeing accuracy and security.
   They collect information such as (may vary depending upon vendor and products):
   •   Site Number
   •   Transaction Number
   •   Vehicle Key Number
   •   Vehicle Number
   •   Vehicle Department/Account Number
   •   Employee Number
   •   Employee Department Number
   •   Pump, Product, & Tank Numbers
   •   Date and Time
   •   Transaction Quantity
   •   Employee Cumulative Quantity
   •   Odometer
   •   Miles/Kilometers between fuelings
   •   Error Codes
   •   Miles/Hours per Gallon
   Pros
   •   0% human error
   •   100% user-friendly
   •   Only authorized vehicles receive fuel
   •   The right fuel goes to the right vehicle
   •   Odometer and hour readings are accurate
   •   Engine diagnostics interface is available
   Cons
   •   More expensive than other technologies
   Equipping a Business for Ring Technology




   Vehicle components are designed to be installed by the system owner. When a vehicle
   becomes obsolete, the components can simply be transferred to another vehicle. Fuel Point, a
   Gasboy product, has been field proven in over 80,000 vehicles around the world. Most designs
   allow for usage in virtually any setting.



                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   105
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   For example, Fuel Point is:
   •   UL tested and listed system and vehicle components ensure safety
   •   Potted vehicle module construction absorbs vehicle vibration for heavy-duty off-road use
   •   Breakaway safety connections protect hose antenna lines
   •   Concealed nozzle and hose antennas discourage tampering
   A basic ring system consists of the following components:
   •   Vehicle Module
   •   Speedometer Transducer
   •   T-Ring Antenna
   •   I/S Preamplifier
   •   Reader
   Vehicle Module - The Vehicle Module mounts easily in the trunk, passenger or engine
   compartment, and contains system identification, vehicle information, fuel type and transaction
   limit controls.
   Speedometer Transducer – The vehicle Module records odometer readings, through a
   connection to the vehicle’s speedometer transducer. Hour readings are recorded by connecting
   to the ignition on side of the electrical system.
   T-Ring Antenna – Antenna wire and a tank antenna ring extend to the module’s read point to
   the vehicle’s fill opening. When the nozzle is inserted into the fill opening, the vehicle module
   automatically transmits the vehicle information through the tank antenna to the nozzle antenna.
   Removing the nozzle breaks communication and suspends fueling.
   I/S Preamplifier – The nozzle antenna connects via a wire, inside or outside the hose, to the I/S
   Preamplifier in a junction box in the base of the dispenser. The I/S Preamplifier amplifies the
   antenna signal to the reader to ensure reliable communication.
   Reader – The Reader communicates the information to the management system. The
   management system authorizes fueling and records the transaction information. The transaction
   terminates when the dispenser is turned off, the nozzle is inserted into another vehicle, or a
   suspended transaction is not resumed within a designated period of time. Transactions are
   stored in the system memory for on-demand retrieval.

   Managing Fleet Size with a Fuel Management System

   Fuel systems can provide the following information:
   •   Documentation of the number of times during a day that a vehicle leaves its home base
       (when a receiver is installed at gates);
   •   Automatic collection of accurate odometer readings;
   •   Other important fleet management information such as gallons of fuel used, engine
       diagnostics and maintenance scheduling.

   Pricing


   All pricing information was gathered from vendor quotes based on a single unit. This does not
   include mass purchasing discounts and installation fees. These estimates are to help give you
   an idea of the price difference between the different types of technology.


                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   106
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   AVL Pricing

   Passive Systems
   Passive Systems do not have any recurring monthly fees for communication services. Their
   prices range from $550 to $600 per vehicle plus $1,000 per site for a data reader. This is a one
   time expense for the necessary hardware and software. However, many organizations incur
   ongoing maintenance fees to ensure updates and technical support services.
   Active Systems
   Active Systems do contain recurring monthly fees for cellular communication services2. This
   ranges from $5 to $30 per month per vehicle depending on factors, such as purchasing volume,
   special discounts, pooled and non-pooled data transfer plans, and actual data transfer.
   Additional monthly reoccurring fees may apply, if the AVL software and database are hosted by
   the system manufacturer or another third party. These prices vary from $.05 to $25 per vehicle
   per month, depending on data volume and number of system users. This is on top of the initial
   hardware, software, and installation fees, which are generally between $500 and $1,000 per
   vehicle.
   Hybrid Systems
   Hybrid Systems combine both functionality of Passive and Active Systems. Because of this they
   incur both costs. The first cost is the Passive System cost of $550 to $600 per vehicle. The
   second cost is the Active System cost of $500 to $1,000 per vehicle. The third cost is the
   monthly recurring cost of communication systems of $5 to $30 per month per vehicle.

   RFID Pricing

   Passive Systems
   A Passive RFID System stores only static information. It doesn’t have the capabilities to write
   new information. These types of systems are mainly used to track items for security purposes
   like verification. Because of this, RFID Passive Systems are much more inexpensive compared
   to active systems. They typically range from $40 to $100 per vehicle.
   Active Systems




   2
     It is important to note that GPS service is free. There is no charge to receive longitude and
   latitude information from GPS satellites. Monthly services fees associated with AVL are for
   retransmitting the data across cellular networks. Some AVL systems can work with non-cellular
   based networks, like 800 trunk radio systems, to transmit data from the vehicle to a central
   server. In this scenario there is usually no communications fees, because the infrastructure is
   owned by the organization using it.




                                                           Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   107
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   RFID Active Systems are read/write systems. They store static and dynamic information. The
   prices for RFID systems range from $150 to $400 per vehicle. This price variance is because of
   the wide range of types of vehicles. For example, older vehicles do not house onboard
   diagnostic systems, therefore, work-arounds must be devised to collect data such as odometer
   and hour meter readings.

   Fuel Management Pricing

   Smart Key and Magnetic Stripe Card Systems
   Automating a fuel site can cost between $25,000 and $50,000 depending on the system
   selected and the number of pumps/hoses involved. Systems come complete with a fuel site
   controller, management software, and installation. Smart Keys and Magnetic Stripe Cards
   could range from $5 to $25 per key or card.
   T-Ring Systems
   Additional software is often required for a passive data collection solution such as a T-ring. The
   cost of this software runs between $5,000 and $25,000. The additional hardware involved often
   costs between $2,500 and $5,000 per fuel site and $100 to $300 per vehicle.


   References

       1. AC Corporation, http://www.ac-corporation.com.ph/
       2. AeroComm, http://www.aerocomm.com/index.htm
       3. Asentrix Systems, http://www.asentrix.com/home.htm
       4. Avaana Innovation & Integration, http://avaana.com/index.html
       5. Cathexis Innocation Inc., http://www.cathexis.com/default.asp
       6. Coencorp Fleet Management Systems, http://www.concorp.com/e/index.htm
       7. E Fueling Technologies, http://www.efueling.net/
       8. E.J. Ward, Inc., http://216.136.20.34/
       9. E-Drive Technology, http://www.e-drivetech.com/
       10. FleetBoss Global Positioning Solutions, http://www.fleetboss.com/
       11. FleetScan Solutions, http://www.fleetscan.com/
       12. FuelForce, http://www.fuelforce.com/
       13. FuelMaster Fuel Management Systems, http://syntech-fuelmaster.com/
       14. GasBoy, http://www.gasboy.com/
       15. GeoTab, http://www.geotab.com/
       16. GPS Fleet Solutions, http://gpsfleetsolutions.com/
       17. Innovonics Limited, http://innovonics.net/
       18. International Road Dynamics Inc., http://irdinc.com/
       19. Karta, http://www.karta.com/
       20. Laipac Tech, http://www.laipac.com/
       21. Maximus, http://www.assetsolutions.maximus.com/fuel.cfm
       22. Mobile GPS Online, http://www.mobilegpsonline.com/
       23. MobileAria: FleetOutlook, http://www.fleetoutlook.net/
       24. Network, http://www.networkcar.com/
       25. OPW Fuel Management Systems, http://www.opwfms.com/
       26. Trak Engineering, Inc., http://www.trakeng.com/




                                                            Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   108
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       27. Road Partner, http://www.road-partner.com/
       28. Integrated Control Systems, http://intconsys.com/
       29. Zepco, http://www.zepco.com/




                                                               Data Collection Technologies for Managing Fleet Size   109
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes



   Overview of Meeting


   Notes from meeting, August 8, 2006, National University, Sacramento, CA, 9:00 am to 4:30 pm.
   Disclaimer          These are notes, not a verbatim record. They were prepared using an
                       audio recording, a stenographer's record, and the personal notes of a
                       participant. Also, most vendors and several speakers sent in additional
                       statements to clarify their presentations. In any case, since these are
                       notes meant to provide information on the subjects discussed, some
                       statements have been omitted, re-worded and/or re-ordered, although
                       the content and meaning are believed to be relatively accurate and
                       complete. Please email any comments or things you would like changed
                       to Robert Bosler at rhbosler@ucdavis.edu.
   Subjects            Best way to collect vehicle usage data.
                       Best way to allocate vehicles.
   Sponsored by        California Department of General Services
                       California Department of Fleet Administration
                       California Department of Transportation
   Presented by        Advanced Highway Maintenance and Construction Technology
                       Research Center, UC Davis
                       Mercury Associates
   Moderator           Randy Owen, Mercury Associates
   Participants        Alan Mills - DOT, Bo Bohanan - CHP, Brian Borlace - DWR, Bruce
                       Vanderford - DOT, Bryon Rush - DGS, Caroline Munywoki - AHMCT,
                       Case Belltawn - DPR, Debra Bouler - OFA, Ed Dziuk - DOT, Frank
                       Lewis - CCC, Frank Ruiz - DOT, Gordon Gholson - CDF, Jack Tonkin -
                       DOT, Kathie Mullen - DOT, Kris Teague - DOT, Len Nelson - DOT,
                       Linda Bunyan - CDCR, Lisa Kunzman - DOT, Mary Ursua - CDCR, Mike
                       Buzdas - DOT, Phil Garthe - DOT, Randy Owen - Mercury Associates,
                       Richard Armstrong - CDF, Rick Shedd - DGS, Rick Slama - OFA, Rob
                       Cook - DGS, Robert Bosler - AHMCT, Sarah Reeder - DPA, Shane
                       Whitmore - DOT, Sharon Fredrikson - CDFA, Victor Reveles - AHMCT,
                       Terry Zeithamel - DOT
   Speakers            Kin Yen - AHMCT, Dave Schiller - Mercury Associates, Gary Hatfield -
                       Mercury Associates, Steve Saltsgiver - Mercury Associates
   Vendors             Andy Nickerson - SmartDrive, Frank Provenzano - Econolite, Graham
                       Ledger - SmartDrive, Greg Mauro - SmartDrive, Jeff Rutan - TransCore,
                       Norman Witkin - Telematics Wireless, Tom Remy - Qualcomm




                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   110
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Contents            Agenda
                       Welcome and Overview
                       Presentations
                          National Trends
                          Best Practices: Federal Government
                          Best Practices: Minnesota and Other States
                       Data Collection
                          Technical Overview of Data Collection
                          Qualcomm Presentation
                          Econolite Presentation
                          TransCore Presentation
                          SmartDrive Presentation
                          Vendor Quick Compare
                       Round Table Discussions
                          Data Comments
                          Fleet Management Comments
                       Closing Comments

   Agenda — Issues and Concepts


   Issues

   What is the best way to collect usage data? — We want to collect and report, once per month,
   the following minimum data: mileage, hours, days used. Other data may be needed for special
   reporting purposes.
   What is the best way to allocate vehicles? — We want to associate vehicles with tasks and
   allocate vehicles based upon statistical best practices for similar tasks and business case
   narratives.

   Concepts
   •   Depreciation represents, by far, the largest cost of managing a fleet.
   •   You can't manage what you don't measure. The data must be solid, standard in format, and
       widely available. DGS is working on a statewide data warehouse.
   •   To get good data, you must collect it automatically without manual entries by operators.
   •   Once you have data, the key concept for managing a fleet is associating vehicles with tasks.
   •   Over time statistical measures of best practices for tasks will emerge from the data. But to
       encourage innovation and further efficiencies, you must also justify vehicles based on
       business case narratives.
   •   To improve utilization and operating efficiencies, you must be able — on a timely basis — to
       replace equipment and change the equipment mix.
   Quotes from Erle Potter, Virginia DOT:
   "In Virginia, equipment utilization is a hot button item with interest at the highest level. This can
   happen anywhere, and probably will."




                                                                   Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   111
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   "Improving vehicle utilization is inherently a painful process for all involved. But no one can now
   afford equipment that is not used."
   "Fleet reduction depends upon doing a mix of things all at the same time. No one step will make
   a difference unless the others are also done."
   "The data must be solid. If there is doubt about the utilization data, bad decisions will be made.
   To get good data, you must collect it automatically without manual entries by operators. Good
   data costs money. You must spend that money or your overall savings will be minimal. To
   paraphrase the real estate maxim, fleet reduction is all about 1. data, 2. data, 3. data."
   "There must never be doubt in anyone's mind about the ability to replace equipment or change
   the equipment mix as needed. If there are any delays in getting new vehicles or undue second-
   guessing of business case decisions on equipment mix, you will immediately get hoarding at
   new, higher, and more sophisticated levels of avoidance. And never think you can win that
   game."


   Welcome and Overview


   Rob Cook, Deputy Director, Interagency Support Division, California Department of
   General Services

   Asset management, particularly real estate and mobile fleet, is a high priority with this
   Administration.

   Lisa Kunzman, Chief, Division of Equipment, California Department of Transportation

   Thank you, DGS, for partnering with us in managing fleet assets.
   Thank you, participants, for taking the time to attend. We have users here as well as fleet
   managers. Please feel free to air concerns, make suggestions, and be engaged so that this
   event is successful.

   Randy Owen, Senior Vice President, Mercury Associates
   rowen@mercury-assoc.com, 704-906-8898

   California owns about 50,000 vehicles worth about $2 billion (depreciated value, not
   replacement cost). Based upon industry averages, I estimate that these vehicles cost about
   $100 million per year to run and maintain.
   A 5% reduction in fleet would save $100 million in capital costs and at least $5 million per year
   in operating and overhead costs. Additional savings could come from how we reimburse for
   personal vehicle use and how we use rentals.
   These kind of potential savings are becoming politically important. Asset management is where
   fleet managers should be spending most of their time.




                                                                  Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   112
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Instead, fleet managers tend to spend their time on gas and maintenance. Why? Because we
   tend to regard vehicles as a sunk cost needing attention only when vehicles need to be
   replaced. This is wrong: there are ongoing costs associated with assets, even if they have been
   paid for. These costs are visible or not visible depending upon they way you finance the
   vehicles, but they are always there. Depreciation is the largest cost related to a fleet. Asset
   management is the primary task of a Fleet Manager.
   If you have old vehicles, you have too have many vehicles. An old fleet means downtime,
   maintenance costs, and driver preferences for the newer vehicles. It is always better to have a
   newer, smaller fleet.
   The current California policies and practices related to fleet management are cumbersome,
   inefficient, ineffective, and outdated (some policy statements have not been updated for more
   than 50 years.)
   California needs a "Vehicle Allocation Methodology" (VAM), a structured approach to
   determining and justifying why you need a certain number of vehicles of a certain type.


   Presentations



   National Trends

   Steve Saltsgiver, Executive Director, National Conference of State Fleet Administrators
   ssaltzgiver@mercury-assoc.com, 301-519-0535

   Virtually every state is focusing on fleet capital costs. Most are trying to reduce their fleets by
   10-15%.
   But, often states try to reduce their fleets by making it harder to get funded for new vehicles.
   This is turning out to be a bad idea.
   Making it harder to get new vehicles means that you keep a lot of old vehicles and spend too
   much on maintenance. Since old vehicles are unreliable, you keep a spare. And a spare for the
   spare.
   Rather than making it harder to get new vehicles, it is much better to look at utilization of
   present vehicles and eliminate those that are under-used. For example, in Colorado, if a vehicle
   does not meet minimum usage criteria, the vehicle is forfeited. And, even in the midst of a
   budget freeze, Utah developed a "Capital Credit Program," which allowed users who turned in
   old vehicles to buy newer (but fewer) replacement vehicles.
   It is also important to look at over-utilization, which shortens the life of a vehicle, causes lost
   value at resale, and often just reflects driver avoidance of the older vehicles (which means it
   takes even longer for the older vehicles to come to the end of their lifetimes.) So, Colorado also
   sets an annual maximum on vehicle usage and charges a higher per mile rate beyond that
   maximum. This encourages vehicle rotation so that all vehicles with a fleet get utilized. In other
   words, Colorado looks at total vehicle utilization and considers both capital and operating costs,




                                                                   Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   113
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Utah, Georgia, and South Carolina have developed online resources to help users decide
   whether to buy, rent, or reimburse for personal use. They post a template that users fill out to
   enable them to get a quick sense of what they should do.
   I recommend that you go to the web site for the National Conference of State Fleet
   Administrators at http://www.ncsfa.net/ to see what fleet managers at other states are doing.

   Best Practices: Federal Government

   Gary Hatfield, Senior Fleet Consulting Manager, Federal Fleet Maintenance Consulting,
   Mercury Associates
   ghatfield@mercury-assoc.com, 301-519-0535, http://www.mercury-assoc.com/

   The Federal Government currently has over 600,000 non-tactical vehicles in it’s fleet: 1/3 in
   civilian agencies, 1/3 military non-tactical vehicles, and 1/3 as part of the US Postal Service.
   While the Military and Post Office are highly structured in their fleet management practices, the
   1/3 of the fleet controlled by civilian agencies are all over the board in fleet utilization. The
   Federal Government currently has a $3 billion operating cost and accrues over 5 billion miles
   annually.
   All vehicles for the Federal Fleet are centrally purchased through the GSA, and the purchase
   cost covers all maintenance, which is invoiced monthly. From the GSA you can lease a vehicle
   for a 3-4 year duration. The vehicle is typically purchased from GSA if it is going to be low use,
   allowing you to keep the vehicle longer.
   The civilian agencies lack a centralized/implemented fleet information system. They only
   manage their vehicles, not their yellow fleet (graders, etc.). They lack standards and regulations
   for fleet management.
   Current recommendations address these issues in terms of fleet management procedures,
   training, and regulations. They are trying to establish a performance matrix, allowing fast access
   to information such as vehicle utilization and cost associations. This will help determine a fleet
   allocation and size.
   The federal government want to use a Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM) to establish that
   the right number of vehicles and the right type of vehicles are being purchased and maintained
   within the fleet. The correct number and type can be determined either through personnel or
   utilization depending on the type of agency. Using the personnel model, you create a ratio of the
   number of bodies to the number of vehicles. The utilization model looks at the tasks required as
   the determining factor. Until the VAM is perfected, mileage, number of trips, and hours of usage
   help to tip the scales in functionality. If under utilized, the VAM itself can be used as justification
   for the vehicle remaining in the fleet. Once implemented, certain vehicles/types can be targeted
   for surveys and investigation if they appear under utilized instead of tracking an entire fleet of
   vehicles.
   A quantitative methodology will be used to determine a vehicles need by utilization and
   criticality. Clear defining lines can be established for "no", meaning the vehicle should be
   removed from the fleet, and "yes", meaning the vehicle is retained or purchased. If a vehicle
   falls into a "maybe" category, a standard vehicle justification is filled out, structuring the
   justification based on the number of trips, mileage, hours of use.




                                                                    Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   114
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Best Practices: Minnesota and Other States

   Dave Schiller, Field Services Operations Manager, Department of Natural Resources,
   Minnesota, and Fleet Consultant, Mercury Associates
   Dave.Schiller@dnr.state.mn.us, 301-519-0535, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/

   In Minnesota, if it rolls, and it is licensed or registered, it goes through fleet. Minnesota
   Department of Natural Resources is reinventing its fleet through cost reduction, improved
   safety, and improved reliability and effectiveness. The improvement plan was provided through
   a benchmark study/best practices investigation of the Mn DNR fleet policy, life-cycle
   management, and, in FY03, a re-deployment of equipment and reduction of under-utilized and
   surplus asset.
   Due to our improvement plan, Mn DNR has decreased its financing of vehicle purchasing from
   62% to 0% during the FY06-07; $11 million in debt has been reduced to $0, and sustained an
   overall 8.8% in inventory reduction in light vehicles.
   The FY 04 strategy was to create and review the current standards, plans, lifecycle
   management, leveraged business cycles, and leveraged debt. We were able to save during the
   acquisition process by making frugal choices, utilizing industry standards, and cooperating with
   other agencies to purchase in bulk.


   Data Collection



   Technical Overview of Data Collection

   Kin Yen, Development Engineer, AHMCT, UC Davis
   ksyen@ucdavis.edu, 530-754-7401, http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/

   At a minimum, we want to collect mileage, hours, and days used for each vehicle. More
   information may be required for other purposes than fleet management. Operator input is
   expensive and unreliable, so we want to collect that data automatically and electronically.
   For this information, possible data sources include the OBDII port, which is already installed on
   all light duty vehicles manufactured after 1996, and the J1708 and J1939 (JBus) port found on
   heavy duty trucks. These ports tell us the mileage, vehicle identification number, hours of use,
   and trouble codes for purposes of repair and maintenance. GPS can be installed and supply
   direction of travel, hours of use and days of use. Mileage can be calculated based on this
   information, but it will be unreliable information with the possibility of human error. Hour meters
   can be installed on vehicles such as dozers to calculate their usage. No California State
   agencies are currently using these ports for data collection, but San Diego County is making
   use of them.
   The data source will read and gather the information, but a means of transmittal is still required.
   These are the basic ways to transmit this information.
   •   Manual — data is downloaded manually at periodic intervals.
   •   Fuel point — data is downloaded at specially equipped fuel stations.



                                                                  Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   115
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Posts — data is downloaded when a vehicle passes a "reader" or "post" that reads
       information from a vehicle "tag."
       Tags are inexpensive, but you must custom build a basic infrastructure of posts. The post
       approach transmits data over a Local Area Wireless network using WiFi, Bluetooth, and
       other short-range frequencies. These transmissions can be made only within certain
       designated hot spots and must be transferred to an intermediary local host before
       interfacing with a database.
   •   Calls — data is downloaded when a vehicle calls in to a "reader" or is called by a "reader"
       using a radio or "phone" that connects to a satellite or cellular network. Phones are
       expensive and require monthly access charges, but you do not have to build your own
       network.
       The call approach transmits data over a Wide Area Wireless network which transmission via
       satellite or cell phone signal directly to the Internet/intranet to be interfaced with the
       database.
   Once the information has been downloaded and is interfaced with the database, reports and
   analysis can be done based on the required information.
   For various reasons, only the "post" and "call" architectures are practical for our purposes.
   Here's a table that summarizes how they work.
   Architectures
                                        Post architecture                  Call architecture
   Data         Get miles and           A reader gets current miles and hours from a built-in,
                hours.                  standard, data bus.
                Get days and            A roadside reader records a        A vehicle phone makes a call
                trips.                  vehicle passing — or — a           each time a vehicle is used
                                        vehicle reader stores days         — or — a vehicle reader
                                        and trips and reports at next      stores days and trips and
                                        post.                              reports at next the call.
   Transfer     A trigger event         Data is sent when vehicle          Data is sent when a vehicle
   Data         occurs.                 passes a roadside reader.          calls in or when a vehicle is
                                                                           called.
                Vehicle                 Data is sent using a local         Data is sent using a wide
                communicates            area wireless frequency:           area frequency: radio to a
                with a station.         WiFi, Bluetooth, RFID,             satellite or cellular network.
                                        Zigbee, ISM, DSRC.
                Data put on             Receiving station uses a wireless or wired modem to send
                internet.               data to a central location.
   Store        Put data in             At a central location, interface software listens for internet
   Data         database.               messages and stores data in a database.
   Analyze      Create web              At a central location, data is formatted for pre-packaged
   Data         reports.                reports posted to a web site.
                Download data to        A central location responds to requests for data from users.
                user.
   Costs




                                                                        Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   116
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   This is an informational meeting. It is way too early to begin to make decisions about
   technologies and vendors. Still, to put what you hear from the vendors into perspective, here is
   a basic framework for considering the costs of the vendor alternatives you are about to hear.
                                             Vendor        Vendor        Vendor          Vendor
   ONE TIME
   Per vehicle      Hardware and
                    installation
   Per reader       Hardware and
                    installation
   Headquarter      Hardware and software
   s
   MONTHLY
   Per vehicle      Maintenance
                    Communication
                    charges
   Per reader       Maintenance
                    Communication
                    charges
   Headquarter      Software maintenance
   s                Database storage
                    Web site
                    Ftp database access
   AHMCT at UC Davis can help you by providing pilot studies, assisting with software integration,
   and customizing software and hardware. For more information on AHMCT, go to
   http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu.


   Qualcomm Presentation

   Tom Remy, Senior Account Manager, Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions
   TRemy@qualcomm.com, 619-789-4969, http://www.globaltracs.org/ and
   http://www.qualcomm.com/qwbs

   Qualcomm is large (9,000 employees), a pioneer in mobile communications and tracking
   solutions, and has extensive experience in these types of applications. For example, we have
   installed over 697,000 of our OmniTRAC satellite-communication systems on trucks. Our
   network management center processes over 9 million data transactions per day.
   We propose using our OmniExpress digital cellular units for this application. These units could
   be configured to communicate when events occur, rather than being always on and always
   providing location information. We propose interfacing to vehicle data buses with our
   SensorTRAC and JTRAC units. We would use our GlobalTRACS Web and 3rd party software
   interface to our data center. By default, the basic mileage, hours, days, and trips usage
   information would be supplied, along with other data such as engine diagnostics, fuel
   consumption, idle time, and power-take-off time.



                                                                Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   117
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Incidentally, we will soon come out with a new generation of satellite products called OmniVision
   oriented to the needs of light fleets. This would be able to provide a wider range of information
   should that be needed for other purposes than fleet management, such as providing driver
   performance reports or driver navigation information.

   Econolite Presentation

   Frank Provenzano, Director of New Business Development, Econolite Control Products,
   Inc.
   fprovenzano@econolite.com, 714-630-3700 x296, http://www.econolite.com/

   Frank presented on behalf of Motorola and described the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII)
   solution now under development. This approach would use the DSRC frequency regulated by
   the FCC. The VII infrastructure is heavily promoted by automobile manufacturers, and will
   perhaps be available in five years. In the meantime, you can build your own infrastructure,
   compatible with the future roadside infrastructure, using Motorola and Econolite components.
   Both Japan and Europe have committed to the DSRC frequency and VII infrastructure. The
   American VII Coalition includes the US Department of Transportation (including FHWA, NHTSA,
   and FMCSA) , 12 state Departments of Transportation, the Intelligent Transportation Society of
   America, the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, and 8 major
   automotive manufacturers. Building the network out nationally will require a $3-10 billion
   investment by the US DOT.
   VII includes both car-to-roadside and car-to-car communications. Besides vehicle tracking,
   potential features include information about road conditions, safety warnings, toll payments,
   engine diagnostics, and service payments. Japan, with about 75% of all cars participating, has
   rolled out several of these features already. Europe is abandoning its cellular network (as too
   expensive for widespread use) and has allocated funds to implement its own VII network.

   TransCore Presentation

   Jeff Rutan, Senior Systems Engineer, TransCore (speaker)
   Jeff.Rutan@transcore.com, 858-736-8294, http://www.transcore.com/
   Norman Witkin, Telematics-Wireless (observer)
   nwitkin@telematics-wireless.com. 714-544-2548, http://www.telematics-wireless.com/.

   TransCore is a 66 year old systems integration company that is the largest global manufacturer
   of transportation-based RFID technology. They have deployed more than 21 million tags and
   42,000 readers in various applications such as electronic toll collection, traffic management, rail,
   truck, container, barge and intermodal tracking and monitoring, border control, airport ground
   transportation, parking, and secure vehicle access control. For example, all US railcars are
   tracked by TransCore systems. TransCore also offers products oriented at the trucking industry,
   including satellite tracking, in-cab messaging, rail and intermodal services, and operation
   management.




                                                                  Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   118
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Telematics-Wireless is a dominant manufacturer of RFID tags and Radio Location Networks.
   They offer radio location networks, automatic vehicle identification, container security, and real-
   time asset monitoring systems.
   TransCore was the only vendor to provide detailed technical specifics and cost estimates. They
   propose a "robust, proven, and economical" RDID tag and reader system that gathers only
   basic miles-hours-trips-days information and then feeds the information to a data center and
   web site much as the other solutions do. This approach is currently used by about 500,000
   commercial vehicles in the US for tracking purposes.

   SmartDrive Presentation

   Graham Ledger, Director of Marketing, Communication and Public Relations, SmartDrive
   Systems Inc.
   Graham.Ledger@SmartDiveSystems.com, 858-531-8949, http://smartdrive.net/

   SmartDrive is a startup company. Their website lists testimonials, but no actual street address
   or deployments. They guarantee that their system will result in 30% fewer crashes, and they
   predict a 25% reduction in maintenance costs and a 25% increase in vehicle life.
   SmartDrive proposes an in-vehicle unit that transmits basic usage information to a roadside
   reader using WiFi technology. Their system includes a video event recorder that captures video
   and audio of both the driver and what the driver sees. Portions of the video stream are only
   saved and reported when a "bad driving" event occurs.

   Vendor Quick Compare

   This section was prepared after the Colloquium. Where a cost range is shown, vendors
   provided additional information after the Colloquium. Numbers for cellular and radio systems
   came from vendors at the ITS America show. These numbers are for discussion purposes and
   may, or may not, reflect what a particular vendor might actually bid in response to an RFP. See
   http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/fleet for information provided directly by vendors.
                                Qualcomm —   Econolite —     TransCore —    SmartDrive —
                                cellular     radio network   RFID network   WiFi network
                                network
    Per vehicle hardware                 800           1,500            40        300-1500
    Per reader hardware                    0           3,000         2,000           3,000
    Per vehicle, per month                75               0              0             30

    One time hardware*               $40 million      $78 million       $4 million   $18-78 million
    Yearly*                          $45 million                0                0      $18 million
    Comments                    Engine           Engine           Basic            Basic
                                diagnostics      diagnostics      information      information
                                available.       available.       only.            plus bundled
                                Can read         Can read         To read          crash-video.
                                information at   information at    information at      Cannot read
                                highway          highway           highway             information at
                                speed.           speed.            speed, per          highway



                                                                  Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   119
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                697,000            Preferred          reader cost is      speed.
                                OmniTRAC           solution in        $12,000.            WiFi is ubiqui-
                                installations      Japan. USDOT       Have deployed       tous but open
                                alone.             may or may         21 million tags     to hacking.
                                                   not build vii      and 42,000          Startup with no
                                                   infrastructure.    readers.            listed address.
   *Assumptions: Hardware installation and yearly maintenance costs are not included. Data
   center costs are not included. Power and an internet connection are assumed to be available at
   each post.


   Round Table Discussions


   Bullets indicate individual speakers. It is not possible to identify individual speakers, just the gist
   of their comments. The following represents a discussion, not an attempt to resolve issues.

   Data Comments

   •   On vendor presentations — Do we use their infrastructure, or use our own? What data do
       you want? What data do you need? Who is ready to go? Cellular seems ready to go, but at
       what an extraordinary cost. Cellular seems a solution for those who really need and are
       willing to pay for real-time location data.
   •   We need to focus on the data we actually need. It is cost-prohibitive to implement some of
       the systems presented. We are talking about thousands of vehicles. We only need to track
       mileage, hours of usage and trips. Real-time is not necessary. We need accurate miles, and
       accurate days of use, but millions of dollars in up-front costs is not cost-effective.
   •   Maybe we should find a way to make manual systems such as Voyager actually work. This
       would be the cheapest alternative. Utah implemented a $50 fine for each bad odometer
       entry at a fuel pump. At first some agencies were having hundreds of thousands of dollars
       taken out of their budgets in fines. Now the entries are much more consistent. Minnesota
       also charges for bad odometer reporting.
   •   Manual data does not work. Caltrans currently has three sources for data, but the data is not
       consistent.
   •   How can we ignore the potential safety benefits of collecting crash video? The cost of one
       lawsuit would pay for the whole program.
   •   GPS and video data are about managing a person, not about managing an asset. If you
       start out with the goal of managing people, you might come to some different approaches
       than those presented today. In any case, what we are trying to do here is manage assets.
   •   But if we widen our goals, we might find others who want that information and be willing to
       pay for it. Homeland Security people who want location data? Insurance companies? Traffic
       managers? Work schedulers? For example, use could use GPS data to confirm that tasks
       have been actually done.




                                                                     Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   120
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   For purposes of data collection and trying to control the size of the fleet, you really only need
       to target those specific vehicles in the fleet with low utilization. This brings the number of
       vehicles down to 20% of the overall number of vehicles in the fleet.
   •   No. Operator input errors are occurring across the fleet. Accurate data builds credibility. And
       credibility is what you need when managing $2 billion worth of assets.
   •   We have a lot of "firehouse" vehicles that need to be looked at. And sometimes it is hard to
       find such vehicles and put them on a target list. You can’t draw the line at any specific
       vehicle. You need to be able to justify why you need X number of fire trucks, loaders, etc.
       You need to establish a standard; you need to establish a methodology. The data itself is
       multifunctional and can be tied to more than just utilization. Fuel efficiency, maintenance,
       driver performance, etc, all relate to money saved.
   •   Driver logs are not the way to go when you are trying to implement a credible, strategic fleet
       allocation system. The data has to be good, or the analysis will be bad.
   •   Known mileage is the lifeblood of fleet management.
   •   How do you retain data for auditing information? — Write the RFP with the specs you are
       requiring to be captured. Specify how long you want the information to be stored before
       purging.

   Fleet Management Comments

   •   The California light fleet is about 37,000 and costs about $44 million per year to maintain.
   •   A Table of Allowance can be a valuable tool for those agencies with site-based facilities
       where needs at outlying sites are hard to judge. The table would create an agreement that
       everyone would understand, establishing the exact number of vehicles allotted to a
       particular location, and helping with vehicle justification. The table can be used to obtain
       better prices during the procurement process, larger orders producing more competitive
       bids. The table would outline the vehicle allotment, and knowing what vehicles needed to be
       replaced would assist in creating a replacement plan. The idea is to take a 3 to 5 year
       perspective.
   •   No. A 3 to 5 year perspective is not current enough. Vehicle technologies change. Work
       methods change. Organizations change. Task priorities change. We should have a standard
       list of approved vehicles and complements of vehicles, but acquisitions should be based
       upon current business cases.
   •   At present, the justification process is inconsistent. DGS has never seen two justifications
       that are alike. Sometimes a short justification will nail it and tell us everything we need to
       know. Sometimes a long justification leaves you wondering whether the vehicle is actually
       needed. This means that there is a problem with the acquisition process. What we really
       need is a credible, uniform process for making decisions. But a thoughtful business case is
       always persuasive.
   •   Our (DGS) present process is to allow agencies to make one-off requests. I would prefer a
       year-at-a-time plan. You hate our process. We hate our process. It's too one-off. It does not
       look at the totality of an agency's fleet. It's better to do due diligence up front, then evaluate
       requests.




                                                                    Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   121
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   The key is tying vehicles to needs and tasks. Then stating your metrics explicitly. For
       example, first say "every yard needs a loader and a four-yard." Then, if you see a yard with
       four four-yards, you immediately know you have a problem.
   •   The present 3-year delay in acquiring a vehicle distorts the picture.
   •   We need to create an objective, "criticality" measurement of certain kinds of vehicles so we
       don’t have to continually justify them. The GSA wants to know the service objective of a
       vehicle and the value of that vehicle and service to the organization. Then ask the
       questions: Would it be more effective to classify vehicles by their “criticality” and “safety”
       resources? Would this be a decision you would make if you owned this business? Would
       you need this? Would you buy this?
   •   It is more likely that a standard is wrong if 2/3's of your vehicles are under-utilized than it is
       likely that your agency is not well-run. The federal approach is to take a strategic
       perspective. They do set process standards, but there is no provision requiring a report on
       vehicles being used below the standards.
   •   We (an agency) are oriented at meeting DGS expectations in terms of usage. But we also
       need to do life-cycle analysis, which can tell us a lot about the cost of an old car. Even if
       something is not mandated, we should ask what we are spending, where we are spending it,
       and why.
   •   We do need to consider life-cycle costs when purchasing a vehicle. Value-based purchasing
       considers down-time and money spent on maintenance. And sometimes getting advanced
       technology means there is only a single vendor. This is especially true for heavy fleet. We
       just bought a $500,000 snow blower to be kept for 15 years while looking only at the
       purchase price, just as if we were buying a pickup.
   •   At present we can only consider cost, emissions, and fuel efficiency, not life-cycle costs.
       Maybe we need legislative relief. Or maybe we should purchase heavy fleet using an RFP
       process.
   •   In California, the protest process makes it very difficult to use RFPs. Idaho does it. Maybe
       we should learn from them.
   •   Seattle buys vehicles on an RFP basis. They have established a methodology requiring
       issues with the RFP be addressed before the final filing date, not in the form of a protest
       after the bid is complete. Vendors are still free to protest that the process wasn’t followed,
       but this has eliminated most issues with the RFP decision. In addition, other states write the
       option to purchase an extended warranty into the RFP. This allows the vendors the option to
       bid what they feel their warranty is worth and shows you the confidence they have in their
       product if they were the one paying for the repairs. It is an option, so it is not required to
       accept the warranty as part of the bid.
   •   We (an agency) are willing to try value-based or RFP purchasing if we know someone will
       be there with us.
   •   I like looking a life-cycle costs. The problem is getting objective data.




                                                                    Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   122
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   We (an agency) uses a fine and reward system for our users in order to get good data.
       Compliance includes completing the six month mileage reports, smog reports and use
       reports. Many states are mandating that such reports be completed on their fleets, including
       money spent on fuel, rentals, maintenance, depreciation, and also requiring a strategic plan
       for improvement.

   Closing Comments

   •   I've never seen this group, this quiet.
   •   I'm leaving here with more questions than when I came.
   •   We all need to stay in touch through the web sites. (public: http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/fleet,
       private: http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/equipment). Documents and notes are all posted on the
       public site. The private site is being used to build the final report.
   Randy Owen:
   •   The essential idea is to create a strategic plan, not tactical proposals. California is now
       tactically oriented. We need to establish:
       1. What data is needed.
       2. How the data should be collected.
       3. How the data should be analyzed.
   •   We need a standardized and credible process for an agency to evaluate their fleet. Each
       vehicle needs to be justified by a business case based upon solid data.
   •   As I see it, the next steps are:
       1.   Draft a report with policy recommendations.
       2.   Get comments.
       3.   Get together again.
       4.   Create a pilot program following the recommendations.




                                                                   Vehicle Allocation Colloquium — Meeting Notes   123
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Vehicle Allocation Survey Results

   Number of responses: 27

   Please provide us some basic information about you and your fleet.

   Organizations responding             Alameda County, Public Works Agency
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services
                                        California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Asset
                                        Management Unit
                                        Colorado DOT, Equipment Services
                                        Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Operations,
                                        Maintenance
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management
                                        DAS - Transportation Services Bureau, State of Nebraska
                                        Fleet Operations, State of Michigan
                                        General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming
                                        Idaho Transportation Department,
                                        Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Management
                                        Resources
                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources, General Services
                                        MO State Highway Patrol, Governmental
                                        MoDOT, General Services Division
                                        Montana Department of Transportation, Equipment Bureau
                                        NM General Services Department, Transportation Services
                                        Division
                                        NYS Thruway Authority, Equipment Management
                                        State Fleet Management, State of Colorado
                                        State of Washington, Motor Pool
                                        the city of lynchburg,va, lynchburg fleet services
                                        TxDOT, General Services Division
                                        University Califronia, Riverside, Fleet Services
                                        University of California Irvine, University of California Irvine
                                        university of tennessee, transportation services
                                        University of Texas @ Austin, Parking & Transportation
                                        Utahn Department Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet
                                        Vermont DOT,




                                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   124
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Fleet units represented in this       31508 Light Duty (cars, vans, SUVs, pickups)
   survey                                12144 Medium/Heavy Trucks
                                         8677 Construction & other Metered Equipment (loaders,
                                        backhoes, etc)
                                         13491 Other — Non-metered Equipment (trailers)
                                         65820 Total

   Average percent of fleet             9.8 percent
   replaced each year

   Approximate average age of           7.4 years
   units in fleet

   How are you funded?                   6 Fixed budgets — There are no charges for services,
                                        and funds do not travel across organizational boundaries.
                                          6 Service based charge-backs — There are charge-backs
                                        for services as they occur, and vehicle capital costs are also
                                        charged back in the form of a monthly lease charge.
                                         5 Time based charge-backs — Operating and capital
                                        costs are charged-back on a monthly basis.
                                         11 Usage based charge-backs (rental rates) — Operating
                                        and capital costs are charged-back by the mile or by the hour
                                        of actual use.
                                         8   Other — please explain.
                                        NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
                                        We are a toll highway and our equipment capital budgets vary
                                        year to year depending on projected toll revenue. We do not
                                        charge our internal work units for maintenance and capital
                                        costs for vehicles and equipment.

                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
                                        Usage Based Charge backs for Capitol for whole fleet,
                                        operating only for Pooled vehicles in one "Sub-Fleet"

                                        Utahn Department Of Transportation Goverment Fleet
                                        Daul rate for Capitol and overhead.
                                        Variable hourly or milage rate for operating

                                        the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services
                                        there are chargebacks for services as they occur but vehicle
                                        capital costs are not charged back

                                        State of Washington Motor Pool
                                        We have a daily or monthly that covers depreciation and
                                        overhead. We also have a mileage rate that covers fuel and



                                                                               Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   125
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        maintenance.

                                        University of Texas @ Austin Parking & Transportation
                                        Service based charge-backs for repairs; departments pay
                                        cash for vehicle purchases.

                                        State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                        Most are time based charge backs

                                        Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                        Capital costs and insurance charges charged back via
                                        monthly rental rate; operating costs including fuel charged per
                                        mile.

                                        DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
                                        Combination of two rates, one for capitol cost and the per mile
                                        fee for operation costs. For both lease and rental units


   How would you characterize            6    Fully funded
   recent funding for replacement        11    Able to meet most needs
   and growth of your fleet?
                                         6    Sufficient only to meet most pressing needs
                                         3    Significantly under funded

   Comments
   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   Some of these question were difficult to answer as our fleet management system does not
   produce the data in the correct format. For example the percentage of the fleet that is replaced
   and the average age of the fleet these numbers are estimated. The equipment data was taken
   from our fleet management system, however, the overall listing included new replacement
   vehicles as well as those in surplus. These vehicle were removed from the final count and the
   numbers indicate the number of active pieces of equipment. We also maintain the NYS Canal
   System and their equipment numbers were not included here. When you factor in the Canal
   system and all the new and used vehicles not in service the vehicle and equipment count jumps
   to 7068

   MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
   Governor moratorium on vehicle purchases in 2005 so purchase only with special permission.
   Replaced 50% of normal number in FY 06. Optimistic for FY 07.

   Utahn Department Of Transportation Goverment Fleet
   Fully funded light duty from DFO.
   Heavy duty is only actual depreciation and falls short

   State of Washington Motor Pool



                                                                              Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   126
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   We purchase vehicles usining certificates of participation

   Alameda County Public Works Agency
   Administration has set replacement funding at arbitrary figure which has not changed in the last
   7 years I've been Fleet Manager.

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   Inventory above does not include MDOT fleet which is approximately 1,471 vehicles including
   742 passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Remainder are heavy road maintenance vehicles
   and related ancillary off-road equipment. Vehicles in inventory above reflect our leased fleet
   (SOM leases its vehicles).

   General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
   We are an internal service funded agency that meets all its funding needs through rates and
   charge-backs.



   What does your Fleet Management Group do?

   Fleet Size Management                 20 Coordinates management of fleet size
                                         19 Coordinates policies regarding allocation of vehicles and
                                        equipment
                                         4 No — fleet size management is decentralized to user
                                        groups

   Reporting                             20 Reports fleet inventory and utilization to outside
                                        agencies

   Services                              24 Procures vehicles
                                         21 Disposes of vehicles
                                         25 Tracks usage
                                         19 Manages usage
                                         21 Performs repair and maintenance
                                         20 Procures commercial repairs
                                         15 Coordinates rental of vehicles and equipment
                                         20 Operates shared pools of vehicles
                                         16 Modifies or assembles vehicles
                                         4 Manufactures vehicles not commercially available
                                         16 Manages bulk and/or commercial fuel operations
                                         19 Performs mandated inspections
                                         23 Ensures conformance to state and local regulations
                                         20 Plays an important role in introducing new equipment




                                                                              Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   127
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                         technology and/or work methods to user groups

   Comments                              NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
                                         The fleet was centrally managed in the 80's and early 90's. In
                                         the mid 90's the trend was to decentralized which allowed the
                                         work units to have more freedom and input with equipment
                                         needs and requests. This had benefits but it also created
                                         problems as fleet standardization was not as consistent. In
                                         recent years the trend is to move back toward a more
                                         centralized theme to provide a more uniform fleet that is
                                         focused on our core mission and objectives.

                                         University Califronia, Riverside Fleet Services
                                         Do not understand the term "Fleet Manangement Group."

                                         MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
                                         My agency doesn't have a Fleet Management Group. There's
                                         just me.

                                         Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management
                                         Resources
                                         We pretty much do it all... from cradle-to-grave. We fund our
                                         acquisitions and all operations and costs via a chargeback
                                         system that utilizes both a time element and use charges.

                                         State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                         Some vehicles are custom tailored to special applications

                                         Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                         Most maintenance is outsourced - we only manage one small
                                         garage.



   What are your usage standards?

   Do you have an official          11     No
   policy statement on fleet      Alameda County, Public Works Agency — Connecticut, Dept. of
   utilization?                   Transportation, Equipment Operations, Maintenance — MO Dept
                                  of Natural Resources, General Services — MoDOT, General
                                  Services Division — Montana Department of Transportation,
                                  Equipment Bureau — NYS Thruway Authority, Equipment
                                  Management — the city of lynchburg,va, lynchburg fleet services
                                  — university of tennessee, transportation services — University of
                                  Texas @ Austin, Parking & Transportation — Utahn Department
                                  Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet — Vermont DOT




                                                                                Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   128
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                    15   Yes
                                  Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services — California
                                  Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Asset Management
                                  Unit — Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — County of San
                                  Diego, Fleet Management — DAS - Transportation Services
                                  Bureau, State of Nebraska — Fleet Operations, State of Michigan
                                  — General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming —
                                  Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Management Resources
                                  — MO State Highway Patrol, Governmental — NM General
                                  Services Department, Transportation Services Division — State
                                  Fleet Management, State of Colorado — State of Washington,
                                  Motor Pool — TxDOT, General Services Division — University
                                  Califronia, Riverside, Fleet Services — University of California
                                  Irvine, University of California Irvine

   If you do have official    California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Asset
   usage requirements, please Management Unit
   describe your standards    Managment Memo 06-06
   or                         Vehicles driven more than 6,000 miles during 6 month reporting
   Email your standards       period or used at least 80 percent of the workdays that the vehicle
   document to Caroline       is available during the six-month reporting period.
   Munywoki at
   cmmunywoki@ucdavis.edu         NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   or                           We have standards for replacement intervals for vehicles and
   Provide a link to your usage equipment. These are used as a guide and not an automatic
   standards.                   milestone for vehicle/equipment replacement. We are now
                                factoring in the equipments annual utilization along with the
                                feasibility of rentals. While we currently don't have any written or
                                established guidelines for utilization we intend to establish these.

                                  Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
                                  Usage standards are for Automobiles, Vans and 1/2Ton Pickup
                                  Trucks - 1000 miles per month . Policy will be sent via email to
                                  caroline Munywoki

                                  Colorado DOT Equipment Services
                                  E mail PD

                                  County of San Diego Fleet Management
                                  The County of San Diego has no official policy on utilization from a
                                  minimum usage standpoint. However, by policy all Department
                                  Heads are allocated vehicles from the Director of General Services
                                  and are responsible for their proper use including personal
                                  assignment and home storage. Vehicles can be withdrawn from a
                                  department by the General Services Director. All vehicles acquired
                                  as "additional" to the fleet require governing Board approval. Fleet
                                  Management administers the vehicle replacement process and is



                                                                             Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   129
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                  responsible for replaced vehicles being turned in once the new
                                  vehicle is placed into service. Fleet Management reports utilization
                                  to customer departments and they make internal usage and/or
                                  assignment decisions. Departments can also chose private
                                  mileage reimbursement as an alternative to an assigned County
                                  vehicle.

                                  University Califronia, Riverside Fleet Services
                                  www.fleet.ucr.edu. Look under Policies

                                  MoDOT General Services Division
                                  We don't have a formal policy but we do have published criteria for
                                  minimum annual usage. We provide regular underutilized reports
                                  and review new purchases to ensure they do not have
                                  underutilized units in the class they are wanting to replace.

                                  the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services
                                  we are a small city but we expected a fleet asset with an odometer
                                  to average at least 300 miles a month and a metered fleet asset to
                                  average 150 hours a month

                                  Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management Resources
                                  Our utilization standard is that 75% of our equipment achieves
                                  "planned annual utilzation". The "planned utilization" is between
                                  3,600 and 40,000 annual miles - depending on the application
                                  (Parks and emergency wildland firefighting applications can tend
                                  to be on the low end, while Enforcement units and Fisheries can
                                  tend to be at the upper end).
                                  The "Annual Planned Miles" is important, as we set the lifecycle
                                  (we mesh usage with time) for the equipment based on this...
                                  which then is a key determinant in the rate that they will pay. We
                                  utilize "variable lifecycles"

                                  If less than 3,600 miles... we "encourage" sharing or drawing from
                                  one of the pools.

                                  State of Washington Motor Pool
                                  We require vehicles to average 1000 miles per month. Realizing
                                  this is not always practical, we will be adding "or averaging 30
                                  hours per week useage"

                                  State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                  http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dcs/fleet/index.htm

                                  Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                  Depending on vehicle type, passenger vehicles must be utilized for



                                                                              Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   130
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                  sufficient mileage per month or personal vehicles should be used.
                                  See http://www.michigan.gov/dmb/0,1607,7-150-
                                  9141_13133_13709-32861--,00.html for breakeven calculator.
                                  Replacement schedules are based on mileage by type of vehicle.

                                  DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
                                  Lease vehicles require a minimum usage of at least 17 days per
                                  month and an average of at least 1000 miles per month.

                                  General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
                                  Vehicle Use Policy forwarded to Caroline.

                                  NM General Services Department Transportation Services Division
                                  http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/NMAC/parts/title01/01.005.0003.htm

                                  University of California Irvine University of California Irvine
                                  http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/policies/bfb/bus8.html




   In general, what factors are used to justify requests for vehicles that do not meet
   usage standards?

   How do you justify exceptions for low utilization vehicles? (check all that apply)

     3 Rigid standards                  California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Asset
                                        Management Unit — DAS - Transportation Services Bureau,
                                        State of Nebraska — TxDOT, General Services Division

     5 Customer is always right         General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming —
                                        NM General Services Department, Transportation Services
                                        Division — the city of lynchburg,va, lynchburg fleet services
                                        — University of Texas @ Austin, Parking & Transportation —
                                        Utahn Department Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet

     16 Simple replacements             Alameda County, Public Works Agency — Arizona Dept. of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Services — Connecticut, Dept. of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Operations, Maintenance —
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management — DAS -
                                        Transportation Services Bureau, State of Nebraska —
                                        General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming —
                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources, General Services — MoDOT,
                                        General Services Division — Montana Department of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Bureau — NM General Services
                                        Department, Transportation Services Division — State of
                                        Washington, Motor Pool — University Califronia, Riverside,



                                                                                Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   131
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Fleet Services — University of California Irvine, University of
                                        California Irvine — university of tennessee, transportation
                                        services — University of Texas @ Austin, Parking &
                                        Transportation — Utahn Department Of Transportation,
                                        Goverment Fleet

    11 Comprehensive Vehicle            Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
   Allocation Model                     County of San Diego, Fleet Management — DAS -
                                        Transportation Services Bureau, State of Nebraska — Fleet
                                        Operations, State of Michigan — General Services Division/
                                        Motor Pool, State of Wyoming — Minnesota Dept. of Natural
                                        Resources, Management Resources — MO Dept of Natural
                                        Resources, General Services — MoDOT, General Services
                                        Division — Montana Department of Transportation,
                                        Equipment Bureau — State Fleet Management, State of
                                        Colorado — TxDOT, General Services Division

     4 Policy-based exceptions          Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management — State Fleet
                                        Management, State of Colorado — TxDOT, General Services
                                        Division

     21 Case-by-case exceptions         Alameda County, Public Works Agency — Arizona Dept. of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Services — Colorado DOT,
                                        Equipment Services — Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation,
                                        Equipment Operations, Maintenance — County of San Diego,
                                        Fleet Management — General Services Division/ Motor Pool,
                                        State of Wyoming — MO Dept of Natural Resources, General
                                        Services — MO State Highway Patrol, Governmental —
                                        MoDOT, General Services Division — Montana Department
                                        of Transportation, Equipment Bureau — NM General
                                        Services Department, Transportation Services Division —
                                        NYS Thruway Authority, Equipment Management — State
                                        Fleet Management, State of Colorado — State of
                                        Washington, Motor Pool — TxDOT, General Services
                                        Division — University Califronia, Riverside, Fleet Services —
                                        University of California Irvine, University of California Irvine —
                                        university of tennessee, transportation services — University
                                        of Texas @ Austin, Parking & Transportation — Utahn
                                        Department Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet — Vermont
                                        DOT

     11 Business case exceptions        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
                                        Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — County of San Diego,
                                        Fleet Management — Fleet Operations, State of Michigan —
                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources, General Services — MO
                                        State Highway Patrol, Governmental — Montana Department
                                        of Transportation, Equipment Bureau — NYS Thruway
                                        Authority, Equipment Management — State Fleet
                                        Management, State of Colorado — State of Washington,




                                                                                Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   132
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Motor Pool — TxDOT, General Services Division

     3 Task priorities                  Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
                                        Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — Montana Department
                                        of Transportation, Equipment Bureau

     4 Level of Service                 Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — MoDOT, General
                                        Services Division — NYS Thruway Authority, Equipment
                                        Management — Utahn Department Of Transportation,
                                        Goverment Fleet

   Comments
   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   Vehicle and equipment utilization is becoming more prevalent in making our fleet decisions.
   There are however, like with any large fleet, a few pieces of equipment that are critical to our
   mission and main objectives. (Plow Trucks) We also have a few pieces that just create
   efficiencies within a work unit a despite low utilization are beneficial to have in the fleet. (Skid
   Steer Loaders)

   the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services
   we recently created a utilization monitoring committee and hope to get a better handle on low
   utilized fleet assets

   Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management Resources
   Our model is somewhere between "comprehensive vehicle allocation model" and "simple
   replacement". Basically we require each of our customer groups (Divisions) to have an
   "equipment plan" that describes:
   1) the composition of their fleet, and,
   2) where it's deployed at.
   The plans must be "approved" by the Division Director as well as the Fleet Manager (on behalf
   of the Commissioner's Office). If a replacement is required by our lifecycle standards and the
   desired vehicle is consistent with the approved equipment plan... it's "simple replacement". If
   there's a disconnect... it must be reconciled before proceeding to acquisition... but either way
   the vehicle comes out of service when it meets it's lifecycle parameters (age and use).

   University of Texas @ Austin Parking & Transportation
   State minimum use standards, 11,000 miles per year, no longer applies to university fleets.
   However, our fleet size is capped at the current level, and any increase in size must be
   approved by Fleet Management and the State.

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   We engaged in a significant fleet reduction several years ago. Now, we utilize departmental
   targets for fleet size with justification for increases requiring department head approval. Those
   are granted if reductions occur elsewhere. Quarterly reports provided to departments showing
   vehicles that could be viewed as underutilized. Underutilized vehicles, even if within target limits
   for the department, are expected to be turned in.




                                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   133
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   After user groups make requests, how are actual allocations made? (check all
   that apply)

     7 Users decide                     General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming —
                                        State of Washington, Motor Pool — the city of lynchburg,va,
                                        lynchburg fleet services — TxDOT, General Services Division
                                        — University of California Irvine, University of California Irvine
                                        — University of Texas @ Austin, Parking & Transportation —
                                        Utahn Department Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet

    10 Fleet Management                 County of San Diego, Fleet Management — General Services
   decides                              Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming — Minnesota Dept. of
                                        Natural Resources, Management Resources — MO Dept of
                                        Natural Resources, General Services — MO State Highway
                                        Patrol, Governmental — Montana Department of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Bureau — NM General Services
                                        Department, Transportation Services Division — NYS
                                        Thruway Authority, Equipment Management — university of
                                        tennessee, transportation services — Vermont DOT

     9 Special Committees decide        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
                                        Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — Minnesota Dept. of
                                        Natural Resources, Management Resources — MoDOT,
                                        General Services Division — Montana Department of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Bureau — NM General Services
                                        Department, Transportation Services Division — State Fleet
                                        Management, State of Colorado — TxDOT, General Services
                                        Division — Utahn Department Of Transportation, Goverment
                                        Fleet

    12 Upper Management                 Alameda County, Public Works Agency — Arizona Dept. of
   decides                              Transportation, Equipment Services — California Department
                                        of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Asset Management Unit —
                                        Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Operations,
                                        Maintenance — Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources,
                                        Management Resources — MO Dept of Natural Resources,
                                        General Services — Montana Department of Transportation,
                                        Equipment Bureau — NM General Services Department,
                                        Transportation Services Division — NYS Thruway Authority,
                                        Equipment Management — TxDOT, General Services
                                        Division — Utahn Department Of Transportation, Goverment
                                        Fleet — Vermont DOT

     5 Finance Group decides            General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming —
                                        NM General Services Department, Transportation Services
                                        Division — State Fleet Management, State of Colorado —
                                        TxDOT, General Services Division — University of California
                                        Irvine, University of California Irvine

     1 External Agency decides          General Services Division/ Motor Pool, State of Wyoming




                                                                                Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   134
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




    5 Comprehensive Vehicle             Colorado DOT, Equipment Services — Fleet Operations,
   Allocation Model is in place.        State of Michigan — Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources,
                                        Management Resources — Montana Department of
                                        Transportation, Equipment Bureau — Utahn Department Of
                                        Transportation, Goverment Fleet

    4 Other (please explain in          County of San Diego, Fleet Management — Fleet Operations,
   comments)                            State of Michigan — NYS Thruway Authority, Equipment
                                        Management — State Fleet Management, State of Colorado

   Comments
   California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Asset Management Unit
   Purchase of vehicles must meet the criteria of MM 06-03. Trade-in must be for like vehicle,
   and/or substitutions may be necessary along with appropriate signatures.

   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   The review process starts in the field and requests and justifications are put together and
   forwarded to Fleet Management. The request are then reviewed to be sure they meet the
   established criteria and that the equipment utilization warrants replacement and/or adding to the
   fleet. This is then discussed with the program areas at the HQ's level and discrepancies
   resolved. Once approved they are presented to the Budget Bureau and are reviewed by
   Finance and Executive staff for presentation to the Board.

   County of San Diego Fleet Management
   Governing Board approves additions to fleet. Fleet Management maintains fleet size at Board
   approved level. Fleet Management provides customers with utilization information.

   MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
   Fleet Management analyzes, evaluates and recommends. Upper Management Decides.

   State Fleet Management State of Colorado
   Office of State Planning and Budget make the recommendations to the Joint Budget Committee
   that makes the final decisions regarding budget/vehicle allocations.

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   We utilize a "right vehicle for the job" approach. Departments identify their functional need;
   central fleet operations identifies the vehicle which meets that need most economically. This is
   done through dialogue with user agencies if standard vehicles do not meet the identified need or
   add on equipment is needed. Specialized vehicles (e.g. law enforcement) have specifications
   worked out between law enforcement groups and fleet operations.

   General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
   External Agency refers to the State Legislature.

   university of tennessee transportation services




                                                                            Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   135
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   in conjuction w/using department



   How do you collect usage data?

   Caltrans collects most mileage and hourly data when fuel cards are used or when vehicles are
   maintained or repaired. How do you collect this data?

   We don't                              1 Our Fleet Management Group does not collect usage
                                        data: instead, users or line managers justify usage based
                                        upon their experience and expertise.

   Manually — Data is entered on         11 vehicle log
   a paper or computer form.             7 job work order
                                         11 maintenance work order
                                         6 bulk fuel log
                                         2 driver log or time sheet
                                         7 commercial fuel credit card system with manual entry at
                                        pump
                                         3 Other — Please describe in comments section

   Electronically — Data is read         7 commercial fuel pump
   from a vehicle probe.                 12 bulk fuel site
                                         3 stationary readers as vehicle goes by
                                         4 vehicle travel log
                                         0 Other — Please describe in comments section

   Comments
   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   Vehicle mileage data is all collected electronically with our fueling system. It is also capture
   anytime an electronic workorder is opened or when a meter check is dome manuualy then
   entered electronically. Meter checks are done on equipment the does not routinely fuel at the
   automated pumps. (Small generators, pumps, arrow boards etc)

   Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation Equipment Operations, Maintenance
   We use data from two types

   Colorado DOT Equipment Services
   Monthly meter are entered into the Equipment Management system.

   County of San Diego Fleet Management
   Currently vehicle usage is captured during refueling and shop visits. In the process of converting
   to wireless fuel access system for internal fuel sites and installation of Networkcar GPS system.
   Drivers are required by policy to maintain vehicle usage logs for individual department use only.



                                                                             Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   136
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
   Most data is first manually entered in logs then entered in a data system on a monthly basis.

   MoDOT General Services Division
   We have 300+ bulk fueling sites . . .we're in the process of automating all sites. 126 now and
   the remaining in the next couple of years. In the interim, the sites that are not automated are
   documenting usage on a clipboard.

   State of Washington Motor Pool
   Our fleet is statewide. I expect in the future we will collect by either cellular or wifi.

   Alameda County Public Works Agency
   We generate work orders manually through our Software program which then tracks labor, parts
   and commercial cost for the maintenance and repair of each vehicle. PM program is established
   and tracked in this software program. Meter updates are thru thr Card Lock fuel system and/or
   work orders.

   Usage is reported on employee time cards and inputted into Cost accounting program.

   State Fleet Management State of Colorado
   Most of our data is entered by the servicing agency upon authorized invoice being initiated for
   authorization by our call center. This data is tracked by SFM with the use of the Colorado
   Automotive Reporting System Database (CARS).

   DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
   Trip Tickets used for Rental Pools similarly to logs for lease units.

   General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
   Manually - monthly mileage report submitted by user. Maintenance work orders acts as a back-
   up for those who forget to submit their reports on a timely basis.

   NM General Services Department Transportation Services Division
   NM GSD/TSD collects data in its Fleet Focus database. Individual vehicle utilization is compiled
   through monthly trip tickets filed manually or electronically by the user agency.



   If you collect usage data electronically, how do you do it? (check all that apply)

   Type of system —                       7 In-house system
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services — MO
                                        Dept of Natural Resources, General Services — MoDOT,
                                        General Services Division — State Fleet Management, State
                                        of Colorado — the city of lynchburg,va, lynchburg fleet



                                                                                  Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   137
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        services — TxDOT, General Services Division — Utahn
                                        Department Of Transportation, Goverment Fleet
                                         2 In-house system with portions outsourced
                                        State Fleet Management, State of Colorado — University
                                        Califronia, Riverside, Fleet Services
                                         5 Outsourced system
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management — Fleet Operations,
                                        State of Michigan — NM General Services Department,
                                        Transportation Services Division — NYS Thruway Authority,
                                        Equipment Management — TxDOT, General Services
                                        Division

   Type of communications —              1 WiFi
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services
                                         2 Radio frequency
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management — the city of
                                        lynchburg,va, lynchburg fleet services
                                         0 Passive transponder
                                         2 Active transponder
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services —
                                        County of San Diego, Fleet Management
                                         1 Cellular
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Equipment Services

   Comments
   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   All communication back to headquarters is through fiber optic cable. Some maintenance
   locations not located near the fiber optic cable are done wireless.




   Who reports fleet inventory and utilization to outside agencies? (check all that
   apply)

   Who reports data?                     23 Fleet Management Group
                                         2 User groups
                                         5 Upper management
                                         2 Other — Please describe in comments section

   Comments
   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   Most utilization reports to out side agencies are centered around the use of alternative fuels and
   vehicle procurement.



                                                                             Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   138
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation Equipment Operations, Maintenance
   Users groups can report by submittal of milage sheets. fleet Management can use the milage
   sheets as well as work orders or milage and hour meter readings as logged in the fleet
   management system and our fueling system. This is not a user friendly mehtod and takes much
   time and resources to accomplish.

   MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
   As an agency subordinate to the State Fleet Manager, we often provide data to that office where
   it is consolidated and reported to outside agencies.

   Utahn Department Of Transportation Goverment Fleet
   State Department of Fleet Operations.

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   Our legislature requires the central service function (Vehicle and Travel Services) in the
   Department of Management and Budget to provide reports.




   Please describe your reporting system.

   Do you have one or more fleet         5    No
   management information                21   Yes
   systems?
                                        If Yes, what are the software name(s) and provider(s)?
                                        Vermont DOT
                                        Maximus' FleetFocus MCMS / M5

                                        Montana Department of Transportation Equipment Bureau
                                        Agile Assets

                                        NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
                                        The system name is "Shopfax" provided by World Information
                                        Systems out of Greensboro NC.

                                        Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation Equipment Operations,
                                        Maintenance
                                        Synergen Fleet Management System

                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
                                        Fleet Focus




                                                                             Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   139
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        County of San Diego Fleet Management
                                        Maximus Fleet Focus (M4) on ASP platform

                                        University Califronia, Riverside Fleet Services
                                        Nexus i pool

                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
                                        In House developed State Fleet Information System.

                                        MoDOT General Services Division
                                        In-house system . . currently have a RFP on the streets to bid
                                        a new system. Hope to be fully implemented by late 2007.

                                        TxDOT General Services Division
                                        In House
                                        Fleet Focus

                                        the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services
                                        FASTER by CCG

                                        Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management
                                        Resources
                                        Current is an internally developed system, but we are in the
                                        process of moving to Maximus M5.

                                        State of Washington Motor Pool
                                        Maximus Fleet Focus FA

                                        Alameda County Public Works Agency
                                        Maintstar, Bender Engineering

                                        State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                        Cars is our primary system- other data systems provide data
                                        feeds.

                                        Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                        FleetFocus (M4)
                                        FleetView (Wheels fleet leasing)
                                        TRAK (bulk fuel)
                                        Wheels/WEX (fuel)

                                        DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
                                        Home grown mainframe based system named Vehicle



                                                                               Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   140
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Information System

                                        General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
                                        Fleet Focus by Maximus

                                        university of tennessee transportation services
                                        in house developed

                                        NM General Services Department Transportation Services
                                        Division
                                        Fleet Focus and WEX

                                        University of California Irvine University of California Irvine
                                        Nexis I-Pool

                                        If you have multiple systems, how are they interlinked?
                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
                                        Fleet Managment, Billing, Fleet Project/Acquisition planning,

                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
                                        ODBC link from ACCESS based agency application to the
                                        State Fleet Information System "downloads" mileage
                                        information for constructing charge-back bills.

                                        Alameda County Public Works Agency
                                        Interfaces with Fiscal Cost Accounting System.

                                        State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                        State Network

                                        Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                        interfaces to both FleetFocus and FleetView.


   Do you have an automated fuel         10    No
   management system in place?           16    Yes
                                        If Yes, what are the software name(s) and provider(s)?
                                        NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
                                        EJ Ward out of Texas.

                                        Connecticut, Dept. of Transportation Equipment Operations,
                                        Maintenance




                                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   141
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        hour/milage readings have to be inserted by the opertaor at
                                        the time of fueling. The system does log the information and
                                        can be used for reports.

                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
                                        Fuel Force

                                        County of San Diego Fleet Management
                                        Currently E.J. Ward Datafleet. In the process of converting to
                                        Maximus Fuel Focus (ASP platform)

                                        University Califronia, Riverside Fleet Services
                                        Phoenix

                                        MoDOT General Services Division
                                        In the process of evaluating bids -- will award contract in July,
                                        2006.

                                        the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services
                                        FuelMaster from Syntek

                                        University of Texas @ Austin Parking & Transportation
                                        NBCS

                                        Alameda County Public Works Agency
                                        Fleet Data Systems

                                        Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                        TRAK - for bulk fuel locations using the WEX card.

                                        General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
                                        Veeder-Root by Fuel Master which inter-faces with Fleet
                                        Focus

                                        university of tennessee transportation services
                                        fFleetone

                                        NM General Services Department Transportation Services
                                        Division
                                        WEX

                                        University of California Irvine University of California Irvine




                                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   142
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Megatrak by Megatronics

                                        If Yes, does this system automatically collect odometer/hour
                                        meter readings?
                                         8    No
                                         5    Yes

   Do you have a contract with a         2    No
   fuel card company so that             23    Yes
   drivers can obtain fuel from
   commercial fuel companies?           If Yes, what are the software name(s) and provider(s)?
                                        Vermont DOT
                                        Wright Express

                                        Montana Department of Transportation Equipment Bureau
                                        Wex, contract is about up
                                        New vendor will be Comdata

                                        NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
                                        Exxon/Mobile - These are obtained through the Office of
                                        General Services which is an outside agency.

                                        Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
                                        Voyager

                                        Colorado DOT Equipment Services
                                        Wright Express

                                        County of San Diego Fleet Management
                                        Voyager

                                        University Califronia, Riverside Fleet Services
                                        Voyager

                                        MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
                                        Voyager

                                        MoDOT General Services Division
                                        Voyager

                                        TxDOT General Services Division
                                        ComData




                                                                               Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   143
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        MO State Highway Patrol Governmental
                                        Voyager

                                        Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management
                                        Resources
                                        WEX

                                        University of Texas @ Austin Parking & Transportation
                                        ComData

                                        State Fleet Management State of Colorado
                                        Wright Express

                                        Fleet Operations State of Michigan
                                        Wright Express (through Wheels, Inc.)

                                        DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
                                        Voyager Card through US Bank

                                        General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
                                        Wright Express

                                        university of tennessee transportation services
                                        Fleetone
                                        Fuelman
                                        Voyager

                                        NM General Services Department Transportation Services
                                        Division
                                        WEX

                                        University of California Irvine University of California Irvine
                                        Voyager

                                        If Yes, does this system collect odometer readings?
                                         4    No
                                         20    Yes
                                        If Yes, are odometer readings from commercial card
                                        transactions validated and merged with readings in your bulk
                                        fuel management system?
                                         14    No
                                         6    Yes



                                                                                 Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   144
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Comments
   California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Asset Management Unit
   We do not have a bulk fuel management system.

   Montana Department of Transportation Equipment Bureau
   At this point in time we are not using the odometer reading electronically and I am not sure
   about the validation process

   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   Our automated fuel system requires the mileage to be entered manually via a key pad at the
   fuel terminal. The system has edits in place that minimize the data entry mistakes. The data is
   then posted to the fleet system when the overnight interfaces run.

   The majority of our fleet fueling are in-house through our own fuel system. The commercial
   credit cards for fuel are for emergencies and for when we travel off site and require fuel.

   Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management Resources
   We intend to use this feature once we get into Maximus M5.

   State of Washington Motor Pool
   We have poor accuracy caused by drivers inputting incorrect mileage.

   State Fleet Management State of Colorado
   Most fuel odometers are valadated by comparing VMT with service odometer history.

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   Data is merged and validated in our fleet management software.




   What are your most pressing current issues? — What "lessons learned" can you
   share? — Do you have any general comments?

   California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Asset Management Unit
   Need a Responsible Reporting Employee (RRE) contact person for each unit.

   Would like to understand terminology:
   Variable lifecycles
   Replacement required by lifecycle standards
   Disconnect

   Would like to discuss beginning features offered by:
   Maximus M5 data system




                                                                            Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   145
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   NYS Thruway Authority Equipment Management
   One of our most pressing concerns is controlling operating costs. The escalating price of fuel
   has had both a direct and indirect impact on fleet operations. Virtually every commodity we use
   is impacted by the high price of fuel. Over the past two years the largest increases to our
   operating budget have been fuel. Since there is little we can do in regard to fuel prices we have
   to deploy strategies the reduce fuel consumption. We are reviewing engine idling practices and
   looking at utilizing LED lighting technology. LED's have a low amp draw which could allow a
   vehicle to be shut down while still providing emergency lighting in maintenance set ups.

   We are also looking at equipment utilization an working toward obtaining a more universal fleet,
   one that can be used multiple seasons and for multiple tasks. This will provide a fleet that is
   better utilized while reducing the overall size of the fleet without a sacrific to service. The current
   organizational trend is to move back to a more centralized theme of Fleet Management. This is
   challenging to do, as once the field was given the freedom to make these decisions it is difficult
   to pull this back. While this practice had some advantages, for a large organization, it leads to
   many different opinions which can create a very diverse fleet. The fallout is it may limit the ability
   to loan equipment without operators; it creates additional training needs, support equipment and
   tools for technicians to diagnose and repair equipment; it creates parts issues and more
   inventory; you limit your abilty to make bulk purchases which results in higher cost and longer
   procurement cycles.

   Arizona Dept. of Transportation Equipment Services
   Issues - Maintaining rental rates that keep pace with current acquisition costs, cost of fuel and
   increasing operating and expenditure budgets.

   Positive - being the vendor of choice for all State Agencies and selected policitcal subs for
   vehicle/equipment repairs. Fuel provider for the state and polical subs.

   MO Dept of Natural Resources General Services
   Most pressing issue is having and abiding by a reasonable replacement eligibility criteria. State
   Fleet Management -- based on non-fleet audit reports -- have indicated likely increase in
   eligibility criteria from current 105,000 miles for most vehicles to 120,000 or more. And the Fleet
   System we use doesn't really allow for evaluating optimum replacement points.

   Lessons Learned: Buy a good commercial Fleet management system.

   MoDOT General Services Division
   Most pressing issue is evaluating fleet managment systems to identify the best system to
   provide complete fleet management info. We have 250+ mechanics and over 6,000 employees
   in very rural areas without high speed internet capabilities.

   Other issues: Right-sizing our fleet, changing our PM schedules from mileage/hours to fuel
   consumption, capturing true "down time", and working with our field staff to optimize fleet usage
   (i.e. sharing equipment across district borders, planning & scheduling in advance . . etc.)

   the city of lynchburg,va lynchburg fleet services




                                                                                Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   146
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   out of control fuel prices, shrinking budgets, late delivery of new fleet assets

   Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Management Resources
   Fuel costs are somewhat problematic.
   Debt has been a problem, but we are making our last payment this month. Lesson learned here
   is set rates high enough to avoid debt.
   Another lesson learned - if costs are a concern, engage management in the program. The real
   opportunities to manage cost revolve around:
   1) managing fleet composition,
   2) managing inventory and utilization,
   3) managing lifecycles (when to buy/sell),
   4) utilize standards,
   5) manage safety (and avoid accidents),
   It's nice to engage users in the management, but it's difficult to manage "wants" vs. "needs" if
   management isn't involved.

   State of Washington Motor Pool
   Alternate energy legislation, both federal and state are effecting the variiety of vehicles that we
   can purchase.

   Centralizing fleet management of other agencies into the Motor Pool is a current goal.

   University of Texas @ Austin Parking & Transportation
   1. A decentralized fleet makes it difficult to manage.
   2. Determining minimum use standards is difficult for campus bound vehicles in a decentralized
   enviroment. "Car Sharing" appears to be an answer.
   3. Selection of light duty vehicle types are very limited under alternative fuel mandates.

   Alameda County Public Works Agency
   Currently budget constraints have frozen filling vacant positions and we are under staffed by 2
   mechanics. This is forcing us to do more repairs due to the lack of manpower to keep up with
   our PM program.

   The lack of funding is keeping equipment in the fleet longer then is cost effective. This is also
   requiring Fleet to do more repairs vs PMs

   Fleet Operations State of Michigan
   Rising fuel costs have caused serious budgetary concerns and implementation of a fuel
   surcharge.
   We support centralized fleet management - data collection and manipulation (and management)
   is difficult in a decentralized environment.
   We support fleet leasing as a method to provide off balance sheet financing to our fleet.
   We have outsourced maintenance except for a small garage in Lansing.

   DAS - Transportation Services Bureau State of Nebraska
   Fuel Prices are our largest concern. Availability of E85 at reasonable prices is a major interest




                                                                               Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   147
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   and increasing the overall efficiency of the use of our vehicles in order to better be able to
   provide services while maintaining the size of the fleet is a major issue as well.

   General Services Division/ Motor Pool State of Wyoming
   As with everyone, trying to predict fuel, repair and parts costs; and being able to set rates to
   cover 100% of agencies expenditures.

   NM General Services Department Transportation Services Division
   Getting a handle on maintenance expense. Currently have in excess of 300 vendors statewide
   that NM GSD/TSD issues purchase documents to and renewed constantly throughout the fiscal
   year.




                                                                               Vehicle Allocation Survey Results   148
   Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




       Caltrans — Selected Findings



       Caltrans Tracking of Vehicles


       The following provides an overview of some of things Caltrans as an Agency does to enable the
       tracking of vehicles. It covers what not how.

       Caltrans Maintenance Vehicle Classifications

       The very first step of all is to classify all vehicles to be purchased and used so that there is a
       common frame of reference.
       See Appendix: Caltrans Maintenance Vehicle Classifications for a listing of the 738 codes used
       by the Maintenance Division.
       See Appendix: NAFA Classification Codes for a sample of an alternate way to classify vehicles
       as developed by the National Association of Fleet Administrators. The NAFA system of 870
       codes begins by first categorizing vehicles by weight.

       Major Organizational Groupings

       Next, vehicles need to be related to major organizational groupings. Caltrans is a matrix
       organization with 12 geographic districts and 12 functional groups reporting directly to the office
       of the Director. For the purposes of tracking vehicles, the functional groupings can be collapsed
       to nine.

                D 01    D 02    D 03       D 04   D 05    D 06     D 07     D 08     D 09    D 10      D 11     D 12
                Nort    North   Sac        Bay    Cen-    Fres-    Los      Inlan    E.      Cent-     San      Or-
                h       Inlan   Valle      Area   tral    no       Ange     d        Sierr   ral       Dieg     ange
                Coas    d       y                 Coas             -les     Em-      a Nv    Ca        o        Ct
                t                                 t                         pire
Administratio
n
Engineering
Management
Transportatio
n Planning
Project
Development
Engineering
Services
Traffic



                                                                                       Caltrans — Selected Findings    149
   Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




Management
Right of Way
Construction
Maintenance

      Now You Can Count

      Now you can count your vehicles and even associate them with programs. However, these
      numbers will be only useful for tracking purposes, not allocation purposes.
      Fleet Numbers by Program
      PROGRAM                                       EQUIPMENT                   % FLEET


      ADMINISTRATION                                976                         7.20%
      ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT                        15                          0.11%
      TRANSPORTATION PLANNING                       21                          0.15%
      PROJECT DEVELOPMENT                           54                          0.39%
      ENGINEERING SERVICES                          894                         6.60%
      TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT                            232                         2.30%
      RIGHT OF WAY                                  21                          0.15%
      CONSTRUCTION                                  2,423                       17.80%
      MAINTENANCE                                   8,841                       65.00%
      TOTAL CALTRANS FLEET                          13,477                      100%
      Source: Alan Mills, Maintenance Fleet Management
      Note that Maintenance and Construction account for 84% of the Caltrans fleet. As we shall see
      in other documents, this does not mean that most opportunities for increasing utilization lie in
      those programs!
      Maintenance Vehicles by Type and District
      And look at vehicles by district.
      Mnt          Description                               D1 D2 — D11 D12 D56 D59 Total
      Class
      101          SEDAN COMPACT                              1    3        2      56
      106          SEDAN HYBRID                              1     5
      108          ALTERNATE FUEL VEHICLE                    2     5        1      62
      150          VAN MINI PASS NON-POOL                     4    1
      194          VAN 12-15 PASSENGER COMMUTER              1     1
      200          VAN DELIVERY 1/2 TON                      1     1
      250          VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-                  3     2        14     2      229
                   COMMU




                                                                                  Caltrans — Selected Findings   150
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   252          VAN CULVERT INSPECTION           1   1
   261          VAN WITH PROFILER                2   2
   301          STATION WAGON COMPACT            2   4
   308          STATION WAGON AFV                1   3
   400          PICKUP MINI                      3   4
   420          PICKUP MINI EXTENDED CAB         5   1
   470          VAN MINI                         1   2
   480          SUV MINI SIZE                    3   10
   521          BUS 21-36 PASSENGER              2   3
   580          SUV SMALL SIZE                   1   7
   607          PICKUP W/A/C 1/2 TON             3   2    6     1       41
   680          SUV MID SIZE                     1   1
   708          PICKUP SUPER 1/2-TON AFV         6   4    22    20      121
   728          PICKUP SUPER 1/2TON EXTCAB AFV   1   4    1     2       54
   801          PICKUP W/PLOW                    1   2
   804          PICKUP CREW CAB                  2   2
   807          PICKUP W/A/C 3/4 TON             7   11   176
   810          PICKUP 3/4 TON GAS/CNG           7   7
   827          PICKUP 3/4 TON EXTENDED CAB      5   3
   830          UTILITY BODY                     3   12   13    280
   831          UTILITY BODY W/PLOW              3   3
   833          UTILITY BODY 3/4 TON GAS/CNG     2   2
   840          VAN SURVEY                       1   1
   844          UTILITY BODY CREW CAB            3   5
   870          VAN DELIVERY                     2   8
   880          SUV FULL SIZE                    1   1
   904          PICKUP CREW CAB DIESEL           1   1
   907          PICKUP W/A/C DIESEL              1   2    118
   927          PICKUP 3/4 TON EXTD CAB DIESEL   7   1
   930          UTILITY BODY DIESEL              6   1    8     123
   944          UTILITY BODY CREW CAB DIESEL     1   1
   970          VAN DELIVERY DIESEL              1   1
   1000         PICKUP 1 TON                     9   3
   1001         PICKUP W/PLOW                    1   1
   1004         PICKUP CREW CAB                  2   1
   1020         PICKUP 1 TON EXTENDED CAB        2   1
   1030         UTILITY BODY                     1   2    36




                                                                Caltrans — Selected Findings   151
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



    — REPORT TRUNCATED —
   TOTAL Number: 8845
   Source: Alan Mills, Maintenance Fleet Management
   Fleet Usage by Program
   And you can begin to track usage.... as long as you don't jump to conclusions as to what the
   raw data means.
    Program                                       DGS Low Usage                % Fleet
                                                  Passenger Vehicles          On low usage report
    ADMINISTRATION                                20                           2.00%
    ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT                        2                           13.30%
    TRANSPORTATION PLANNING                       0                            0.00%
    PROJECT DEVELOPMENT                           9                            16.60%
    ENGINEERING SERVICES                          17                          2.00%
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT                            9                           3.87%
    RIGHT OF WAY                                  0                            0.00%
    CONSTRUCTION                                  89                          3.67%
    MAINTENANCE                                   24                           0.27%
    TOTAL CALTRANS FLEET                          170                          1.25%
   Source: Alan Mills, Maintenance Fleet Management
   Usage of Individual Vehicles
   With a list of vehicles and a set of categories, you can now look at usage by vehicles. Here is
   some sample data for Maintenance activities in District 7. The usage data comes from
   supervisor prepared time sheets.
   Again, the following data is still not useful because we have no sense, here, as to the tasks
   these vehicles are performing.




                                                                                Caltrans — Selected Findings   152
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices
   COST      MN.     EQP ID     DESCRIPTION           YR     METER     HRS         DAYS         %        MANUFA
   CTR       CLS                                                       USED        USED         USED     TURER
             .                                                         CY-05       CY-05        CY-05
   603       101     10844      SEDAN COMPACT         1999   99,514                                      CHEVROLE
   603       101     10849      SEDAN COMPACT         1999   41,715                                      CHEVROLE
   675       106     700176     SEDAN HYBRID          2004   35,932                                      HONDA
                     9
   741       106     700176     SEDAN HYBRID          2004   35,141                                      HONDA
                     7
   603       108     19800      SEDAN VARIABLE FUEL   1997   89,705                                      FORD
                                GAS/M85
   610       108     19805      SEDAN VARIABLE FUEL   1997   102,015                                     FORD
                                GAS/M85
   640       108     11365      SEDAN VARIABLE FUEL   2000   88,954                                      FORD
                                GAS/M85
   640       108     19920      SEDAN VARIABLE FUEL   1998   105,357                                     FORD
                                GAS/M85
   726       108     19726      SEDAN VARIABLE FUEL   1996   144,442   31.5        5            3%       FORD
                                GAS/M85
   748       108     11364      SEDAN VAIRABLE FUEL   2000   72,936                                      FORD
                                GAS/M85
   601       150     16002      VAN MINI PASS NON-    2000   74,958                                      GMC
                                POOL
   740       150     16001      VAN MINI PASS NON-    2000   72,956    100         11           6%       GMC
                                POOL
   614       250     25072      VAN 12-15 PASSENGER   2002   16,636    1416.5      175          88%      GMC
                                NON-COMMU
   614       250     27066      VAN 12-15 PASSENGER   2000   28,882    601.5       73           37%      GMC
                                NON-COMMUTER
   615       250     25068      VAN 12-15 PASSENGER   2002   16,473    1442.5      183          92%      GMC
                                NON-COMMU
   615       250     25089      VAN 12-15 PASSENGER   2002   16,491    663         87           44%      GMC
                                NON-COMMU
   618       250     25063      VAN 12-15 PASSENGER   2002   20,480    1972.5      240          120%     GMC
                                NON-COMMU
    — REPORT TRUNCATED —
   Source: Alan Mills, Maintenance Fleet Management




                                                                         Caltrans — Selected Findings   153
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Caltrans Construction Division



   Introduction

   The key concept in making rational vehicle allocation decisions is to relate vehicles with tasks.
   You begin by stating the mission of the organization. In this case, the Construction Division
   plans and monitors construction work performed by contractors. Inherent in this particular
   general statement must be a recognition of consequences: for example, any lapse in inspection
   activities can, and probably will, cost the State millions of dollars in terms of safety and quality.
   Once you have stated the general goal, you then need to break down the broad categories of
   tasks into sets of tasks.

   Project Management Work

   Here's a summary view of how Caltrans Construction classifies their Project Management tasks.
   For the purposes of illustration, the following:
   •   omits some tasks,
   •   omits the very important fact that each of the 12 Districts perform these tasks in a relatively
       autonomous manner under the functional guidance of the Maintenance Division,
   •   focuses on what is done, not how it is done.
     Construction    Construction       Construction Staking Package    Field engineering, construction
     Project         Engineering        and Control                     surveys, inspection of
     Managemen       and General        Construction Stakes             contractors' operations,
     t               Contract                                           sampling and testing of
                     Administratio      Construction Engineering        materials, and general
                     n                  Work                            construction contract
                                        Construction Contract           administration.
                                        Administration Work             End product is a
                                        Contract Item Work Inspection   recommendation for Contract
                                        Construction Material           Acceptance.
                                        Sampling and Testing
                                        Safety and Maintenance
                                        Reviews
                                        Relief from Maintenance
                                        Process
                                        Final Inspection and
                                        Acceptance Recommendation
                                        Plant Establishment
                                        Administration




                                                                                   Caltrans — Selected Findings   154
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Transportation Management
                                        Plan (TMP) Implementation
                                        During Construction
                                        Updated ECR
                     Contract      Contract Change Order               Preparation and administration
                     Change        (CCO) Process                       of contract change orders.
                     Order         Functional Support
                     Administratio
                     n
                     Resolve            Analysis of Notices of         Work involved in the
                     Contract           Potential Claims               documentation and resolution of
                     Claims             Supporting Documentation       contract claims.
                                        and Responses to Notices of
                                        Potential Claims
                                        Reviewed and Approved
                                        Claim Report
                                        District Claim Meeting or
                                        Board of Review
                                        Arbitration Hearing
                                        Negotiated Claim Settlement
                                        Technical Support
                     Accept             Processed Estimate After       Work involved in the acceptance
                     Contract/          Acceptance                     and final documentation of a
                     Prepare            Proposed Final Contract        construction contract.
                     Final              Estimate
                     Construction
                     Estimate,          As-Built Plans
                     and Prepare        Project History File
                     Final Report       Final Report
                                        Processed Final Estimate
                                        Certificate of Environmental
                                        Compliance

   Project Management Personnel

   In the particular case of the Construction Division, these tasks resolve quickly into the following
   principal types of positions.
   Field construction (direct)
       Construction Manager
       Construction Engineer
       Resident Engineer
       Assistant Resident Engineer / Inspector
       Tester/Field Office Assistant



                                                                                 Caltrans — Selected Findings   155
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       Structure rep/senior/mgr
   Construction Office - District
       Various

   Vehicle Allocation Model

   When you look at the tasks and personnel categories, you immediately realize that the
   Construction Division has no leeway in its Vehicle Allocation Model: either every field person
   and many office people get a vehicle or the State of California is in big trouble. The cost of one
   bad concrete pour on a bridge abutment can easily exceed several millions of dollars — and
   more if you consider the legal liability costs of deaths and injuries... just ask the Big Dig
   inspectors!
   Here's the Vehicle Allocation model actually used by Construction:
   Field staff — 0.95 to 1.0 vehicles per person
   Office staff — 0.08 (1:12) vehicles per person
   Of course, you have to make adjustments for delays in acquiring vehicles that require expensive
   rentals, but basically once you know how many people you have, you know how many vehicles
   you require.
   Following is an example of the Statewide calculation, built from a close analysis of each District.




                                                                                 Caltrans — Selected Findings   156
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Statewide Construction Vehicle Plan for 2006/2007 Fiscal Year: Numbers of Vehicles
   Note: " — — " means that columns have been omitted for the purposes of this conceptual
   display.
                                           2006                     2007

                                           Jul          — —         Jan             Feb             — —          J
     STAFFING PLAN - Type of staff needed over time based on workload, total varies by month
     Field construction (direct)
         Construction Manager              36           — —         36              36              — —          36
         Construction Engineer             175          — —         175             175             — —          1
         RE                                329          — —         328             328             — —          32
         Assistant RE/Inspector            1,218        — —         1,100           1,108           — —          1
         Tester/Field Office Assistant     312          — —         286             289             — —          29
         Structure rep/senior/mgr          586          — —         624             625             — —          64
     Construction Office - District        345          — —         345             345             — —          34
     Total                                 3,001        — —         2,894           2,906           — —          3
     SOURCE OF STAFF - Where you're getting the persons to do the above planned workload
     Construction staff                    2,020        — —         1,998           2,001           — —          2
     Structures staff                      586          — —         624             625             — —          64
     Rotators                              34           — —         17              18              — —          38
     Consultants                           234          — —         175             172             — —          20
     Students                              18           — —         4               4               — —          14
     Borrowed staff                        117          — —         57              56              — —          1
     Annuitants                            6            — —         4               5               — —          5
     Total                                 3,015        — —         2,879           2,881           — —          3
     VEHICLES NEEDED
                                           2,684        — —         2,577           2,589           — —          2
     VEHICLE COMPOSITION
     Assigned State-owned fleet base       2,325        — —         2,325           2,325           — —          2
     Change to Base (+/-)
     Service Vehicle/Shop Loaner           90           — —         91              91              — —          90
     R unit
     Consultant-supplied (from above)      234          — —         175             172             — —          20
     Commercial rental                     56           — —         31              31              — —          3
     Borrowed or (Loaned)                  (44)         — —         (40)            (40)            — —          (4
     Total                                 2,661        — —         2,582           2,579           — —          2
     SURPLUS OR (SHORTAGE)
                                           (23)         — —         5               (10)            — —          (1



                                                                            Caltrans — Selected Findings   157
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




     COMPOSITION OF OTHER EQUIPMENT
     Cell phone                             2,124        — —              2,124            2,124          — —            2
     Radio                                  693          — —              693              693            — —            69
     Computer                               1,363        — —              1,341            1,342          — —            1
   Statewide Construction Vehicle Plan for 2006/2007 Fiscal Year: Numbers and Costs
   Note: " — — " means that columns have been omitted for the purposes of this conceptual
   display.
                                            2006                      2007
                                            Jul         — —           Jan             Feb            — —          Jun
     Number
     State-Owned                            2,325       — —           2,325           2,325          — —          2,325
     R unit                                 0           — —           0               0              — —          0
     Consultant                             234         — —           175             172            — —          205
     Rental                                 56          — —           31              31             — —          31
     Borrowed                               (44)        — —           (40)            (40)           — —          (41)
     Total                                  2,571       — —           2,491           2,488          — —          2,520
     Month Cost
     State-Owned                            1,138,494   — —           1,138,494       1,138,494      — —          1,138,
     R unit                                 0           — —           0               0              — —          0
     Consultant-supplied                    234         — —           175             172            — —          205
     Commercial rental (Enterprise, etc.)   53,200      — —           29,450          29,450         — —          29,450
     Borrowed/Loaned                        (21,546)    — —           (19,587)        (19,587)       — —          (20,07
     Totals                                 1,170,383   — —           1,148,532       1,148,529      — —          1,148,

     Cumulative Cost
     State-Owned                            1,138,494   — —           7,969,461       9,107,955      — —          13,661
     R unit                                 0           — —           0               0              — —          0
     Commercial rental (Enterprise, etc.)   53,200      — —           276,450         305,900        — —          423,70
     Borrowed/Loaned                        (21,546)    — —           (140,537)       (160,124)      — —          (238,9
     Totals                                 1,170,149   — —           8,105,374       9,253,731      — —          13,846
     Vehicle Rates
     00607 Monthly Rental Rate              $400.80
     00728 Monthly Rental Rate              $519.30
     Blended Rate (728 = 0.75, 690 =
                                            $489.68
     0.25)
     Commercial Rental Rate                 $950.00
     Given
     ESC Cons Field                         1.00        of all ESC field staff




                                                                                  Caltrans — Selected Findings   158
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                                          of total District Construction staff (8% of construction offic
     Dist Const Overall                       0.86
                                                          staff, and 96% of construction field staff)
     PJD                                      0.08        of all PJD staff (most of cars to be in pools)
     Historical Vehicle Density Factors (vehicles per person) used to forecast need, validated against summer 97
     When renting from EqSC, $12 per day times 365 days times COS Vehicles Needed
     When renting from rental agency, $950 per month, 3-month minimum
     When renting from General Services, $200 per month plus $0.14 per mile
     Assumptions
     ESC staffing project, 10-1-97 less 20% due to projects slipping 12 months (R. Stott).
     Leased vehicles cost 3 times +/- more than renting shop-owned vehicles (per Allan Wells)




                                                                                Caltrans — Selected Findings   159
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Graphs
   From these raw numbers, you can graph the results.




   Next Steps

   The Construction Division is able to track its vehicles, associate them with tasks, and spot
   vehicles obviously underutilized. They have clearly defined their missions and related them with
   organizational units. They have a working Vehicle Allocation Model.
   The next steps are:
   •   Automated collection of data.
   •   Approval to use the best-practice statistics and business-case narratives to justify vehicle
       acquisitions.
   •   Prepare graphs of life-cycle costs for selected vehicles to determine optimal replacement
       times and provide information for value-based purchasing.




                                                    Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 160
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Caltrans Maintenance Division



   Introduction

   The key concept in making rational vehicle allocation decisions is to relate vehicles with tasks.
   You begin by stating the mission of the organization. In this case, the Maintenance Division
   maintains roadways, roadsides, and structures.
   This particular general statement recognizes that this group performs physical tasks in a
   physical world. Which means that in order to determine what and how many vehicles are
   required, you need to understand the priorities, levels of service goals, work methods, and
   geographical variables for each task.
   Once you have stated the general goal, you then need to break down the broad categories of
   tasks into sets of tasks.

   Families of Tasks

   Here's a summary view of how Caltrans Maintenance classifies their principal tasks.
   For the purposes of illustration, the following:
   •   omits many tasks,
   •   omits the very important fact that each of the 12 Districts perform these tasks in a relatively
       autonomous manner under the functional guidance of the Maintenance Division,
   •   focuses on what is done, not how it is done.


    Road Structure          Lateral Support                            Lateral support
                                                                       Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Ramps                                      Crack seal
                                                                       Mud jacking
                                                                       Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Roadbed                                    Crack seal
                                                                       Dig out
                                                                       Mud jacking
                                                                       Overlay/Leveling
                                                                       Patch pot holes
                                                                       Patch spalls
                                                                       Profile grinding
                                                                       Slab replacement
                                                                       Sub sealing
                                                                       Top seal
                                                                       Inspection/Investigation/Other




                                                      Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 161
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                            Shoulders                                   Crack seal
                                                                        Patch pot holes
                                                                        Profile grinding
                                                                        Seal shoulders
                                                                        Slab replacement
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
    Roadway                 Barriers and Guardrails                     Attenuators
                                                                        Barriers
                                                                        Guardrails
                                                                        Out-of-Control Ramp
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Markings                                    Repair/Replace Markings
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Pavement Markers                            Repair/Replace Markers
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Roadside Delineators                        Repair/Replace Delineators
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Striping                                    Stripes
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
    Roadside                Landscaping                                 Fertilizing
                                                                        Landscape create/maintain
                                                                        Rodent control
                                                                        Structural control
                                                                        Vegetation control — chemical
                                                                        Vegetation control — mechanical
                                                                        Water system install/repair
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Litter, Debris, Graffiti                    Adopt-A-Hwy
                                                                        Graffiti removal
                                                                        Homeless debris removal
                                                                        Illegal sign removal
                                                                        Litter control roadway/Landscape
                                                                        Roadway and roadside debris
                                                                        removal
                                                                        Spills
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Signs and Lighting                          Fabrication
                                                                        Graffiti
                                                                        Paint
                                                                        Repair/Replace
                                                                        Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Structures                                  Bike Paths
                                                                        Cattleguards



                                                       Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 162
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                                                   Fences
                                                                   Lateral Support
                                                                   Manholes
                                                                   Road Patrol
                                                                   Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Vegetation Control                     Brush control
                                                                   Chemical control
                                                                   Mechanical control
                                                                   Tree control
                                                                   Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Water Control                          Culverts and Drains
                                                                   Curbs and Dikes
                                                                   Ditches and Channels
                                                                   Drywells
                                                                   Radiator Water Site
                                                                   Sidewalks
                                                                   Walls
                                                                   Inspection/Investigation/Other
    Structures              Bridges                                Bearings
                                                                   Clean and clear
                                                                   Deck
                                                                   Drawbridge
                                                                   Gates
                                                                   Graffiti
                                                                   Joints
                                                                   Mech/electrical
                                                                   Mudjack
                                                                   Paint
                                                                   Railing
                                                                   Repair/Patch Potholes/Spalls
                                                                   Seismic
                                                                   Substructure
                                                                   Superstructure
                                                                   Inspection/Investigation/Other
    Events                  Incident Response                      Emergency traffic control
                                                                   Traffic control
                                                                   Other
                            Sand and Rock/Storm                    Blasting
                                                                   Clearing
                                                                   Emergency repair
                                                                   Erosion control
                                                                   Flood control
                                                                   Major slide



                                                  Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 163
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                                                 Minor slide
                                                                 Minor slope
                                                                 Patrol sand/rock/storm
                                                                 Rock fall protection
                                                                 Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Snow and Ice                         Avalanche control
                                                                 Chain control
                                                                 Sand and Salt
                                                                 Snow hauling
                                                                 Snow Poles
                                                                 Snow removal
                                                                 Inspection/Investigation/Other
                            Storm Water Management               Cleanup/Disposal
                                                                 Drains
                                                                 Environmental strategies
                                                                 Repair/Replace structures
                                                                 Repair/Replace sand trap
                                                                 Snow hauling (stormwater)
                                                                 Soil stability
                                                                 Sweeping
                                                                 Vegetation management
                                                                 Inspection/Investigation/Other




                                                Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 164
        Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




           One Kind of Vehicle / One Kind of Task

           Now you can begin to look at utilization by tasks. Here is a report based upon the Caltrans
           Maintenance IMMS System. Shown are results for one sample kind of vehicle, a catch basin
           and sewer line cleaner.
           Division of Maintenance, HQ Equipment Management 10/10/2005 - Division of Maintenance -
           Vactors


Dis-      Cost    Maint       Equip    Meter                    Year         Hours       Usage       % Usage      Annual     Manufac
trict     Ctr     Class       ID       Description                           Used        05-Apr                   Rate       turer
                                                                                                                  2004/200
                                                                                                                  5
1         654     5383        535704   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      1993         110,369     193         25           13%        AUTOCA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          658     5383        538491   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      2001         20,895      420         54           27%        NAVISTA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          D 01    2
                  Vehicles
2
          697     5383        538492   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      2001         28,402      485         52           26%        NAVISTA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          698     5383        535127   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      1992         73,049      161         18           9%         WHGM
                                       LINE CLEANER
          D 02:   2
                  Vehicles
—         —       —           —        —                        —            —           —           —            —          —
—         —       —           —        —                        —            —           —           —            —          —
11
          698     5383        535706   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      1993         54,390      605         73           37%        WHGM
                                       LINE CLEANER
          698     5383        537553   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      2000         20,797      112         19           10%        NAVISTA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          698     5383        538498   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      2001         22,157      185         30           15%        NAVISTA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          D 11:   3
                  Vehicles
12
          645     5383        538499   CATCH BASIN & SEWER      2001         27,870      555         67           34%        NAVISTA
                                       LINE CLEANER
          D 12:   1 Vehicle
Total             30
Vehicle           Vehicles

Count:




                                                             Vehicle Allocation: Caltrans: Maintenance Division — page 165
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Vehicle Allocation Model and Next Steps

   The Maintenance Division is already able to track its vehicles, associate them with tasks, and
   spot vehicles obviously underutilized. They have clearly defined their missions and related them
   with organizational units.
   The next steps are:
   •   Automated collection of data.
   •   Automated statistical analysis of best practices by task and District.
   •   Development of vehicle allocation, business case narratives by task.
   •   Approval to use the best-practice statistics and business-case narratives to justify vehicle
       acquisitions.
   •   Prepare graphs of life-cycle costs for selected vehicles to determine optimal replacement
       times and provide information for value-based purchasing.
   •   A formalized Vehicle Allocation Model.
   Except for automated data collection, the Maintenance Division is already actively moving on
   these action items. It is now well along in developing its own Vehicle Allocation Model, which
   shows every promise of working quite well. This model reaffirms District responsibilities for fleet
   utilization by:
   •   Setting Standards — Assigning fleet utilization and fleet size targets to each district.
   •   Defining a formal evaluation model — At a minimum, for each vehicle with less than 20%
       utilization, managers must prepare a business case analysis that relates each vehicle with a
       mission and asks whether the equipment is necessary to its assigned mission and whether
       cost-effective rental or pool alternatives exist. The outcome of the analysis, in each case, is
       a decision to retain, pool, rent, lease, or sell the equipment involved.
   Because this model is in the middle of both development and implementation, details are not
   presented here.




                                                                                 Caltrans — Selected Findings   166
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Caltrans Annual Replacement Plan


   Excerpts from an Internal Document supplied by the Caltrans Division of Equipment
   The California Department of Transportation’s Annual Replacement Plan consists of four major
   components:
   1. Replacement Cycle
   2. Replacement Criteria
   3. Replacement Planning and Prioritization
   4. Replacement Selections
   The Caltrans Division of Equipment (DOE) manages a fleet of 670 different types of mobile
   equipment for a total of over 13,000 active units. One key function of fleet management is
   managing the life cycle of the mobile equipment assets. This includes the cost-effective and
   timely replacement of vehicles that are:
   •   Beyond their usage life; or
   •   Too costly to retain in the fleet.
   Replacement Cycle
   Replacement of aged equipment is a continuous process with the objective of having a reliable
   and durable fleet that is cost-effective to operate. The fleet replacement policy is to dispose or
   replace equipment when it is most cost beneficial to do so. The optimal replacement point is
   when the depreciation value has leveled out and before repair costs begin to climb so that the
   replacement is made before major repair expenses escalate exponentially. The DOE’s
   replacement plan is based on age and usage projections.
   An untimely replacement creates an aging fleet, which results in higher operational costs:
   •   More expensive major repairs (for example, replace engines, transmissions);
   •   More downtime; and
   •   Increased workload.
   Replacement Criteria:
   DOE uses established replacement criteria for each of the 670 different types of mobile
   equipment:
   •   Department of General Services replacement criteria for sedans and light-duty vehicles; and
   •   DOE criteria for heavy-duty equipment and specialized highway equipment. (The
       Department of General Services does not provide standards for heavier vehicles and special
       mobile equipment utilized by Caltrans).
   The replacement criteria are based on:
   •   Age of the vehicle;
   •   Usage of the vehicle (accumulated mileage or hours); or
   •   Vehicle meets 120% of either the age or usage requirement.




                                                                                 Caltrans — Selected Findings   167
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Also, if the vehicle does not meet the age and usage criteria, but has significantly higher
   operating repair costs than other vehicles of the same type, it will be a candidate for
   replacement.
   DOE generates an annual Vehicle Meets Criteria report that identifies all vehicles in the fleet
   that meet the replacement criteria.
   Vehicles can also be candidates for replacement due to unanticipated vehicle failures or
   damages beyond repair, changes in operational needs, obsolescence, etc.
   Replacement Planning and Prioritization:
   Vehicles meeting the replacement criteria are candidates for replacement, however because of
   funding availability, not all are replaced. Caltrans conducts an annual replacement and
   prioritization process to identify what vehicles will be selected to be replaced within the annual
   replacement budget allotment. DOE in conjunction with the program users prioritize and
   determine what will be replaced:
   •   Replacement Candidate Pool — Vehicle Meets Criteria report identifies vehicles in the fleet
       that meet replacement criteria and are considered for replacement.
   •   Prioritization — DOE works with program users to prioritize vehicles to replace. Repair and
       maintenance costs, life expectancy after repair, parts availability, sale value, change in
       program needs, etc. are considered.
   •   Equipment Budget Requests (EBR) for Selected Replacements
   Documents produced for the selected vehicle replacements.
   •   Approvals — Multiple approval levels by user Caltrans Program Managers, DOE and
       executive management are required.
   •   Requests — Equipment acquisition requests for replacements submitted to the Department
       of General Services for approval per Government Code 13332.09.




                                                                                 Caltrans — Selected Findings   168
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Appendices to Caltrans Selected Findings



   Vehicle Classifications

   For Caltrans Vehicle Classifications, see the separate reference document Caltrans Vehicle
   Codes.
   For NAFA Vehicle Classifications, see the separate reference document NAFA Vehicle Codes.

   Caltrans Division of Equipment Organization




                                                                             Caltrans — Selected Findings   169
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Caltrans — Selected Findings   170
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Caltrans — Selected Findings   171
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                        Caltrans — Selected Findings   172
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices

   Source: Mercury Associates
   The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize best practices from large California
   agencies for managing fleet size. The information in this memorandum is based on interviews
   with the California Highway Patrol, Department of Corrections, and Department of Forestry and
   Fire Protection.


   Overview of Departments



   California Highway Patrol

   The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was established in 1929 by the State Legislature. Since
   then, the CHP has built a history of service and tradition that has made it one of the leading law
   enforcement agencies in the world.
   At the time of its creation, the CHP was given the authority and responsibility to enforce traffic
   laws on county and state highways. This authority continues, but today our duties extend
   beyond what the Legislature of 1929 could ever have imagined.
   Today the CHP has expanded far beyond its original mission. In addition to being responsible
   for traffic enforcement and highway safety throughout the state, our duties include issuing traffic
   citations, arresting alcohol and drug-impaired drivers, investigating traffic accidents and vehicle
   theft, and providing assistance to the motoring public. We also provide general law enforcement
   assistance to local agencies upon request.
   Special assignments include canine narcotic enforcement, commercial vehicle inspection, fixed
   wing or helicopter operations (pilots and paramedics), patrolling the State Capital on horseback
   or bicycle, Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.), and Campaign Against Marijuana Planting
   (C.A.M.P.).
   The mission of the California Highway Patrol is to provide the highest level of safety, service,
   and security to the people of California. This is accomplished through five departmental goals:
   •   Prevent Loss of Life, Injuries, and Property Damage — To minimize the loss of life, personal
       injury, and property damage resulting from traffic collisions through enforcement, education,
       and engineering. To enforce the provisions of the California Vehicle Code and other laws to
       prevent crime.
   •   Maximize Service to the Public and Assistance to Allied Agencies — To maximize service to
       the public in need of aid or information, and to assist other public agencies when
       appropriate.
   •   Manage Traffic and Emergency Incidents — To promote the safe and efficient movement of
       people and goods throughout California, and to minimize exposure of the public to unsafe
       conditions resulting from emergency incidents and highway impediments.



                                                          Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   173
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Protect Public and State Assets — To protect the public, their property, state employees,
       and the state's infrastructure. To collaborate with local, state, and federal public safety
       agencies to protect California.
   •   Improve Departmental Efficiency — To continuously look for ways to increase the efficiency
       and/or effectiveness of departmental operations.

   Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

   The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is an emergency response and
   resource protection department. CDF protects lives, property and natural resources from fire;
   responds to emergencies of all types, and protects and preserves timberlands, wild lands, and
   urban forests. Department personnel and equipment are a familiar site throughout the state with
   responsibility for protecting over 31 million acres of California’s privately-owned wild lands, and
   providing emergency services of all kinds through local government agreements within 36 of
   California’s 58 counties.
   CDF responds to more than 5,600 wild land fires that burn over 172,000 acres each year. In
   addition, department personnel answer the call more than 300,000 times for other emergencies
   including structure fires; automobile accidents; medical aids; swift water rescues; civil
   disturbances; search and rescues; hazardous material spills; train wrecks; floods; and
   earthquakes. Because of CDF’s size and major incident command experience, the department
   is often asked to assist or take the lead in disasters, including the Northern and Central
   California floods 1997, 1998, and 2006; the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California;
   the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the Bay Area; the 1991 Tunnel Fire in the
   Oakland/Berkeley Hills; and the 2003 Southern California Fire Siege.
   CDF covers the state with 21 administrative units, 804 fire stations (228 state and 575 local
   government), 39 conservation camps, 13 air attack, and nine helitack bases. The heart of CDF’s
   emergency response and resource protection capability is a force of nearly 4,000 full-time fire
   professionals, foresters, and administrative employees; 1,400 seasonal firefighters; 5,600 local
   government volunteer firefighters; 2,600 Volunteers In Prevention; and 4,300 inmates and
   wards. To transport and support these forces, CDF operates over 1,095 fire engines (336 state
   and 759 local government); 215 rescue squads; 63 paramedic units; 38 aerial ladder trucks; 58
   bulldozers; five mobile communication centers; and 11 mobile kitchen units. The department
   funds, via contract, an additional 82 engines and 12 bulldozers in six counties – Kern, Los
   Angeles, Marin, Orange, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. From the air, CDF operates 23 1,200-
   gallon air tankers (one is kept for maintenance relief), 11 helicopters (two are kept for
   maintenance relief), and 13 air tactical planes (one is kept for maintenance relief).
   The Office of the State Fire Marshal, State Fire Training, and CDF Academy programs provide
   training education and certification programs to the California Fire Service. Through practical
   training exercises and classroom courses, every California firefighter is exposed to training
   standards that have been approved by CDF and the OSFM, among the best institutions in the
   nation for fire training education. Offering more than 1,000 classes annually, State Fire Training
   programs reach over 24,000 students each year and have issued more than 100,000
   certifications to members of the more than 900 California fire departments, including CDF. Each
   year over 2,000 CDF personnel attend the CDF Academy in Ione, participating in classes
   ranging from basic fire control to forest practice enforcement.




                                                         Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   174
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   CDF also oversees enforcement of California’s forest practice regulations which guide timber
   harvesting on state and private lands. Department foresters review 500 to 1,400 Timber
   Harvesting Plans (THPs) and conducts over 6,500 site inspections each year. THPs are
   submitted by timber landowners who want to harvest trees. The reviews and inspections ensure
   protection of watershed and wildlife as well as renewal of timber resources. Department
   foresters and fire personnel work closely to encourage and implement fuels management
   projects to reduce the threat of uncontrolled wildfires. Vegetation management projects such as
   “controlled burns” take teamwork between foresters, firefighters, landowners, and local
   communities.
   CDF manages eight Demonstration State Forests that provide commercial timber production,
   public recreation, forest research, and demonstration of good forest management practices.
   CDF foresters can be found in urban areas working to increase the number of trees planted in
   our cities or preventing the spread of disease by identifying and removing infected trees. A
   Native American burial ground in the path of a logging operation or fire may be verified and
   saved due to a CDF archeologist’s review of the area.

   Department of Corrections

   The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a major contributor to public
   safety It oversees the institutional custody of more than 167,000 youth and adult offenders and
   supervises more than 151,000 parolees statewide. These institutions provide secure
   confinement to the state’s most serious and violent offenders. The department determines the
   appropriate supervision level of parolees, commensurate with public safety, and provides
   substance abuse treatment, mental health services, employment training, and transitional
   aftercare housing to assist offenders in transitioning back into the community. The department
   takes a leadership role in working cooperatively with other state and local public safety agencies
   to ensure the safety of California’s communities.
   The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a major community employer It
   employs more than 50,000 employees in communities statewide and in occupations such as
   correctional officers, teachers, counselors, nurses, hearing officers, psychologists, parole
   agents, field representatives, and office support staff. In many cities throughout the State, the
   department is the major employer and has contributed significantly to the local economy through
   its ability to provide well-paying jobs. The department provides an opportunity for many men and
   women to have a rewarding career — one they can be proud of.
   The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a major health care provider It
   delivers overall health care to youth and adult offenders, and mental health care to certain
   parolees throughout the state. With a budget of nearly $1 billion, the health care delivery system
   consists of three service areas: Medical Services, Mental Health Services and Dental Services
   and adopts standards for quality and scope of services within a custodial environment. Health
   care services are accessed through institutional and community outpatient clinics, General
   Acute Care Hospitals, Correctional Treatment Centers, Skilled Nursing Services, Intermediate
   Care Facilities, Hospice and Telemedicine. The California Department of Corrections and
   Rehabilitation is a major educational and vocational training provider It operates one of the
   largest accredited youth and adult correctional education systems in the world, serving more
   than 26,600 adult and 3,500 juvenile students. The juvenile programs consist of academic




                                                         Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   175
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   development, including high school diploma, General Educational Development Certificate, High
   School Equivalency Certificate, and college course work for an Associate of Arts degree.
   Special education courses provide for offenders with learning disabilities. These programs make
   available the opportunity for self-improvement through acquiring life skills and career training.


   Current Practices Related to Fleet Size Management



   California Highway Patrol

   The California Highway Patrol has a comprehensive, mature, and well organized fleet
   management program. Agency-wide coordination of fleet activities is provided by a central
   organization. Maintenance and repair services are almost always performed by in-house
   mechanics, who receive technical supervision from the central fleet organization (CHP has
   delegated authority from OFA to manage its own fleet). A full feature fleet asset management
   system is in place (i.e. FleetFocus). Funding for replacing vehicles (around $20 million per year)
   allows for full compliance with current replacement criteria of 100,000 miles or three years.
   CHP has around 4,100 vehicles in service. There are an additional 200 to 300 units waiting for
   disposal at any given time. There are also several hundred new units at any given time waiting
   for or undergoing up fitting. Fuel services are provided thorough the State’s credit card program
   with Voyager as well as from bulk fuel sites at half of the 110 CHP locations.
   CHP has developed a vehicle allocation formula that is based on staffing. The current formula is
   2.3 patrol cars per patrol officer. Note that this formula does not extend to administrative,
   detective, or specialty vehicles and functions. Once per year each CHP office must resubmit a
   vehicle allocation worksheet and cars are rebalanced to reflect changes in staffing that may
   have occurred over the year. Since CHP staffing has been increasing in recent years, so has
   the size of the fleet.
   Mileage is tracked in relation to replacement planning rather than for utilization management
   purposes (CHP is exempt from established utilization reporting procedures). Since patrol cars
   reach replacement mileage in an average of 30 months, average utilization is 40,000 miles per
   year.

   Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

   CDF has around 3,000 pieces of equipment including 336 front-line fire trucks with an additional
   36 reserve units. The organization of the fleet program is somewhat decentralized with five
   headquarters staff coordinating activates such as replacement planning, budgeting, and
   reporting. Four mechanics at the headquarters shop focus on outfitting new vehicles for service
   and decommissioning old units. Some maintenance is also provided for the Sacramento region.
   There are also four regional fleet managers, 23 unit fleet managers, and 60 mechanics. These
   personnel are supervised by regional forestry or fire managers but receive technical direction
   from the Senior Fleet Manager headquarters.




                                                         Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   176
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   CDF has an exemption from OFA to run its own fleet maintenance program and does not have
   to follow reporting, repair approval, and survey directives that other agencies do. The exception
   is for sedans, which must comply with OFA regulations. CDF does not have an asset
   management system in fleet, although the agency does use the Maximo system from MRO
   Software for some asset management activities. There is no budget to extend Maximo to fleet
   although the ultimate plan is do so at some future point.
   Currently, all maintenance and repair records are kept manually. Headquarters keeps an Excel
   spreadsheet to keep track of how many assets the agency owns, where they are, and often they
   are used. Utilization information is kept manually in the field on CDF forms that have been
   approved by OFA. The asset spreadsheet is emailed to units periodically for updating of units
   status, location, and utilization. Unit fleet managers are also responsible for preparing written
   justifications for units that do not meet utilization standards. This will become a much larger job
   if use standards extend to fire trucks and bulldozers.
   CDF does have a reserve fund for replacing fleet assets. Each of the past five years, however,
   funds have been diverted so that only ¼ to ½ of the normal budget has been available. As a
   result, 54% of fire trucks now exceed established replacement criteria.

   Department of Corrections

   Management of DOC’s fleet is substantially decentralized. While there are two staff in
   headquarters (from the Asset Management Division) that coordinate some fleet activities, many
   other DOC organizations (Parole, Internal Affairs, Safety, etc.) operate in a mainly independent
   manner. Some of these organizations (mainly 35 prisons) have in-house mechanics. DOC owns
   around 4,100 vehicles and also leases 2,500 from OFA. Only around 200 of the 4,100 owned
   vehicles have been replaced each year over the past five years (5% of the fleet, which implies a
   20 year replacement cycle), so the fleet is quite old.
   There is no asset management system in place. Headquarters staff tracks assets for utilization
   reporting purposes on an Access database. Historically, one-third of DOC passenger vehicles
   have not met the old utilization standard of 4,000 miles in six months. With the new standard at
   6,000 miles and extended to all types of vehicles, most DOC standards will not be in
   compliance.


   Discussion


   Both the CHP and CDF have excellent fleet management programs in place. CHP appears to
   have all of the elements of a first class program. This is due in large part (in addition to well
   established management processes) to full funding of the program in terms of staff, facilities,
   data systems, and replacement dollars. The disparity between other State agencies and the
   CHP in this regard is striking. The practice of having a vehicle allocation formula for the patrol
   function is a best practice that other agencies should follow. CHP could also extend this practice
   to other functions and/or develop an alternative process so that all vehicles in its fleet are
   covered by a comprehensive vehicle allocation methodology.




                                                         Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   177
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The CDF also appears to have an excellent fleet management program. However, due to a lack
   of funds the CDF fleet program does not have an asset management system in place. With
   nearly 3,000 assets that likely have a replacement value in excess of $200 million, it is unusual
   for an organization with this extensive of a fleet to be keeping track of its assets on paper and
   spreadsheets.
   In terms of fleet size management, the CDF will have to develop a comprehensive VAM in order
   to cover the wide array of heavy equipment and trucks that it owns. Since these vehicles have
   not been covered by utilization reporting regulations in the past, CDF does not currently have a
   process in place to cover them. CDF would need customized utilization criteria for each of its
   major asset types established. Thresholds will also have to be flexible by region in order to
   account for operational differences (such as the longer fire season in Southern California).
   DOC has a fragmented and under-funded fleet management program. The lack of a centralized
   organization, an adequate staff of fleet professional, uniform policies and procedures, an asset
   management system, and a strategic approach to fleet replacement are major barriers to good
   fleet asset management for the agency.
   DOC will also need to develop a comprehensive VAM in order to justify the variety of vehicles
   that they own and the variety of environments in which they operate.




                                                        Selected California Agencies — Fleet Size Best Practices   178
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Selected Conference Notes



   ITS America Annual Meeting — Vehicle Infrastructure Integration


   Following are selected notes taken at Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Annual
   Meeting and Exposition, May 7-9, 2006, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
   Disclaimer — These are informal notes taken by Robert Bosler, AHMCT, and do not represent
   a definitive report on the meeting.

   Introduction

   ITS America nearly did not recover from its separation from the US DOT. But now it's back, due
   to the success of its World Congress 2005 in San Francisco, which, in retrospect, was a truly
   earth shaking event with wide implications for the future of US Transportation. At the World
   Congress, a shattered ITSA found its new issue, and its once-powerful core of ambitious
   managers and members has begun to rebuild, bigger and better than ever around that issue.
   That issue is VII: Vehicle Infrastructure Integration, formerly known as probe telematics.

   Background: World View

   Principal sources: Richard Bishop, Bishop Consulting; Takumi Yamamoto, International
   Research Fellow US DOT; Jan Urbahn, Manager BMW America; Gunner Johansson, IBM;
   Sarah Hiple, Nissan North America.
   "VII" is strictly an American term. It refers to placing a probe in a vehicle that can read
   information about the vehicle and communicate the information either to a roadside collection
   point or to another vehicle. They don't call it VII overseas, but here is a quick overview of
   international developments as presented at the ITSA conference.
   Japan
       "SmartWay" car and roadside infrastructures are in place. Selected applications based on
       communications with roadside stations have been and are being rolled out one by one in an
       orderly, steady manner.
       75% of all Japanese cars now send and receive data to and from roadside stations. 50% of
       all cars can handle route and parking toll collection.
       Deployed applications are toll collection, traffic information, and tourism information.
       The next application to be deployed will be driver assistance for collision avoidance based
       upon a combination of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)
       communications.




                                                                                    Selected Conference Notes   179
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       Communications occur using a 5.8 GHz DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications)
       band.
   Germany
       Huge amounts (many 100's of millions of Euros) of government money have been allocated
       to technology and infrastructure projects run as Government-Industry partnerships.
       There are many dozens of acronyms for the applications; the principal projects are called
       CVIS, SafeSpot, Coopers, SEVECom, iZoid, and CVIS. There are at least 64 large, key
       partners involved.
       About 10% of all vehicles have been equipped for V2V and V2I communications.
       At present communications occur using cellular phone technology.
       Regrettably, all infrastructure efforts to date will have to be restarted because cellular phone
       technology is proving too slow (with an average latency of 10 seconds) and far too
       expensive (there had been initial expectations that costs would decline over time and that
       traffic data could be sold to commercial users.)
       BMW collision avoidance and intersection safety technology was demonstrated at the ITSA
       World Conference in San Francisco and was, perhaps, the decisive factor in ITSA
       reorganizing itself around its new VII mission.
   USA
       America has virtually no deployed car or infrastructure related to VII. Instead, it is at the
       PowerPoint stage with heated discussions of
       legal liability,
       privacy and data sharing,
       funding,
       jurisdiction,
       frequency allocation, and
       public-private partnership
       issues that in an American context are highly controversial and not easy to resolve when
       seen in ideological rather than practical terms.
       Although there are literally hundreds of ideas for US applications, even the technology
       issues are not resolved due to large and well-funded players promoting incompatible cell
       phone, radio, DSRC, and WiFi solutions.
       Federal legislation will be necessary to resolve the wide-range of uniquely American issues,
       as will Federal-Industry partnerships that are in themselves highly controversial. If VII is to
       happen in the US, strong and sustained lobbying by an organization such as ITS America
       will have to occur. Federal bureaucrats, sensing something really big, have dramatically
       stopped talking with one another and have variously begun relating the many and varied VII
       safety and mobility benefits to their own, existing missions. Even at the local level, cities and
       counties are already positioning themselves to benefit from selling roadway access to
       vendors just as they now allocate cable television franchises.




                                                                                     Selected Conference Notes   180
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       Optimistic observers point to concept demonstrations, such as the VII CVO (Commercial
       Vehicle Operations) Demo tour to start in Spring 2007, but even the most optimistic of the
       optimistic see a national roll-out of a roadside infrastructure taking 10 years or more. The
       dream is that the public will see the potential benefits of the technology and demand, as with
       cellular phones, that legal and jurisdictional issues be set aside.
       However, roll-outs of vehicle-only technologies that do not require much or any roadside
       infrastructure, such as driver assistance based upon lane-keeping, sign recognition, and
       obstacle detection, will begin much sooner, if only because firms such as Nissan and BMW
       already make such technology available in the vehicles they sell in their home countries and
       because route mapping firms can benefit from and pay for location data sent by small
       numbers of vehicles and collected using the existing, albeit expensive, cellular
       infrastructure.
       Another important technology driver will be the need to support goods movement through
       choked freight corridors. In this case, Commercial Vehicle Operators may implement their
       own systems as a matter of survival.

   GoCalifornia Forum

   The GoCalifornia presenters were Greg Larson of Caltrans DRI, John Wolf of Caltrans Traffic
   Operations, and Alexander Skabardonis of California PATH. It is with California pride that I can
   report that the Caltrans presentations were clear, information rich, candid (extremely so), and
   well-conceived.
   The Caltrans presenters were able to announce that a $20 billion initial allocation for a California
   Strategic Roadplan had passed the Friday previous: $18 billion for corridor management in
   general and $3 billion for the I-75 corridor in particular. Also in the bill was Prop 42 protection
   (which had extraordinary support by an unusual coalition of union and industry interests.)
   The emphasis on corridor management is based upon a crisis-level need for better goods
   movement, particularly for goods originating at ports.
   Perhaps half of the session explained the GoCalifornia six-layered pyramid of:
       System Monitoring and Evaluation (performance measures)
       Maintenance and Preservation (preventive maintenance)
       Smart Land Use, Demand Management and Value Pricing (reducing the need for
       transportation)
       Intelligent Transportation Systems, Traveler Information, Traffic Control and Incident
       Management (capacity enhancement without new construction)
       Operational Improvements (auxiliary improvements)
       System Completion and Expansion (HOV, goods movement corridors, rail and transit, park-
       and-ride and bicycle facilities)
   See http://www.dot.ca.gov/ctnews/nov05/nov_director.htm for details on the pyramid. Once
   explained, the pyramid provides what it says it does: a comprehensive roadmap for moving
   forward.




                                                                                   Selected Conference Notes   181
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The side discussions were also interesting, as the Caltrans panelists called for the following
   legislation to accelerate project delivery:
       Design-Sequencing (process streamlining)
       Design-Build (innovation in construction)
       Public-Private Partnerships (to pay for Hot lanes, Express lanes, goods movement
       improvements, and ramp-metering, area partnerships)
   One presenter noted that funding decisions do not seem to be based on value considerations.
   For example, not funded or even being considered were a 10:1 payback on Traffic Operation
   improvements, 15:1 payback on traveler information systems, 10:1 payback on loop detectors,
   and a 11:1 to 20:1 payback on incident management.
   Skabardonis made an off-topic presentation on PATH research directions with few specifics or
   details.

   More on VII

   Following are some miscellaneous comments.
   Steve Vaughn, California Highway Patrol / Jeff Seacrist, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
   Administration
       Fatalities continue to be high, and congestion is getting worse. We need the grand vision of
       smart vehicles, smart roadsides, visible freight movements, and altered driver behaviors, but
       we also need to start addressing the problems now.
       But if we start addressing problems now, it means that a key issue is inter-operability of the
       technologies we use. Time frames will drive technology choices as we necessarily choose
       what is appropriate and best at a particular moment. We will inevitably get lots of "stove
       pipes" due to different start dates and different time frames for differing projects. We need to
       start with an inventory of technologies and when they are likely to become available. We can
       then plan for inter-operability from the beginning with a roadmap for future investments.
       But whatever the technical issues, the institutional issues [in the US] are much more difficult.
       Audience comment: to address things on an institutional basis, we need a manual of
       operations and standards, especially for how trucks operate in ports.
   Jan Urbahn, BMW
       One side-effect of VII deployment so far is a much better understanding of actual driver
       behaviors. With VII, we can now directly address the issue of driver behavior with real time
       observations and statistically significant sample sizes. For example, it turns out that by far
       the largest factor in driver mistakes is misinterpretation of signs and situations. The next
       most important factor (much less important) is driver inattention. Other factors once thought
       to be crucial turn out to be even less important or not important at all. This is crucial data.
       We can solve problems, once we know what the problems are.
   Greg Larson, Caltrans




                                                                                   Selected Conference Notes   182
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       At the present, cars and roadways operate independently, and we have run out of ways to
       improve either of them incrementally. VII is a breakthrough technology that will allow
       significant improvements. But who pays for it, and who leads? In my view, "safety is what
       leads, but mobility is what pays." We need to identify services that will improve mobility and
       document their benefits, then define institutional/infrastructure requirements, and address
       the legal liability issues that block deployments.
       For cruise control technology, manufacturers are protected by the legal doctrine of "the
       driver is in full charge." But is it different when we throw up a driver display that says another
       car is approaching your intersection on the right, or we give a message that says you're not
       going to make it through that green light before it turns red? Or, what if we fail to give a
       warning message? In general, our approach to legal liabilities should be: first do no harm
       (the driver should be no worse off if the system fails) and then recognize that although our
       slice of the "liability pie" may get larger, the size of the total liability pie is going to get much
       smaller.
       VII has lots of cost advantages for highway operators in terms of not needing loop detectors
       and control stations.

   Exhibitors

   On display were several technologies that address the communication piece of VII: getting data
   to and from a vehicle. All methods still require ISP fees to report data to a central location and
   software development costs to handle the data generated. All methods support "by the post"
   installations and can collect information while vehicle is in rapid motion. Prices are show
   estimates and should be used only for broad comparison purposes.
   Communications            $ per vehicle       $ per vehicle for            $ per stationary
   technology                for data            communications               collector
                             collection
   Radio frequency           $250. Roughly       $1200                        $3000 each, 2 per
   For example:              similar to a        Allows any length data.      station
   Motorola 2.4 GHz.         PDA.                Each vehicle gets a          Mesh architecture
                                                 custom device with a         usually requires multiple
                                                 radio card.                  units per station.
   Passive transponder       $250. Roughly       $30                          $10,000 each, one per
   tag                       similar to a        64 bytes of data.            station
   Like FastTrak.            PDA.                Standard devices with        System integrators and
                                                 standard protocols.          canned software readily
                                                                              available.
   Active transponder        $250. Roughly       $1000 plus mandatory         $10,000
   For example: Mark         similar to a        license fee                  This is taking a chance
   IV, 5.9 GHz (DSRC)        PDA.                Any length data.             on the future, but it is
                                                                              the dominant
                                                                              technology in Japan.




                                                                                       Selected Conference Notes   183
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   WiFi                      $250. Roughly   $100                        $1000
                             similar to a    Any length data.            A stripped down Linux
                             PDA.                                        laptop. Competitors
                                             WiFi card built into data
                                             collector.                  allege danger of
                                                                         network hacking.
   Cellular                  $250. Roughly   Equipment costs were unclear at show. This is the
                             similar to a    only technology with monthly usage charges, and
                             PDA.            those charges are substantial. Cellular is currently
                                             the dominant technology in US and Europe,
                                             although Europe is doing a restart because of
                                             excessive costs.
   Vendors for the radio frequency and passive transponder approaches would be willing to make
   an "informational sales call."




                                                                                 Selected Conference Notes   184
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   AASHTO-TRB Maintenance Management Conference — Fleet Management /
   Outsourcing


   Informal Notes from the AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance meeting in Charleston, South
   Carolina, July 15-19, 2007
   Disclaimer — These are informal notes taken by Robert Bosler, AHMCT, and do not represent
   a definitive report on the meeting. Presentations have been grouped by topic and are presented
   in extremely summarized form.

   In Brief

   Outsourcing — Highly successful in Canada. Mixed results in Virginia.
   Vehicle Utilization and Allocation — An increasingly hot, albeit painful, issue in many states.
   Other —
       NY DOT is getting really serious about worker safety.
       Balsi Beam rumors are widespread.
       Many states are adopting steel cable strung in highway medians with good results.
       Utah DOT has a real success story with new water-based paint formulations.
       Caltrans leads in vegetation management.
       Ground penetrating radar as being tried in California shows a lot of promise for bridge
       monitoring.
       Wireless data networks offer radical cost advantages in Minnesota.

   Outsourcing Maintenance Activities

   Outsourcing maintenance activities was arguably the topic of most concern and attention.

   Research on Outsourcing

   Jim Carney of MO DOT and Lansford Bell of Clemson University described their research
   efforts on US outsourcing. Their primary conclusion is that "there is no compelling evidence to
   alter the present balance between in-house and out-source maintenance work." They said that
   only chip sealing and drain pipe work are significantly cheaper when outsourced.

   Outsourcing in Alberta

   Moh Lali described the results of almost 15 years of outsourcing in Alberta, where all highway
   maintenance and all routine bridge maintenance are now being done by private contractors. In
   Alberta, outsourcing was carefully planned, and there was wide participation and involvement in
   each step. Outsourcing took place over 3 five year periods with care taken to hire displaced
   workers and maintain active competition among bidders at each five year contract renewal.




                                                                                 Selected Conference Notes   185
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   For the first five-year period, only primary highways were involved, and costs declined 3% while
   the level of service remained unchanged. In the second five-year period, secondary and city
   roads were added, costs dropped about 20%, the level of service remained unchanged, and
   large contractors began to take advantage of their ability to move people around and use their
   crews to do a wider variety of tasks, such as private construction. In the third round, recently
   begun, Alberta exerted tighter control on contract language, significantly better contractors
   participated, and many new highway technologies were introduced by the bidders. In the third
   round, Alberta expects only a slight drop in costs and a significant rise in level of service.
   Moh's conclusions: maintenance outsourcing in Alberta is a success, a strong and viable private
   maintenance industry has emerged, and the Alberta Department of Transportation is receiving
   good value.

   Outsourcing in Virginia

   James Bryant of Virginia DOT described outsourcing in Virginia. In this case, his formal
   presentation and lunch table comments diverged.
   In 1996, VDOT initiated a 5 year pilot program on 250 miles of primary highway. In the pilot
   program, outsourcing worked well for routine maintenance, but the pilot program also showed a
   need for additional incentives for long-term preservation, additional negative interim
   consequences for poor performance, and more bidding competition. Using these results, by
   2009 VDOT will have out-sourced maintenance for all primary highways in their "Turnkey Asset
   Management Services" (TAMS) program, with 77% of all interstate highway expenditures going
   to the private sector.
   Informally, at the lunch table, James noted that since outsourcing was imposed on VDOT ---
   because they had more or less totally lost the confidence of their legislature --- it was necessary
   to bring in a "whole new crew" to make it work, and enthusiasm for the program has been
   "restrained." So far, 195 VDOT employees have lost their jobs (virtually no one was offered jobs
   by the contractors); VDOT offices have been consolidated; many local governments have begun
   taking back responsibility for their roads before outsourcing precedes further; as another result
   of the loss of legislature confidence, all VDOT construction has stopped; the FHWA has had to
   make special provision to allow federal funds be used for maintenance; and there has been a
   significant reduction in landscaping work.
   So far, VDOT has seen no savings from outsourcing, but there has also been no significant
   changes in level of service.




                                                                                  Selected Conference Notes   186
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Vehicle Allocation and Utilization

   Equipment Quality Improvement

   The following is from a presentation by Richard Clarke, Utah DOT.
   Their primary comment was (the following is a paraphrase):
       [Almost by definition] fleet reductions depend upon task analysis and a changed mix of
       vehicles. We can describe the analysis process and we recognize the need for making a
       business case for your changes, but if a supervising agency unduly delays or second-
       guesses your vehicle purchases it is really hard to improve efficiency. Luckily, during the
       period of our review effort, we had the support of our supervising agency and were thus able
       to achieve significant savings.
   In our experience:
   •   It was very helpful to first develop a usage model that allowed us to analyze alternative route
       assignments. A large portion of our savings came directly from better route assignments.
   •   Reducing the number of smaller trucks can increase efficiency somewhat.
   •   Double use of medium-sized trucks is typically where the most money can be saved.
   •   Also important to us were pup-trailers and double-use of large trucks.
   •   Leasing trucks to contractors in summer months does not make sense.
   •   Outsourcing snow removal is not a good idea when examined or tried. We are still trying it,
       but it does not lead to staff reductions, and we have to still maintain the ability to cover for
       the contractors in extreme conditions.
   •   We are trying interagency vehicle swaps where we let the Department of Natural Resources
       use our dump trucks for summer construction. We think that this is a great idea.
   •   We rarely see staff reductions with outsourcing; we just move the staff onto other tasks and,
       besides, our lane miles are constantly increasing.
   •   We expect our biggest gains to come from cross-classification of our maintenance and
       construction crews so that they have both summer and winter competencies.
   Equipment Utilization

   The following is from a presentation by Erle Potter at VDOT.
   "In Virginia, equipment utilization is a hot button item with interest at the highest level. This can
   happen anywhere, and probably will."
   "Improving vehicle utilization is inherently a painful process for all involved. But no one can now
   afford equipment that is not used."
   In the past, blind, across-the-board usage standards caused Maintenance to use equipment
   when it wasn't needed, such as sending two vehicles out when only one is needed. The big fear
   was not being able to get a vehicle when it was needed due to management over-sight, so the
   rational response was to hoard vehicles by artificially jacking up usage. So we did three things:
   •   we took steps to make it easier to change vehicle mixes,
   •   we started to collect better usage data,
   •   we started to step in decisively when we saw a problem,
   •   we started to relate vehicles with tasks.
   We now use "Partner Reports", which is really a statistical control analysis.




                                                                                     Selected Conference Notes   187
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   When we first started collecting data, we found we could step in where there was obvious
   under-utilization of vehicles. But, again at first, we could not step in when under-utilization was
   argued to be in support of mission critical tasks. Over time, however, we grouped vehicles by
   tasks and then watched to see what the best practices were. Now, for tasks, we have a pretty
   good sense of what utilization should be.
   Here's what we have learned:
   •   Fleet reduction depends upon doing a mix of things all at the same time. No one step will
       make a difference unless the others are also done.
   •   The data must be solid. If there is doubt about the utilization data, bad decisions will be
       made. To get good data, you must collect it automatically without manual entries by
       operators. Good data costs money. You must spend that money or your overall savings will
       be minimal. To paraphrase the real estate maxim, fleet reduction is all about 1. data, 2. data,
       3. data.
   •   There must never be doubt in anyone's mind about the ability to replace equipment or
       change the equipment mix as needed. If there are any delays in getting new vehicles or
       undue second-guessing of business case decisions on equipment mix, you will immediately
       get hoarding at new, higher, and more sophisticated levels of avoidance. And never think
       you can win that game.
   •   In some cases, it makes sense to rent rather than lease equipment. This allows the rental
       agency to swap out specific vehicles when it makes the most economic sense to replace
       them rather than requiring them to wait until a lease period is over. For example, frequent
       replacement of pickups (at, say, 50,000 miles or 2 years) can save an enormous amount of
       money in maintenance costs and resale value. Which is a good lesson for us: it is important
       to look at costs versus time graphs to judge when to replace vehicles. And, these graphs
       look different for different types of vehicles.
   •   Although you should track usage by task, you should never use the data to define a
       "complement" of vehicles for a given task: this undercuts innovation and decreases
       incentives to identify vehicles that can cross-perform. Instead, make it easy for users to
       change their mix and then watch to see what the best practices are for a district.
   •   At some point, you will probably have to introduce negative consequences for employee
       abuse of rules and vehicles.

   Other Equipment Utilization Notes

   GPS — Ontario tracks all equipment by GPS to monitor service. Utah tracks 20 trucks. SCDOT
   tracks contractor mowing, but not their own vehicles.
   Replacement Rates — Earlier turnover of passenger vehicles can nearly cover acquisition
   costs, if cars are refurbished and inspected before auction. Use of an Internal Service Fund is
   highly recommended, because it enables a revolving fund that is hard for legislatures to raid.
   Rentals are often much better than leases to cover surges in demand.
   Innovation — Innovative technologies offer significant savings, but taking advantage of these
   savings is hard because different task groups would need to cooperate, Fleet Managers
   generally have little or no influence on how users perform their tasks, and the money to
   implement change is usually spread around in different accounts.




                                                                                    Selected Conference Notes   188
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Partnerships — It is vitally important to recognize how very different the following issues are.
   To deal with these issues, a true partnership between Fleet Management and end-users is
   mandatory.
       Is this a good piece of equipment?
       Does this piece of equipment do the job?
       Does the user actually want this equipment?
       If this equipment is new in type, who will train the operators?

   Other

   Rings of Steel — NY DOT is getting really serious about worker safety. Due to recent
   employee deaths, an employee can now set foot on a New York highway only if surrounded by
   six (6) attenuator trucks. No exceptions. None. Yes: six trucks.
   Balsi Beam Rumors — There are wide-spread rumors that someone is challenging the Balsi
   Beam patent. It also seems to be general knowledge that NJ DOT is going ahead with
   deployment anyway, and NY DOT is currently thinking "ok, let them sue us as well for doing the
   right thing... everyone else does."
   Cable Barriers — About 40 states are installing steel cable strung in highway medians on a
   "crash" program basis. They are cheaper than steel, much cheaper than concrete, and don't
   bounce an errant vehicle back into traffic. They are also cheap to repair, and their repair is a
   task that is highly suitable for outsourcing.
   Pavement Striping — Utah DOT has a real success story with a new water-based paint
   formulation. By upping resin from 40% to 44%, you get a paint that is hard to apply but lasts 8-
   17 months in mountain passes rather than the usual 3 months.
   Vegetation Management — Caltrans is so far ahead in general vegetation management, that if
   you are interested in the topic, you should contact them directly. However, if you are in a
   hurricane zone, NC DOT can tell you that you should cut a 50 foot clear zone or else fallen trees
   will close your Interstates on a routine basis.
   Ground penetrating radar — Ground penetrating radar, as being tried in California shows a
   lot of promise for bridge monitoring.
   Wireless networks — Wireless data networks offer radical cost advantages in Minnesota when
   compared to cellular networks. Currently Minnesota uses its wireless network to track and
   manage 1100 snow vehicles and is expanding into other applications, such as vegetation
   management.




                                                                                   Selected Conference Notes   189
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Selected Meeting Notes



   Fleet Utilization Workshop — Department of General Services

   DGS Fleet Utilization Workshop
   May 30, 2006 at DOT Division of Equipment HQ
   Disclaimer: These are informal notes, not a definitive record of the meeting.
   Present / "Stakeholders" list
       Bob Hayes - CCC, rhayes@ccc.ca.gov, 916-341-3132
       Bryon Rush - OFA, Bryon.Rush@dgs.ca.gov, 916-657-4514
       Caroline Munywoki - AHMCT, cmmunywoki@ucdavis.edu,
       530-752-5981
       Case Belltawn - DPR, cbelltawn@parks.ca.gov, 916-375-6828
       Debra Bouler - OFA, Debra.Bouler@dgs.ca.gov, 916-327-2007
       Frank Lewis - CCC, Frank.Lewis@ccc.ca.gov, 916-341-3233
       Gary Karl - OFA, Gary.Karl@dgs.ca.gov, 916-651-6234
       Justin Milami - Lottery, JMilami@calottery.com, 9160324-7983
       Linda Bunyan - CDCR, Linda.Bunyan@cdcr.ca.gov, 916-323-3620
       Lisa Kunzman - DOT, Lisa.Kunzman@dot.ca.gov, 916-227-9600
       Phil Garthe - DOT, Phil.Garthe@dot.ca.gov, 916-227-6473
       R Bohanan - CHP, RBohanan@chp.ca.gov, 916-376-3500
       Randy Owen - Mercury, rowen@mercury-assoc.com, 704-906-8898
       Rich Elkins - DOT, Rich.Elkins@dot.ca.gov, 916-227-9695
       Richard Shedd - OFA, Richard.Shedd@dgs.ca.gov, 916-2083
       Rob Cook - DGS, Rob.Cook@dgs.ca.gov, 916-376-1930
       Robert Bosler - AHMCT, rhbosler@ucdavis.edu, 530-752-7946
       Ron Frank - DOT, Ron.Frank@dot.ca.gov, 916-227-9700
       Sally Luna - CDCR, Sally.Luna@cdcr.ca.gov, 916-327-3274
       Walter Menda - DOT, Walter.Menda@dot.ca.gov, 916-227-9705
       Will Semmes - CCC, wsemmes@ccc.ca.gov, 916-341-3177
   Also a "Stakeholder"
       Jay MacDonald - CDF, Jay.MacDonald@fire.ca.gov, 530-757-2407 ex. 214


   Opening Remarks

   Richard Shedd began with a history of OFA and DGS as organizations and described significant
   events leading up to the meeting.
   For vehicles that routinely move people around, usage standards are now clear. For vehicles
   that perform special tasks, exceptions will have to be made.
   Richard spoke of his dream that most exceptions to utilization standards should be made per
   pre-approved policy. This would require each agency to:



                                                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   190
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



       Categorize their fleet in terms of task, type, metric to be applied, and usage standard to be
       applied.
       Make a business case analysis for each regular task to be pre-approved.
       For tasks and vehicles not previously categorized, exceptions would be made on the basis
       of an individual business case analysis following a standardized format.
   Historically, communications regarding fleets and fleet policies, including sharable equipment
   lists, were handled by a "State Fleet Equipment Council."
   Rob Cook talked of his hopes for a "roll-up plan" for all vehicles in the State that accounted for
   and justified all existing vehicles and prepared for a catch-up wave of purchases. He also hopes
   for a "roadmap plan" for each agency that outlines the future.
   Rob also hopes for pre-approvals for vehicles falling into known categories, with other
   exceptions based on business cases.
   Rob spoke of the possibility of gathering annual procurement plans for all state agencies so that
   "leveraged procurements" could be made.
   Rob hopes that there can be more vehicles transfers among agencies as otherwise sound
   vehicles are surveyed for need. Perhaps a web site and brokering services from OFA might
   help.

   General Discussion

   Vehicle Classification
   What is the best way to classify vehicles? Begin with defined agency tasks or by weight? How
   can innovation be encouraged, as, say, when one heavier vehicle of a different class can
   replace numerous other vehicles? Right-sizing means getting the right mix of vehicles as well as
   increasing average usage. (discussion)
   Alternate Fuels
   New regulations require that 75% of non-safety fleet be alternate-fuel equipped. (discussion)
   Data Warehouse
   DGS working on a Data Warehouse for all vehicles. What's the best way to collect data?
   (discussion)
   Value Based Purchasing
   Value purchasing based upon life cycle costs and suitability to task is needed. Potential savings
   are huge. Legislation or regulations clarifying value purchasing procedures seem to be needed.
   (discussion)


   E.J. Ward Fuel System — Phone Interview with Alan Mills

   Subject: EJ Ward Fueling System
   Locale: 2/21/06, Telephone Interview




                                                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   191
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Interview: Alan R. Mills, Deputy Statewide Equipment Manager, Caltrans Division of
   Maintenance by Randy Owens, Mercury Associates
   Caltrans began installing the system (from EJ Ward, Inc) in 1998. The system uses RFID
   receivers and transmitters to provide passive (i.e. automatic) authorization of vehicles and
   collection of odometer/hour meter readings. Employees are not required to enter personal
   identification numbers (PINs).
   To date the system has been installed at 108 of 220 bulk fuel sites. RFID devices have been
   installed in 3,000 of 8,800 vehicles. Manual fuel sheets are used to record transactions at sites
   without the system (odometer readings are not currently collected). $4 million has been spent
   on the system to date. The project is currently on hold due to a lack of funding. An additional $5
   million is required to complete installation of the system.
   Due to vendor problems and technological obsolescence, it does not seem like a good idea to
   build out the E.J. Ward fuel system.


   E.J. Ward Fuel System — Interviews at Homeland Security

   Subject: EJ Ward Fueling System
   Locale: 3/30/06, Caltrans Headquarters
   Present: Sri Balasubramanian, Don Fogle, Noel Cornelia, Caroline Munywoki, Robert Bosler
   See also the interview with Alan Mills performed by Randy Owens on 2/21/06.
   The EJ Ward fueling system collects and reports fuel usage and mileage data for about 3000 of
   8800 Caltrans maintenance vehicles when they refuel at 108 of 220 Caltrans bulk fuel sites.
   At a bulk fuel site with the EJ Ward system installed, users use a Voyager card to access a
   pump, but vehicle identification, location, and fuel usage data is collected automatically.
   A consultant from Cambria Solutions analyzed the system in late 2005, and a final report is
   expected.
   There seems general agreement that the system concept and design is excellent, but, as a
   system introduced in 1988, it is now too outmoded to serve as a robust source of usage data.
   It was reported that the federal government is developing a Peace Information Management
   System (PIMS) that may require real-time vehicle location information.




                                                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   192
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Voyager Fuel Card System — Interview with Alan Mills

   Subject: Voyager Fuel Card System
   Locale: 2/21/06, Telephone Interview
   Interview: Alan R. Mills, Deputy Statewide Equipment Manager, Caltrans Division of
   Maintenance by Randy Owens, Mercury Associates
   Caltrans uses the Voyager fueling card to fuel vehicles at commercial fuel stations in addition to
   using its 220 bulk fuel stations. A single magnetic stripe card is used to identify the vehicle.
   Employees must also enter the odometer and a PIN that identifies Caltrans as the customer (not
   the individual employee). This feature was implemented in response to thieves duplicating cards
   and fraudulently acquiring fuel on Caltrans’ account. Approximately 50% of fuel is acquired at
   commercial stations each year.
   Meter reading data from Voyager is available on-line for download to DOE’s FleetFocus
   management system. Mr. Mills does not know if DOE is downloading this data. The EJ Ward
   system is capable of uploading fuel transactions and meter readings to FleetFocus but no
   interface between the two systems has been developed. Equipment use (but not meter
   readings) is also input to the Integrated Maintenance Management System (IMMS) based on
   manual collection of data by supervisors each day. This data collection is limited to vehicles that
   are ½ ton and above.
   Mr. Mills believes that Caltrans has very good fleet utilization data on which to make fleet size
   management decisions. However, policy and decision-making framework is not currently in
   place to use this data.


   Voyager Fuel Card System — Interviews with Division of Equipment Staff


   Subject: Voyager Fuel Card System
   Locale: 3/29/06, DOE headquarters
   Present: Phil Garthe, Heather Stanford, Kathy, Rich Elkins, Caroline Munywoki, Robert Bosler
   The Voyager cards are meant to be used to purchase fuel for State vehicles on official business.
   The Department of Transportation is accountable to manage, control and monitor proper use of
   these cards.
   Equipment managers and automotive pool managers are designated by each district, division or
   program to have primary responsibility for implementing and overseeing policy and procedure
   that concerns the department’s mobile fleet vehicles and or equipment.
   The Division of Equipment:
   •   Administers the VOYAGER card system
   •   Orders and issues new cards
   •   Orders replacement of stolen or lost cards
   •   Cancels cards that are no-longer assigned to vehicles
   •   Submits card invoices to Accounting for Payment




                                                                                      Selected Meeting Notes   193
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   •   Furnishes monthly fuel card purchase reports to management for review and verification of
       charges and or payments.
   Employees:
   •   Responsible for proper use of card
   •   Should ONLY use commercial sources when bulk fuel sites are not readily available
   •   Should be reporting misuse of VOYAGER cards
   Challenges faced:
   •   Use of cards does not require Personal ID
   •   Different gas station codes make it a lot of work to reconcile the charges and verify accuracy
   •   A single card can be used by multiple users
   •   Odometer readings still not inputted accurately
   •   The PIN’s are stored very close to the cards and or are easily accessible
   The Voyager fleet card has an online site, managed directly by US Bank that provides
   convenience, flexibility and control. It is a free service offered by the bank to its Voyager clients.
   The site provides:
   •   Access to account information at anytime
   •   Customized reporting – for anyone
   •   Fuel and Maintenance data Management
   •   A variety of Statements and Payment types
   Fleet Commander Online provides reports on four different levels:
   •   Transaction Reports — by Vehicle and Driver
   •   Management Reports – hardly ever used by DOE — top dollars by merchant, cards with
       high dollars for non-maintenance transactions, cards with high gallons, cards with highest
       number of transactions, cards with non-fuel transactions, purchase method ranking.
   •   Exception Reports — cards with high usage.
   •   Billing Reports — invoice reports.
    Once the DOE management has examined the monthly report, they fill out the “Voyager
    monthly purchase report authorization form” stating if they have or have not found any
    questionable charges.
   The DOE also recognizes the importance of training its staff to collect and input accurate data.
   Training is done on an on-going basis.
   The Voyager system is also looking into ways to improve the reporting capabilities in Fleet
   Commander Online. E.g., e-mail notification changes, user permissions by report, search and
   select retention, among a few others.




                                                                                        Selected Meeting Notes   194
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Fleet Anywhere (aka Fleet Focus) — Interviews with Division of Equipment Staff

   Subject: Fleet Anywhere
   Locale: 3/28/06, DOE Headquarters
   Present: Ed Dziuk, Dave Smith, Robert Bosler, Caroline Munywoki.
   Fleet Anywhere (also called Fleet Focus) is primarily used by the Division of Equipment for
   tracking and management. The vendor is Maximus. It runs on Oracle from the Caltrans server.
   Fleet Anywhere can churn out text files web browsers and be used to access input. Fleet
   Anywhere is essentially the primary system that the Division of Equipment uses.
   There have been talk of Maximus working on a separate tool to ease the use of Fleet Anywhere,
   but this still needs a lot of work before it can be implemented: it still has some portability issues,
   and the API’s can not be fully relied on.
   Since Fleet Anywhere runs on an Oracle database, it is attached to Oracle Graphical User
   Interfaces. It could be linked to the EJ ward system if the EJ ward system used either Oracle or
   a standard SQL database.
   Fleet Anywhere has a Primary Data entry screen that collects Fleet Equipment information. The
   main component collected is the Equipment ID, and from this a group of Tab’s can be used to
   insert all sorts of data. For example: Meter Information, Classes, Warranty, Status of the
   equipment, Class or Individual PM Program, Acquisition, registration etc,
   All the data that keyed into Fleet Anywhere is keyed in by an Equipment Manager or Division of
   Equipment Staff.
   Some data is read only for security reasons, as only authorized personnel can enter sensitive
   kind of data.
   There are three levels of logging in data
   1. Division Of Equipment staff – basic data entry
   2. Security based entry – requires further authorization
   3. Very sensitive data entry – for high / top executive entry
   Although the IMMS system is a good one, Fleet Anywhere is not linked to it – very little is
   related to these two systems.
   Maximus has available a GPS system that could be linked to Fleet Anywhere – which can
   collect technical data of vehicles and is a rather good system, the only reason Division Of
   Equipment is not using this is because it is way too pricey and Caltrans just does not have the
   kind of resources to use it.
   A major concern of the Division of Equipment is to collect accurate meter readings. The Division
   of Equipment does not really care where the vehicle is at a specific point in time, but that the
   miles/ hour are accurately read.
   The Division Of Equipment is also concerned that the sensors on the vehicles need often to be
   calibrated, so that accurate data is read. Driver information is not collected by the fueling
   system.




                                                                                        Selected Meeting Notes   195
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   The Division of Equipment is making some tremendous improvements on the Fleet Anywhere
   and internal systems already in place, so that they can be linked together to make them better
   and so that easier to understand reports can be generated. For instance the Equipment
   Information Site on the Caltrans Onramp has been linked to Fleet Anywhere, and this site
   contains information as well as graphic images. Links on this site include the following
   categories: Administration, Engineering, Equipment, Fleet, Parts, Training manuals, Safety,
   Computers, Fleet Facilities and other Shop Operations resources.


   Fleet Anywhere — Screen Shots



   Onramp

   Sample Equipment Information Categories




                                                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   196
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Sample Equipment Page




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   197
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Sample Equipment Detail




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   198
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Sample Warranty and Technical Service Bulletins




                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   199
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Detail (from onramp)




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   200
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   FleetFocus (FleetAnywhere) Web Interface

   Acquisition Tab for a particular vehicle




                                              Selected Meeting Notes   201
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Assignments Tab for a particular vehicle




                                              Selected Meeting Notes   202
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Basic Information tab for a particular vehicle




                                                    Selected Meeting Notes   203
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Classes tab for a particular vehicle




                                          Selected Meeting Notes   204
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Class PM Program tab for a particular vehicle




   Credit Card Data for a particular vehicle




                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   205
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Report for a Model Year and Model Type




                                            Selected Meeting Notes   206
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Meter Information for a particular vehicle




                                                Selected Meeting Notes   207
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Position Information for a particular vehicle




                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   208
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Recurring Costs for a particular vehicle




                                              Selected Meeting Notes   209
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Component Relationship for a particular vehicle




                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   210
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Status for a particular vehicle




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   211
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Warranty information for a particular vehicle




                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   212
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Department categories: district-assignment




                                                Selected Meeting Notes   213
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Motor Pool Dispatch




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   214
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Motor Pool Return




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   215
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Detail Report




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   216
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Detail Report




                                        Selected Meeting Notes   217
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Multi-Unit Project Summary by Location




                                                       Selected Meeting Notes   218
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Basic Information for a particular vehicle




                                                           Selected Meeting Notes   219
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Commercial Information for a particular vehicle




                                                                Selected Meeting Notes   220
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Labor for a particular vehicle




                                               Selected Meeting Notes   221
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Work Order Parts for a particular vehicle




   Federal and State Best Practices — Informal Notes from Two Meetings


   At AHMCT, 8:30 am, 1/26/06: Randy Owen, Kin Yen, Caroline Munywoki, Robert Bosler
   At DOE, 1:00 pm, 1/26/06: Randy Owen, Lisa Kunzman, Walter Menda, Phil Garthe, Robert
   Bosler
   Federal General Services Division
   With respect to fleet management, the Federal government is separating policy and allocation
   functions from procurement, management, and service delivery functions. Policy and allocation
   is the responsibility of Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), while fleet management is the
   responsibility of General Services Administration (GSA). To guide its decisions, OGP is defining
   a formal Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM). Although the Federal implementation may be
   clumsy in details, if you are using budgets to manage fleets (as opposed to an ISF), this
   probably represents best practice in organizational terms.



                                                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   222
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Alaska DOT
   The DOT supplies all vehicles to the State. A Mercury fleet right-sizing study found that some
   agencies did not have enough vehicles.
   Georgia DOT
   A Georgia fleet size study found that utilization and replacement funding issues are closely tied.
   For example, "I could get by with 2 loaders instead of 4 if the 2 loaders were new."




                                                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   223
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Caltrans Maintenance Division — Interview Notes


   April 25, 2006, Nathaniel Cradle, Alan Mills, Robert Bosler, Caroline Munywoki
   Partner not just customer
   Maintenance wants to be a partner with Equipment, not a customer.
   Maintenance has 65% of fleet, and virtually all of the equipment that performs tasks as opposed
   to moving people around.
   Usage Numbers
   Maintenance is pulling usage numbers from IMMS using a program developed by an intern.
   Following are a few lines from that report.




                                                                                    Selected Meeting Notes   224
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




                                                                                     HRS
    COST        MAINT                                                                USED        DAYS USED   %
    CENTER      CLASS       EQUIP ID    DESCRIPTION                YEAR   METER      CY-05       CY-05       C

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    614         250         25072       COMMU                      2002   16,636     1416.5      175         8

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    614         250         27066       COMMUTER                   2000   28,882     601.5       73          3

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    615         250         25068       COMMU                      2002   16,473     1442.5      183         9

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    615         250         25089       COMMU                      2002   16,491     663         87          4

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    618         250         25063       COMMU                      2002   20,480     1972.5      240

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    618         250         7001765     COMMU                      2006   1,907      384         47          2

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    619         250         25081       COMMU                      2002   24,004     1530        196         9

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    619         250         29106       COMMUTE                    1993   76,946     603         67          3

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    627         250         25069       COMMU                      2002   23,645     1713.5      216

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    632         250         25071       COMMU                      2002   51,469     2215        281

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    633         250         25085       COMMU                      2002   26,052     998         123         6

                                        VAN 12-15 PASSENGER NON-
    634         250         20621       COMMUTE                    1999   60,247     804         152         7




                                                                              Selected Meeting Notes   225
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices




   Usage data comes from supervisor prepared time sheets.
   These reports assume 200 days in a year.
   Steve Takigawa receives monthly reports on equipment usage that falls under CY 10% usage
   criteria.
   The reports can be formatted / sorted depending on the queries/information required.
   EJ Ward
   It is apparent that the EJ Ward System is flawed in its implementation. Due to its proprietary
   nature, very little can be done. Maintaining it is very costly. EJ Ward is not an honest company;
   for example, we have ongoing problems with double billing.
   Outsourcing?
   EJ Ward system does have an outsourcing option, but it is costly: an estimated price of 180
   $/month/site with no usage reporting.
   Outsourcing would be good if we got usage reports and Caltrans Accounting could handle the
   information formats produced.
   GPS Information
   GPS is very costly, although it would be great for Sweepers or Snow Trucks, as this can prove
   or show what work was done and at what time. It would also be a good tool for accountability
   reasons. We tried GPS with 15 vehicles for 5 years, which cost about $2000 per vehicle per
   year. But, if the location information heads off even one lawsuit related to sweeping or snow
   removal, it is worth it for those vehicles. In other words, we think that the only reason to use
   GPS is to reduce lawsuits.
   Tracking usage with fuel systems is much more cost effective, especially when supplemented
   with by-the-post or ring-in-concrete data.
   Equipment Replacement Issues
   One of the chief problems Maintenance is facing is the slow process by which equipment is
   replaced or obtained. It takes on an average of 3 years to get a piece of equipment, and by the
   time the equipment gets there, it is sometimes no longer needed. Also, during the delay time,
   equipment gets used way past its designed usage limits -- say, 250,000 miles versus a design
   limit of 150,000 miles... which is costly in terms of repairs and downtimes
   The time delays seriously impact productivity. Why do we let this go on?
   Maintenance disagrees with a DGS proposal to get rid of power locks and windows: these are
   necessary in emergency and work situations and cause manufacturer delivery delays.
   Maintenance gets 24/7 call outs, while even the CHP works shifts.
   Equipment Downtime
   Downtime is costly, especially when we have to rent a vehicle to perform critical tasks. Here is
   another reason why we want to be a partner: we would like District Managers to be able to set
   repair priorities on a shop-by-shop basis.
   Worker and Manager Retention / Outsourcing




                                                                                     Selected Meeting Notes   226
Vehicle Allocation Study — Appendices



   Key skilled workers, such as mechanics, are so extremely underpaid that retention is low.
   As the present baby-boomer generation of managers retire, it's not only hard to find managers
   at these salaries, it's hard to find existing employees willing to be trained in policies and
   procedures. For example, the City of Torrance pays $120,000 per year for management
   positions that pay $72,000 per year at Caltrans. Mechanics at car dealers can make $100,000
   versus $45,000 at Caltrans.
   These problems extend throughout Caltrans. When we want to interact with accounting, we talk
   to the person "closest to the door" rather than someone who is knowledgeable about our
   problems.
   Retention issues create pressure to outsource operations, which is costly over the long-run.
   Other
   We are getting more ad hoc issues thrown at us. For example, the "Greening of the Fleet" issue
   paper. As much as Greening of the Fleet is a splendid idea, there are no resources to
   implement this in a short period of time. We would have liked to see Maintenance involved in
   the formulation of this policy.




                                                                                   Selected Meeting Notes   227