1 / 44

Personal Property Forum

Personal Property Forum. 7 April 2011. Opening Remarks. Lt Col Derek Oliver Deputy Chief of Staff Personal Property Directorate. 2. Agenda. DP3 Update Claims BRAC DPS Phase III Volume Moves / One Time Only Requirements DPS Update Peak Season Mr. Mike Williams remarks

langer
Télécharger la présentation

Personal Property Forum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Personal Property Forum 7 April 2011

  2. Opening Remarks Lt Col Derek Oliver Deputy Chief of Staff Personal Property Directorate 2

  3. Agenda DP3 Update Claims BRAC DPS Phase III Volume Moves / One Time Only Requirements DPS Update Peak Season Mr. Mike Williams remarks Program Efficiency Review

  4. Claims

  5. Total number of claims submitted Total number of shipments delivered complete Claims Analysis Data period is from DPS inception thru present (01 Nov 2008 – 21 Feb 2011) 5

  6. Claims Analysis High number of claims open due to DPS Claims Module complexity 10% Claim Satisfaction Score decrease (past 12 months) Does not include Quick Claims, Non-temp Storage, or DPM

  7. Claims Module Current Interface is not intuitive Way Ahead Established a Claims Working Group Military Claims Office, Industry Claims reps, SDDC, TC-AQ Created mock up for ‘To Be’ claims module Working quick fixes for peak season No fee quick fixes Disclaimer language Relocating the “Submit” button Ensure members review Claims Video on Move.milprior to filing 7

  8. Base Realignment and Closure(BRAC)

  9. Army BRAC Status Solicited Volume Moves Impacting BRAC Locations Outbound Impacts PP-15-10: Fort Bragg to Eglin AFB 840 Shipments, 1 July – 30 June PP-02-11:Fort Bragg to Eglin AFB 755 Shipments, 1 July – 30 September Outbound & Inbound Impacts PP-03-11: Fort Knox to Fort Benning 546 Shipments, 5 March – 29 June Inbound Impacts PP-01-11:Fort McCoyto Fort Knox 50 Shipments, 1 April – 31 July PP-04-11:Fort Stewartto Fort Bragg 1,500 Shipments, 15 April – 29 July • SDDC is assisting with BRAC movements by: • Facilitating coordination sessions • Arranging for Volume Move extensions • Troubleshooting issues with stakeholders • Sharing knowledge capital • Remaining in constant contact with involved PPSOs • Staying abreast of BRAC activities and providing guidance • Forecasting key events of high volume and providing direction for successful BRAC movements Sites involved with the Army BRAC but are not Army BRAC locations (such as Eglin AFB, Fort McCoy, & Fort Stewart) have been involved throughout the process

  10. DPS Phase III 10

  11. Phase III Business Rules New shipment Markets and Code of Service to replace Direct Procurement Method (DPM) managed shipments. Shipment Markets Domestic Small Shipments (dS2) Shipment Code of Service Intra Country Moves (iCM) Code of Service (COS) C Non-Temporary Storage (NTS) Requires FRN 11

  12. Phase III Business Rules SDDC Finalize Draft Business Rules/Submit to TRANSCOM J5/4 Service’s O-6 level Approves Business Rules TRANSCOM Finalizes Business Rules Business Rules timeline 31 Mar 2011 30 April 2011 TBD

  13. Phase III Business Rules Next Steps TRANSCOM delivers final Business Rules to JPMO SDDC, TRANSCOM, and Services develop system requirements TRANSCOM incorporate requirements into contract solicitation TRANSCOM awards contract for Phase III capability System Initiatives Begin implementation of Phase III capability in DPS by FY13

  14. Volume Moves and One-Time-Only (OTO) 14

  15. Volume Moves/OTO Numbers: ~7,000 OTO shipments per year ~ 5,000 Volume Move shipments per year Challenges with legacy programs and process Audits -Metrics -Not web based Revisions -Interfaces Volume Move/OTO Capabilities / Improvements Best Value Score -Metrics/Reporting Benefits to our Services customers 15 15

  16. Volume Moves/OTO Started VM Reqs Aug’10 VM Testing Started 14 Mar 11 VM Testing Completed 25 Mar 11 Volume Moves VM in Production May’11 Completed VM Reqs Nov’10 One Time Only Moves OTO in Production Oct’11 Started OTO Reqs. Nov’10 Completed OTO Reqs. Apr’11 OTO Testing TBD 16 16

  17. Volume Moves Awarded on Best Value –vs- Low Cost Allows for use by Multiple GBLOCs (75 mile radius of origin) PPSO/SDDC set Minimum Tonnage TSP places bid and Maximum Daily Capability DPS continuity (No shipment refusals, blackouts allowed) TSP bid must be lower than their rate on file Weight –vs- Number Shipment Allocations QA Actions Taken on all Markets regardless if VM or Standard Greater Report Capability Automated emails Reduced Paperwork 17 17

  18. One-Time-Only Create a new “OTO” Market Encourage Greater Industry Participation, Minimize negative impact to iHHG & iUB Increased Quality Assurance Controls Utilizing DPS Software Best Value Score Functionality Facilitate OTO Awards based on Best Value Score Improved Customer Service, end to end visibility (PPSO, SDDC, TSP, Customer) Streamline Program Management Improved “Pre, During, and Post Shipment Capabilities Leverage DPS PPCIG capability to reduce errors, ensure timely movement Automated emails, reduced paperwork Shipment Visibility TSP Oversight (SFR, Agent(s), U.S. Flag Claims ) Improved Statistical Data and Tracking Options 18 18

  19. PlaceholderDPS Update(Col Miller) 19

  20. 2011 Peak Season

  21. 2011 Peak Season Insufficient PPSO/Industry training on DP3 Webinars, policy/process updates Shipment distribution Adjusted rate filing process/schedule No resetting of TDL Capacity Code 2, PMSC, Blackout functionality, SIT management Expectation management of DOD customers Counseling webinar Moving Tips for Members Weekly telecon with industry/services Monitoring peak season shipment awards 21

  22. Webinars

  23. Code 2 Definition: Movement of Domestic Household Goods in a Container from origin residence in CONUS to destination residence in CONUS. Use of commercial best practice containers is authorized. Shipments must always be containerized, will never be member packed, and cannot be left unsecured or outdoors. Separate code of service in the Domestic Market Awarded by the PPSO on separate TDL Ability to black out separately from Code D Loose load or crating of Code D still TSPs option Portable Movement Storage Containers or lift vans authorized for containerization under Code 2 SDDC PAM 55-12

  24. DP3 Quick Reference Guide DP3 Quick Reference Guide (Old Accessorial Pamphlet) Example book Origin/Destination Service Charge Shuttle Service Crating Third Party Services 24

  25. QA Data Points Clarifications to U.Q. coming Pullback Turn-backs Missed pickups 25

  26. QA Suspension/Warning Notable Suspension Trends Significant market suspension increase during 2010 Peak Season Significant channel suspension increase during May 2010 due to TSPs filing rates on Intrastate channels without authority Starting in Peak Season 2010, significant Letters of Warning increases have occurred 26

  27. Pullbacks A higher number of pullbacks occur during Peak Season Member cancelling the shipment comprises almost all pullbacks in DPS Some other reasons include: Double Booking TSP or agent would not service Offer timed out Short Fuse Error Offered to TSP on “blackout date” Wrong shipment type Frequency of pullbacks to total shipments varies from month-to-moth from 2.70% to 4.66%. Pullbacks occur at a slightly higher frequency during Peak Season

  28. Turnbacks 28

  29. Storage Inspection Fee New Item Code 105J – Storage Inspection Fee Industry requested discussion regarding code 105J DPS has been updated to support this item Inspection Fee is $3.03 CWT On delivery from NTS, TSP receives unpacking fee (see 400NG and IT11)

  30. ShortFuse Maximum 2 identified logins to accepts short fuse shipments per SCAC Reduce stress on DPS Level playing field

  31. Alaska Rates Exploring use of a Single Factor Rate between CONUS and Alaska (including intrastate) in FY 12 Similar to current international SFR Transport options remain mode neutral (ocean or ALCAN Highway) Review use of separate rate areas US8030400, US8050500, US8101000, US8190100 31

  32. SDDC Mr. Michael Williams Deputy to the Commander Surface Deployment and Distribution Command 32

  33. Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) 33

  34. CSS Trend CSS Response Rates have Increased NOTE: Monthly trends are explained through calculation techniques

  35. CSS Rewrite and Name Change • Survey Revision and Restructuring • Utilized Service Member comments/feedback • Conducted a full-spectrum analysis with the current survey • Question relevancy • Intent • Question types and sequence • Weighting scales • Formulated new and revised survey questions • Better align with the objectives of the DP3 program • Possible name change Customer Satisfaction Survey instrument name • Total Move Evaluation (TME) • Customer Satisfaction Score (CSS) • Customer Satisfaction Evaluation (CSE) 35

  36. CSS – Potential Revised Questions • SECTION I:ORIGIN PPSO/PPPO • How responsive was the Government’s origin Personal Property Office to your questions and concerns via phone and email? • >Excellent – answered all emails and phone calls - (60 pts) • >Good - answered emails, never replied to phone calls or vice versa - (45 pts) • >Satisfactory - seldom answered or returned any emails or phone calls - (30 pts) • >Poor - only answered one email or phone call - (15 pts) • >Unsat - never responded back to email or phone calls - (0 pts) • Were you offered the opportunity to be counseled by a PPSO? • >Yes (20 pts) >No (0 pts) • Did the Government’s origin Personal Property Office communicate the importance of obtaining ETA login and password, completion of the Customer Satisfaction Survey and procedures for filing a claim? • >Excellent (20 pts) >Good (15 pts) >Satisfactory (10 pts) >Poor (5 pts) >Unsat (0 pts) 36

  37. CSS – Potential Revised Questions • SECTION II: TSP • Would you recommend this moving company to a friend, family member or associate? • >Definitely Recommend (40) >Would Recommend (30) >Might or Might Not Recommend (20)>Would Not Recomment (10) >No-Definitely Not Recommend (0) • How well did the Transportation Service Provider contact and communicate with you prior to the pick-up of your personal property? • >Excellent (12) >Good (9) >Satisfactory (6) >Poor (3) >Unsat (0) • Evaluate the quality of packing services provided at origin by the packing crew (e.g., labeling, organized, packed well or carelessly): • >Excellent (12 pts) >Good (9 pts) >Satisfactory (6 pts) >Poor (3 pts) >Unsat (0 pts) 37

  38. CSS – Potential Revised Questions • SECTION II: TSP (continued) • How well did the Transportation Service Provider meet the agreed upon date and time for delivery of your personal property? • >Excellent - Showed up on time (12) >Good – Only a couple hours late (9) >Satisfactory – Several hours late (6) >Poor – Extremely Late (3) >Unsat - Showed up a day or more after agreed upon time(0) • At the time of delivery, the Transportation Service Provider is required to give you AT LEAST four documents: Legible copy of 619-1, Bill of Lading, legible copy of Inventory, Notification of Loss and Damage at Delivery, and Notification of Loss and Damage after Delivery. How many of these documents did you receive? • >All four documents (12) >Three documents (9) >Two documents (6) >Only one document (3) >None (0) • Did the Transportation Service Provider exhibit professionalism (courtesy, attitude, etiquette, and demeanor) while handling your personal property? • >Excellent – Very professional (12) >Good – Somewhat professional (9) >Satisfactory – Could use a lot of improvement (6) >Very unprofessional (0) 38

  39. CSS – Potential Revised Questions SECTION III: DESTINATION PPSO/PPPO 10. Evaluate how satisfied you were with the destination Personal Property Office that may have assisted you in one or more of the following: Where and how to complete Customer Satisfaction Survey, communicating with the TSP regarding the status of your shipment and/or process to file a claim, etc. If you were not in contact with, or did not use the destination Personal Property Office, please answer Not Applicable. >Excellent (100 pts) >Good (75 pts) >Satisfactory (50 pts) >Poor (25 pts) >Unsat (0 pts) >N/A 39

  40. Program Efficiency Review 40

  41. Program Review Goals Improve efficiencies Reduce complexity Standardization Incorporate best commercial processes Outdated business model 41

  42. Program Review Goals CFAC Definition Financial resource affiliations Administrative personnel Rate filing restrictions Domestic definition International definition TSP Definition One Company = One Authority Assets Equipment/Trucks Packing Crews Warehouse space 42

  43. Program Review Goals Managed Authorities Does not fit into DPS business model Creates additional layer between TSP and customer Open Season After new TSP definition/CFAC rules implemented Fall of 2012 earliest projection 43

  44. Wrap up QUESTIONS? 44

More Related