1、 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iiiExEcutivE committEE20112012Voting MembersOfficers:President: Kirk T. Steudle, P.E., MichiganVice President: Michael P. Lewis, Rhode IslandSecretary-Tre
2、asurer: Carlos Braceras, UtahRegional Representatives:REGION I: Beverley Swaim-Staley, Maryland, One-Year TermJames P. Redeker, Connecticut, Two-Year TermREGION II: Robert St. Onge, South Carolina, One-Year TermEugene Conti, North Carolina, Two-Year TermREGION III: Kevin Keith, Missouri, One-Year Te
3、rmMark Gottlieb, Wisconsin, Two-Year TermREGION IV: Francis Ziegler, North Dakota, One-Year TermJohn Cox, Wyoming, Two-Year TermNon-Voting MembersImmediate Past President: Susan Martinovich, NevadaAASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2012 by the American Association of State Highw
4、ay and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Decision making for outsourcing and Privatization of vehicle and Equipment Fleet maintenanceivSubcommittEE on maintEnancE20112012Chair: Carlos Braceras, UtahVice Chair: Jennifer Brandenburg, North Carol
5、inaVice Chair: Robert “Chris” Christopher, WashingtonSecretary: Bryan Cawley, FHWALiaison: Lacy Love, AASHTOStatE mEmbErSalabama G. Mike Harper George H. Conner Ronald D. PruittalaSka Michael Coffeyarizona Lonnie D. Hendrix Marwan Aouad Dennis G. HalachoffarkanSaS Tony Sullivan Emanuel BankscaliForn
6、ia Tony TavarescoloraDo David C. WiederSteve OlsonconnEcticut Robert P. MongilloDElawarE Alastair ProbertDiStrict oFcolumbia Mesfin Lakew Aaron HortonFloriDa Tim LattnerGEorGia Eric Pitts Rachel BrownHawaii John WilliamsiDaHo Steve SpoorillinoiS Aaron WeatherholtDavid B. JohnsoninDiana Jason Jonesio
7、wa Bob YouniekanSaS Peter Carttar Tim D. Cunningham kEntucky Nancy B. AlbrightEdward MerrymanJon WilcoxonlouiSiana Leslie W. Mix Janice P. Williams William Drake Jr.mainE Dale DoughtymarylanD Russell A. YurekLeonard SchultzmaSSacHuSEttS Ron Dionne micHiGan Mark GeibSteve CookminnESota Steven M. Lund
8、 Susan J. LodahlmiSSiSSiPPi Celina Sumrall miSSouri Don Hillis Elizabeth (Beth) Wright montana Jon SwartznEbraSka Michael T. Mattison Craig R. LindnEvaDa Richard J. Nelson Anita BushnEw HamPSHirE Caleb B. Dobbins Douglas GoslingnEw JErSEy William CarternEw mExico Dennis OrtiznEw york Peter Weykampno
9、rtH carolina Jennifer P. BrandenburgnortH Dakota Brad DarroHio David Ray Halle Jones CapersoklaHoma Kevin S. Bloss Tom WadleyorEGon Lucinda M. MoorePEnnSylvania W. James Smith Charles C. GoodhartrHoDE iSlanD Paul R. AnnarummoSoutH carolina James J. FedaDavid B. CookSoutH Dakota Ed Rodgers Jason Hump
10、hreytEnnESSEE Mike Doran Greg Duncan Chris HarristExaS Toribio GarzautaH Carlos Braceras Steven J. McCarthyKevin GriffinLloyd Neeley 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.vvErmont Scott A. Roge
11、rs Wayne GammellKen ValentinevirGinia Erle W. Potter Emmett HeltzelJeffrey MiltonwaSHinGton Robert “Chris” ChristopherwESt virGinia Steven B. ColewiSconSin David I. Vieth Thomas R. LorfeldMark WoltmannwyominG Kent Ketterlingu.S Dot mEmbEr FHwa Christopher Newman Paul Pisano William Beatty Steve Muel
12、ler James Stevenson Anwar AhmadErle Potter, Chair Virginia DOT, Richmond, VAJoseph L. DarlingNiskayuna, NY (formerly with NY State DOT)Dan GuyMaryland State Highway Administ., Hanover, MDSharon E. HolmesCenturion Consultant Group, Inc.,Tallahassee, FLDonald J. LewisTexas DOT, Austin, TXSteven McCart
13、hyUtah DOT, Salt Lake City, UTJohn F. WhiteSouth Carolina DOT, Columbia, SCCelso GatchalianFHWA LiaisonFrank N. LisleTRB LiaisonAmir N. HannaNCHRP Senior Program OfficerEquiPmEnt tEcHnical workinG GrouP 20112012Erle Potter, Virginia DOT, ChairSteven McCarthy, Utah DOT, Vice ChairRonald Pruitt, Alaba
14、ma DOT, Vice ChairDennis Halachoff, Arizona DOTTimothy Cunningham, Kansas DOTW. James Smith, Pennsylvania DOTKen Valentine, Vermont AOTncHrP ProJEct 13-03a PanEl Field oF Maintenancearea oF equipMent 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved.
15、Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viiPrEFacEThe outsourcing and/or privatization vehicle and equipment fleet maintenance has been a concern of
16、many agencies and, over the years, has resulted in a variety of applica-tions and outcomes of these endeavors.As a result, NCHRP Project 13-03 and Project 13-03A were funded to develop a recom-mended set of guidelines for making decisions on outsourcing and privatization of vehicle and equipment fle
17、et maintenance. The basic results of the studies have been reviewed and the recommended process has been approved by AASHTO for consideration as a guide for use by the member departments. 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication
18、is a violation of applicable law. 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.ixtablE oF contEntS1.0 INTRODUCTION .1-11.1 Study Context1-11.2 Study Scope and Objectives.1-21.3 Purpose and Organizatio
19、n of This Report 1-32.0 BACKGROUND 2-12.1 Characteristics of State DOT Vehicle and Equipment Fleets2-12.2 Challenges for Outsourcing Fleet Maintenance Operations 2-22.3 Applicable Forms of Fleet Maintenance Outsourcing.2-43.0 SCOPE OF THE OUTSOURCING DECISION FRAMEWORK.3-13.1 Purpose and Goal.3-13.2
20、 Outsourcing Decision Framework Requirements 3-13.3 Key Factors to Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.4 Implementation of the Framework3-34.0 FLEET OUTSOURCING DECISION FRAMEWORK 4-14.1 Equipment Class4
21、-14.2 Maintenance Types4-24.3 Outsourcing Decision Variables4-34.4 Performance Measurement4-44.4.1 Data or Information to Manage Fleet and Equipment Maintenance Performance.4-44.4.2 Key Performance Indicators or Metrics to Monitor Performance .4-54.4.3 Benchmarking to Gauge Performance4-64.5 Modelin
22、g a Full Range of Outsourcing Alternatives4-64.6 High-Level Decision-Making Process.4-74.7 Outsourcing Decision Subprocesses 4-84.7.1 Process 1: Identify Critical Internal and External Conditions 4-84.7.2 Process 2: Analyze Internal Demand and Capabilities.4-124.7.3 Process 3: Evaluate External Serv
23、ice Providers4-164.7.4 Process 4: Analyze Cost and Performance Trade-Offs 4-184.7.5 Process 5: Synthesize and Finalize Outsourcing Decisions.4-26 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Decision
24、making for outsourcing and Privatization of vehicle and Equipment Fleet maintenancex5.0 CASE STUDIES.5-15.1 Case Study Context .5-25.2 Case Study AStrategic Outsourcing Decision .5-35.2.1 Process 1: Identify Critical Internal and External Conditions 5-35.2.2 Process 2: Analyze Internal Demand and Ca
25、pabilities5-65.2.3 Process 3: Evaluate External Service Providers5-105.2.4 Process 4: Analyze Cost and Performance Trade-Offs 5-115.2.5 Process 5: Synthesize and Finalize Outsourcing Decisions.5-155.3 Case Study BDay-to-Day Outsourcing Scenario5-155.3.1 Process 1: Identify Critical Internal and Exte
26、rnal Conditions .5-165.3.2 Process 2: Analyze Internal Demand and Capabilities.5-165.3.3 Process 3: Evaluate External Service Providers5-175.3.4 Process 4: Analyze Cost and Performance Trade-Offs 5-175.3.5 Process 5: Synthesize and Finalize Outsourcing Decisions.5-186.0 CONCLUSION6-1REFERENCES .R-1A
27、PPENDICESA-1Appendix ASummary of Outsourcing Model and Process Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1Appendix BForms and TemplatesB-1 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of ap
28、plicable law.xiSummaryDecision Making for Outsourcing and Privatization of Vehicle and Equipment Fleet MaintenanceOutsourcing is a key component of the state department of transportations (DOTs) strategy for delivering services. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 313: State DOT Outsourcing and Priv
29、ate-Sector Utilization documented that either the legislative or executive branches of state government can mandate outsourcing directly, although more commonly they act to limit or reduce the number of state employees, resulting in a de facto mandate to outsource. Not surprisingly, the most common
30、reasons cited for outsourcing were lack of sufficient staff or improper combina-tion of skills. These reasons were followed by cost cutting and/or improved service quality.The decision to outsource is not an easy one, and how the outsourcing decisions are made is of great interest to state DOTs. Whi
31、le several best-practice outsourcing models are available in the private sector, caution should be exercised while translating those models directly for use in the public sector. The profit and business development considerations in the private sector should be balanced against the legal, economic,
32、public service, and political mandates of government. Also, a variety of factors should be considered in the decision process, such as the critical-ity of the outsourcing candidates to the organizations mission and goals, availability of third-party vendors, cost, and service quality. Outsourcing pu
33、blic-sector fleet and equipment maintenance offers certain unique challenges that require such decisions to address additional and more complicated considerations.This report presents a practical, logical, and transparent framework for conducting systematic analysis and mak-ing decisions on outsourc
34、ing and privatization of vehicle and equipment fleet maintenance. The framework was designed to be flexible and scalable to address a full range of outsourcing decision alternatives, from outsourcing a single type of service for single vehicles on case-by-case and day-to-day bases at specific locati
35、ons to outsourcing some or all maintenance services at some or all locations, for some or all fleet segments in the enterprise.A commonly adaptable typology of equipment and maintenance types was defined to ensure that the framework is widely acceptable and adaptable across diverse fleet assets and
36、maintenance services. A core three-dimensional deci-sion variable was also defined to serve as a common basis to evaluate virtually all possible outsourcing alternatives. Commonly used performance indicators or metrics in the fleet management industry are suggested herein to assist in consistent eva
37、luation of insourced and outsourced service performance.The core process model is presented as a step-by-step (structured) logic process that focuses on the unique needs of the state DOTs fleet maintenance and business environment. There are five processes in the model (see Figure 1). 2012 by the Am
38、erican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Decision making for outsourcing and Privatization of vehicle and Equipment Fleet maintenancexii,GHQWLI rather, it is meant to assist in comprehensive and balanced evalua
39、tion of outsourcing decisions. 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.1-1chapter 1introduction1.0 introDuction1.1 Study contextPrivatization has been a subject of interest for the public and pri
40、vate sectors since the concept gained wider accep-tance in the 1970s. Outsourcing is considered a form of privatization in which the service delivery is contracted to an external private vendor, while the sponsor retains oversight and control over delivery. Public- and private-sector organizations h
41、ave embraced outsourcing because of benefits, such as lower costs and better quality. The market for outsourced services has increased over time, with firms offering services ranging from specialty to comprehensive. The private sector has grown tremendously from outsourcing because it offers better-
42、quality services at a lower cost than performing the job in-house. This enables private firms to focus on their core products, which helps them to gain competitive advantage and venture into new directions that improve their market position over their com-petitors. However, the public sector has had
43、 mixed success with outsourcing. Although the scope of government outsourcing has expanded from simple to more stylized services, the challenges public managers face to maintain effective and efficient service delivery have increased, sometimes resulting in substandard levels of service quality (1).
44、 Others have had success gaining the intended benefits of outsourcing.The overall growth in state highway programs and the lack of growth in department of transportation (DOT) staff have resulted in the need for state DOTs to rely more on the private sector to deliver services (2). NCHRP Syn-thesis
45、of Highway Practice 313: State DOT Outsourcing and Private-Sector Utilization (2) found that state DOTs outsource highway-related activities in the areas of administration, construction, design, maintenance, operations, planning, and right-of-way. The study found that the majority of DOTs reported o
46、utsourcing activities that grew or remained the same over a five-year period and projected an increase in outsourcing levels in the near future. The most common reasons cited for outsourcing were lack of sufficient staff and the right combination of skills. DOTs infrequently cited cost-effectiveness
47、 as the reason for outsourcing.In the public-sector realm, not all activities are appropriate or even eligible for outsourcing. Outsourcing cannot be the cure-all for all cost- and performance-related issues (3). It is usually inappropriate or unacceptable to outsource certain services that are inhe
48、rently governmental, such as law enforcement, policy making, and public safety. In such cases, the risk of contractor failure outweighs the benefits of outsourcing. In the early 1990s, the City of Indianapolis clearly distinguished the potential outsourcing candidates between policy-making and polic
49、y-implementing func-tions. The city decided that only the latter should be eligible for private-sector bidding (4).In the area of fleet maintenance, many public agencies already outsource the fleet and equipment maintenance work. Resource limitations, staff shortage, and lack of specific skills are the most commonly cited reasons for outsourcing. Many municipalities, such as the cities of Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Winston-Salem
