In the mid-1980s, fleet managers started experiencing pressure from their bosses
to investigate the desirability of, or actually proceed with, the outsourcing of
fleet management activities that their organizations historically had performed
in house. The initial focus of these pressures was on fleet maintenance and
repair services, and the decision to outsource or not to outsource usually was
based on a simple comparison of contractor fee proposals with the costs of the
in-house fleet maintenance operation. In other words, the merits of outsourcing
were often viewed in very basic, black and white terms - contractors either
could maintain the fleet more cheaply than could in - house staff or they
couldn’t.
Not surprisingly, this simplistic view of outsourcing resulted in some poor
decisions to outsource services, and considerable trepidation and resentment
arose among fleet management professionals and their employees about the whole
subject of outsourcing. One of the more notable outsourcing fiascos of the early
90’s occurred in Fairfax County, Virginia where a contract for the maintenance
and repair of a 1,000 - vehicle fleet was terminated only months after being
implemented. To their credit, County officials were courageous enough to admit
that they had made a mistake when they tossed out an under-performing contractor
and brought the fleet maintenance operation back in-house ( not all fleet
maintenance services had been privatized in the County, so this was easier to do
than might otherwise have been the case ). Some fleets, however, have continued
to suffer the effects of ill - considered or highly politicized decisions that
were made in the initial flurry of fleet maintenance outsourcing initiatives.
Fortunately, lessons were learned from some of these early missteps and a more
sophisticated approach to the consideration of outsourcing benefits and costs
evolved. One major outcome of this evolution was the emergence of the managed
competition project, a fleet management services contracting process in which
the in - house fleet management organization is permitted to compete against
outside contractors. The rise of managed competition reflected both an outcry
from union and non-union workers that their jobs were being sacrificed in the
pursuit of sometimes trivial cost savings, and the dawning realization by both
fleet management professionals and their bosses that in-house organizations
could be very competitive if they were given the opportunity to restructure
their business processes and break through some of the bureaucratic red tape
that so often hinders their competitiveness.
Although the interest of the last five years in managed competition seems to
have abated somewhat, the current slow down in the nation’s economy suggests
that this hiatus may be short lived. Despite the mixed results of past
outsourcing decisions, there is an undercurrent of opinion – particularly among
elected officials in state and local government – that outsourcing is a
sure-fire way to save money. It seems safe to say that shrinking profit margins
in the private sector, and disappearing budget surpluses in the public sector
are going to renew pressure on fleet mangers to consider outsourcing fleet
management services. Smart fleet managers recognize that such a trend can be
viewed either as a threat or as an opportunity. The reality is that it is both,
and that the best way to deal with both is to be proactive – that is, to seize
the bull by the horns. The fleet managers that are most vulnerable to the
undesirable side effects of outsourcing are those that hide their head in the
sand or otherwise deny that their company or government jurisdiction might
benefit from outsourcing. A managed competition may be the best opportunity you
ever have as a fleet manager to take control of your own destiny - embracing it
almost always makes more sense than trying to fend it off.
A number of fleet operations have adopted managed competition as a means of
ensuring that taxpayers receive the best services at the lowest cost available
in the market. The premise of managed competition is that the procurement of
services through competitive proposals or bids - rather than the traditional
model of granting an in-house organization a monopoly - drives improvements in
service levels, quality, and costs. Managed competition provides state or local
government employee groups with both the impetus and the opportunity to
streamline their operations, adopt new business strategies, and pursue
innovations that under normal circumstances would not be considered. The
resulting improvements in efficiency and productivity often transform marginal
performing organizations into competitive operations. If the in-house group is
unable to institute required improvements and present a winning proposal, then a
private firm is awarded a contract. In either event, managed competition can
result in significant cost and / or service level improvements for a state or
local government
Managed competition is a complicated process with high stakes for the state or
local government engaged in the process, its employee groups, and potential
contractors. The state or local government’s risks include its credibility (if
the process is designed and managed poorly) - potential disruptions in service
delivery (if a poorly designed process results in the wrong decisions being
made) - as well as a substantial investment in time, effort, and costs. The
risks for involved employee groups are obvious – their jobs with the state or
local government are on the line. The stakes are also high for potential
contractors both in terms of the costs of participating in the proposal process
and the potential for operational problems if the solicitation and resulting
contract are poorly designed.
The key to controlling the risks involved in a managed competition process is to
carefully consider each aspect and step in the process to ensure that the state
or local government’s interests are protected and that all stakeholders are
treated fairly. This is something that is not easily achieved and requires
significant consideration and professional planning.
Our substantial experience with managed competition, outsourcing of fleet
maintenance and management services, and in conducting competitiveness
assessments for fleet organizations enables us to steer our clients around
potential obstacles and pitfalls and to take advantage of the often painful
lessons learned by other public and private entities that have conducted a fleet
maintenance managed competition.
Some of our outsourcing and managed competition related consulting services
include: |