Extract of Report Relating To Trial Of Alternative Servicing And maintenance

Provider For Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service Vehicles (LGV's)

Introduction

As part of the HFRS Workshops Best Value Review, it was deemed necessary to trial or "market test" the local provision of maintenance for HFRS large goods vehicles, in this case pumping appliances.

During earlier discussions, it became apparent other service providers did not have the necessary expertise or facilities to carry out the full service requirement and would only consider carrying out the service and maintenance of the vehicle chassis and chassis related components. This would mean that the fire pump, specialist body and body mounted equipment would have to be maintained elsewhere by other specialist providers.

In order to carry out a fair comparison, it was decided that the supplier would carry out the chassis service to the same specification as that required by HFRS Workshops using service documents provided by HFRS Fleet Management.

Four vehicles of varying age and specification were randomly selected from the August 2005 service schedule, to be sent for chassis service/inspection and repairs. Each vehicle would be inspected by HFRS Fleet Management on it's return after the service had been carried out.

Findings

The first vehicle to be sent out for service was a Volvo FL6 Water Tender Reg. No. HX54 LZC.

On return, the vehicle was inspected by HFRS Fleet Manager and the following items were found to be requiring attention:

· Chassis not steam/pressure cleaned.

· PTO drive prop-shaft not greased.

· Engine alternator (12 volt) mounting bolts loose.

The above items were of a relatively minor nature and were rectified at HFRS Workshops rather than incur greater costs by returning it to the dealer.

The second vehicle to be sent was a Volvo FL6 Water Tender Reg. No. P950 JTR.

The post service inspection identified the following items requiring attention:

· Chassis not steam/pressure cleaned.

· Wheels and brake drums/hubs had not been removed for thorough inspection of brake components and cleaning to be carried out

· Chassis corrosion had not been treated

All of the above items do appear on the service forms as per the agreed specification but were not completed. Although not completed, the item for removing wheels and brake drums had been marked as carried out.

The third vehicle used in this trial was Volvo FL6 Water Tender Reg. No.

S177 KPO.

The post service inspection identified the following items:

· Chassis not steam/pressure cleaned.

· Wheels and brake drums/hubs had not been removed for thorough inspection of brake components and cleaning to be carried out.

· Excessive exhaust gas leak at engine exhaust down-pipe flange, resulting in exhaust gasses escaping into crew compartment areas.

· Turbo charger outlet seal defective. Resulting in poor engine performance and excessive exhaust black smoke emissions.

This vehicle was returned to the repair contractor in order to have the above items rectified. These items were rectified apart from the chassis clean which was still not carried out.

The final vehicle to be sent for servicing in this trial was Volvo FL6 Water Tender Ladder Reg. No. H374 BTP.

The post service inspection identified the following items:

Chassis not steam/pressure cleaned to a satisfactory standard.

Wheels and brake drums/hubs had been removed for thorough inspection of brake components and cleaning to be carried out on this vehicle, but an extra charge of £402.00 had been made for doing so.

Cost Comparison

As part of this trial, the following detail relates to the cost comparison between the same work detail being carried out by the external provider and HFRS Workshops.

It should be noted that this detail relates only to labour charges incurred through carrying out the standard chassis service. Parts costs and labour costs relating to repairs carried out, have been excluded in order to highlight the direct comparison between the 2 "contractors".

Whilst this information is not claimed to be exhaustive in its detail, it does show, in simple terms, the comparative labour costs of the 2 service providers for the same activities.

Conclusion

Whilst this exercise has identified the possible short-comings of having vehicles serviced by external contractors in relation to quality standards, it has also shown that outsourcing certain areas of vehicle maintenance could be achievable. It has not however, proved that cost savings would necessarily be enjoyed through doing so. Vehicle availability and reliability issues could also be compromised if such out-sourcing were to be adopted.

At present vehicles serviced by HFRS Workshops are subjected to random quality control checks, similar to those outlined in this report. Vehicles are scheduled for service on an annual basis with priorities being agreed in advance. HFRS Operations Department are also informed of service due dates and are responsible for collection and delivery of vehicles from and to stations and HFRS Workshops. HFRS Workshops liase with all interested parties regarding progress of jobs, vehicle completion and collection/delivery planning.

HFRS, at present, enjoys a certain amount of flexibility relating to vehicles being made available from HFRS Workshops should operational needs dictate. Most external contractors operate a rigid work scheduling system which would probably not offer such flexibility.

Cost savings currently available to HFRS via bulk purchase of parts, lubricants and consumables would be negated if chassis servicing were to be passed to a contractor. For example, in this basic trial, the price of engine oil (per litre) has almost trebled when supplied by the contractor as opposed to using the HFRS Workshops bulk stocks. Other items such as filters have also been shown to be more expensive when supplied via the external contractor.

If vehicle maintenance and repair were to be outsourced, more regimented control and checking policies would have to be adopted by HFRS Fleet Management Department. Administration procedures would also have be designed and adopted in relation to the booking in of vehicles, for maintenance, with contractor(s), checking and progressing jobs along with collection and delivery of vehicles from and to contractors premises. This would, without doubt, require an increase in staff numbers, and associated financial implications within the HFRS organisation.

External quotes for the servicing of equipment compared to in house costs.

HFRS cost based on the current target times for the servicing activity multiplied by the hourly cost plus parts where appropriate.