Jeffery Dickerson

4/14/2015
Technology’s impact on the disaster debris industry
“True cost efficiency with accountability”
Jeffrey Dickerson
Ralph Natale
Agenda
• Introduction
• Background
• Players and Motivators
• Technology Impact
Process Improvement
• Conclusion and Vision
Background /
History
Technology
Motivators
1
4/14/2015
Introduction
Goals / Purpose
• Who are we?
• How did we arrive at where we are today?
• What are the motivators for those involved?
• Why is technology so important?
• Where might the industry be heading?
Background
Stafford Act Funding (disaster relief act ‘74)
Andrew 1992/Hugo 1989
Both CAT 5 Storms
Two most costly cleanups
Inadequate FEMA response
Significant resources made available
• No monitoring performed
• Numerous reported cases of fraud
•
•
•
•
2
4/14/2015
Background
Hurricanes of 2004‐2005
Key Facts
•
•
•
•
•
FEMA 325
5 storms rapid succession
1 ‐ CAT 4, 2 ‐ CAT 3 and 1 ‐ CAT 2. Monitoring now required
Required documentation when using a contractor for removal
Background
Paper‐based documentation of debris and hazard removal
• Multi‐part forms
• Hand written
• Completeness and legibility issues
• Manual data‐entry
• After the fact QC
• Day after reporting
• Potential for loss of documents
3
4/14/2015
Background
Public Assistance FEMA Documentation Issues
• FEMA 325v2, • Documentation requirements increased
– Hazardous Trees
– Monitor Logs
•
•
•
•
Production rates fell
Significant storage required
More costs to produce documentation
Audits conducted over 10 years after the fact
Background
Public Assistance FEMA Publications
• FEMA 327 released
• FEMA 9500 series
– Roles & responsibilities
– Contracting requirements
– Eligibility requirements
• Enabled use of electronic ticketing
4
4/14/2015
Background
Trend: Increased Audits and De‐obligations
• Frequent State level audits
– Contracting accounting firms to perform audits • 2012 OIG report on FEMA:
– Questioned the use of 10% ($640M) of public funds
– Found 4.3% ($300M) could have been better used
– Auditing program results evidenced by return of over $4.7 billion since beginning of 2010
– Provided auditing guidance
Auditor concludes duplicate tickets because of a tandem truck… possible?
Background
DHS/OIG Lifecycle Audit Program
• Deployment audits
• Capacity audits
• Field early warning audits
• Closeout/completion audits
5
4/14/2015
Players and Motivators
• Federal Government
• State and Local Government
• Debris Removal Contractors/Subs
• Debris Monitoring Contractors/Subs
• 3rd Party Advisors/SME
“Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play as a team is another story”
Casey Stengel
Players and Motivators
Who is involved in the process and what is important
Local Gvmt. and Survivor Assistance
Public Perception
Service Restoration
Identify Cost and deter Mgmt.
Fraud
Rapid Payment
Quality and Efficiency of Services Provided
Profitability
FEMA
FHWA
OIG
St/Local
Haulers
Monitors
SME
For process improvement and adoption you must understand who is involved in the process and their motivators to ensure the process meets all needs
6
4/14/2015
Motivator
Quality Management Systems (QMS)
QMS Functions:
• Protocols ensure consistency and scalability
• Ensures statute and regulatory requirements met
• Sets/maintains quality standards
• In‐process QC to reduce errors and rework
• Monitors for potential fraud
Technology Impact
ADMS History
Base Model ADMS
Full‐Featured ADMS
Case Study: Cost Reduction
• Case Study: Resource Management
•
•
•
•
7
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
ADMS History
Several Vendors begin development
Pre‐
2008
2008
First used during a USACE debris project
USACE releases ADMS specifications for ACI SATOC work
2009
ADMS used on USACE mission for Joplin, MO Tornado
2010
FEMA 327 released, recognizing electronic tickets
2011
•
•
•
•
2012
2013
ADMS used on several FEMA projects in Hurricane Isaac
Initial Technical Challenges
System Performance
Reliability
Complexity
Device integrated features
USACE awards new ACI contracts, several new ADMS vendors
Advanced ADMS systems introduced for FEMA Severe Winter Storm projects
2014
USACE updates ACI ADMS specification for 2014 ACI contracts
2015
USACE validation of ADMS system against new specification
Common Platforms
•
•
•
•
IOS (iPhone)
Window Mobile
Android
Thermal Printers
Technology Impact
ADMS design, challenges and other factors
Field Design Requirements
• USACE ACI ADMS Compliant
• Performs as fast as paper‐based
• Minimal user input
• Reliable and resilient
• Device integrated features
• Reasonable cost (FEMA 327)
Field Operations Issues
• Initial monitor training
• Field technical support
• Equipment availability
• Response to equipment/system failures
8
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
ADMS design, challenges and other factors
Approved Guidance
Solved Deployment Kinks
Regular Use on Projects
= Successful ADMS use
Technology Impact
ADMS Comparison: Base Model vs Full Featured
Base ADMS (USACE Compliant)
Meets July 2013, USACE ADMS specification:
ROW (with ROE)
Truck Certification
Personnel Management
Progress and Statistic Reporting
Reconciliation/Billing
GIS Data display
Alabama Tornados – Courtesy of Phillips and Jordan
9
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
ADMS Comparison: Base Model vs Full Featured
Discussion:
What features do you think would be in a “full‐featured” ADMS system?
Technology Impact
ADMS Comparison: Base Model vs Full Featured
Full Featured ADMS (now available in some providers)
Includes all base features and:
– ROW individual pickup location
– Hazard removal (LHS and others)
– Collect Field Reports:
•
•
•
•
–
–
–
–
Missed or skipped debris
Damages and damage assessments
Survey and inspections Safety and injury report
Tip:
The Electronic Ticketing Evaluation Guide provides a concise set of questions to consider when selecting an ADMS system.
Automated in‐process QC and fraud monitoring (Case Study 1)
GIS based Asset and Resource management (Case Study 2)
Real‐time GIS based EOC “common operating picture”
Advanced geospatial analysis, engineering and processing (Case Study 3)
10
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
Case Study 1: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Automated In‐Process QC
Problem: Hazard removal requires extensive expense and manpower to produce required documentation
– QC Checks performed days afterwards
– Photos missing or mismatched
– Improper allocation to applicant
– Tail work following end of field work (Photo matching and QC)
– Invoice processing delays
Technology Impact
Case Study 1: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Automated In‐Process QC
Solution: Automated data collection and photo association combined with in‐process QC
– In‐process photo review/feedback
– Geospatial processing and reporting
– Efficient design = productivity
– Elimination of tail work
– Elimination of invoicing error through real‐time validation reporting
Results:
• Elimination of tail work reduced post field work labor costs by 43%
• On average, monitoring labor cost were 48% lower for a hazard removal using advanced ADMS.
• Contractor productivity exceeded that of a comparable paper based project when a single monitor was assigned
11
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
Case Study 2: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Resource Management
Problem: Large area debris projects suffered communication and coordination resulting in:
– Longer periods of field operations
– Reduced efficiency of the debris removal contractors
– Poor coordination of debris removal in communities
Technology Impact
Case Study 2: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Resource Management
Solution: A common operating picture (COP) portal with views showing real‐time field operations:
– Geospatially based web services
– Perspective based views (layers)
– Communication and Coordination training
– Public Outreach and Info Disseminated
Results:
• 15% increase in ROW Cu Yds. Collected per Monitor‐Hour
• 10% reduction in project administrative costs when Pass tracking and reporting is required
• Enhanced public information and coordination
12
4/14/2015
Technology Impact
Case Study 3: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Transportation Network Analysis
Problem: Large metro area traffic impacts debris removal productivity and schedule
– Haulers not meeting productivity goals
– Excessive idle time for debris monitors
– Higher fuel costs for haulers
– Unable to meet agreed schedule
Technology Impact
Case Study 3: ADMS ‐ Advanced Capability, Transportation Network Analysis
Solution: GIS Transportation Analysis of DMS site locations
•
•
•
•
Road network combined with traffic analysis to determine DMS coverage
Debris concentration analysis using Census data to locate DMS closer
20 minute one‐way standard to achieve required productivity
Traffic avoidance in routing to DMS
Results:
• 30% higher hauler productivity when one way drive time is 20 minutes or less
• Less idle time for debris monitors
• Known traffic effects on productivity enables more accurate scheduling
13
4/14/2015
Conclusion
Cost Efficiency – Optimal results for the expenditure
Contractor Perspective:
Vision
– Lower costs
– Improved profitability
– More competitive bids
– What do you think?
– Standardized ADMS data exchange
– Automated damage assessment, estimation and management
– Consolidated industry GIS data warehouse
Government Perspective
– Smaller cost share
– Lower cost of services
– Rapid recovery
Conclusion
Accountability – Action of responsibility
Contractor Perspective:
– High satisfaction of services provided
Government Perspective
– Efficiency
– Justified expenditure of federal funds
– Shorter audit lifecycles
Vision
– What do you think?
– Automated geospatial based audits
– Highly resilient, accurate and reliable ADMS
– Advanced cost accountability metrics using real‐time vs historical information
14
4/14/2015
Conclusion
Final thoughts and questions
With technology we are limited only by our imagination and willingness to embrace the process improvements that well designed technology can offer. History has shown that we can expect accelerating change in the future as the capabilities of technology continue to improve… Today’s ADMS technology is just the start.
Questions ?
Contact Info:
Jeffrey Dickerson – jeffrey.dickerson@tetratech.com
Ralph Natale – ralph.natale@tetratech.com
15