Qwest Change makes sense....

**boblocates** · July 28th, 2009, 07:50 PM

Yes, Qwest is still talking/meeting with SiteWise, SafeSite and Underground. Not looking good for ELM.

You have to think about the whole picture. Qwest isn't in it for quality, it is the act of "damage prevention" at an all lower price. Phone gets hit? Eh big deal now a days everyone has a cell phone. Phone is not critical like gas or power where someone can get directly hurt.

Now how can ELM come up with a cheaper price with the other companies marking another utility. Not only that you can't just give it ONE company, you have to divide it up with the current ones because they don't all cover the entire state. When your talking 2, 3 bucks more for a single times that out 200k, 300k in tickets it adds up fast.

Do the math, change is coming!

**iowagroundpainter** · July 28th, 2009, 11:06 PM

I have worked with Qwest in Iowa for 15 years and now days they do not care about phones getting cut. They only thing they know is that they will bill and overbill whoever is deemed at fault.

**Wingfoot** · July 29th, 2009, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by iowagroundpainter

Originally Posted by boblocates

Qwest isn't in it for quality, it is the act of "damage prevention" at an all lower price. Phone gets hit? Eh, [no] big deal.

I have worked with Qwest in Iowa for 15 years and now days they do not care about [their] phones getting cut.

I find all this hard to believe......... No communication company would risk their reputation to save a buck. This thinking is reserved to Ford (FORD compared the cost of an $11 repair on the Pinto gas tank against the cost of paying off potential law suits = Fireball On Rear Denting) and the pharmaceutical industries. Wait, pharmaceutical companies risk their reputation every day to MAKE a buck......

The Ford Pinto's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.

Ford was aware of this design flaw but allegedly refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign ($11.00!). Instead, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths.

----------------------------------------------

**Mke** · July 29th, 2009, 03:47 PM

Hard to believe? Thats qwest. Part of the idea of contracting out locates is the fact that they do not have a responsibility in paying for any damages. If a line gets cut, it is either the Contract Locating company or the Contractors doing the work....

Simple as that.

In a perfect world the reason you contract out specific duties is due to gaining a specific knowlege in that duty. You pay for Experience and knowlege. When it comes to locating these days they are paying for the billing address. They could care less about the abilities a specific locator has, or doesn't have. It is no longer their responsibility.

mke

**walktheditches** · July 29th, 2009, 09:52 PM

I have located Qwest for over 6 years with 2 different companies. I had to deal with their BS as a locator, supervisor and then as a manager. All I have to say to the company or companies that are going to get this contract, BEWARE!! The management staff for Qwest in each of the states have different rules and policies that have to be followed. So it's hard to make company wide policies regarding their locates. Each state is different. The best part are the audits they perform on the tickets every week. They have guys travel around the state the day the tickets are due or the following day and do a 3 page audit on random locates. They will fail any locate that doesn't have enough flags, too little paint, too many flags, doesn't go at least 25 ft past the dig area, un-bounded cables, etc...Hell they will even fail it if the bonding nuts are loose. They will keep a running percentage on all of the audits and use that information to put pressure on the locating company to bend-over backwards to do almost anything for them or they start talking about pulling their contract or re-negotiating the prices. Not too mention all of the extra work it puts on the supervisors and mangers with paperwork and such. Wait till the Qwest techs start calling the locators and demanding they drop what they are doing and meet them on a service call because they can't find a splice. I've had locators spend over 5 hours on crap like that and when you try to bill the hours back to the ticket they raise a fuss and refuse to pay it. I don't even want to start about the damage conference calls. Qwest refuses to eat anything and will not except they are at fault for any reason. The bill gets paid by the contractor or the locating company and wait till that bill comes! In some areas they charged us over $300 to fix a drop! Good Luck to whoever gets it and on a side note: I will be smiling from ear-to-ear if ELM looses that contract.

**GPGrasshopper** · July 29th, 2009, 10:07 PM

Where I am Qwest is all in-house and they take the locating really seriously. The Fiber techs do locating and run patrol on the plant looking for people digging near the cables. Some of the techs are friends of mine and they said a damage that causes a loop to go down might just be your pink slip. On the plus side I understand they pay fiber techs really well. Guess it is a little different depending on where you are.

**USIC1** · July 29th, 2009, 10:11 PM

If a top notch outfit like USIC got the contract to manage there facilities, once the damage ratio was reduced, they would nt knit-pick so much, and a better relationship would develop...Its all about on time performance and damage ratios...

**GPGrasshopper** · July 29th, 2009, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by USIC1

If a top notch outfit like USIC got the contract to manage there facilities, once the damage ratio was reduced, they would nt knit-pick so much, and a better relationship would develop...Its all about on time performance and damage ratios...

Shameless plug. Are you in marketing?

**boblocates** · July 29th, 2009, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by USIC1

If a top notch outfit like USIC got the contract to manage there facilities, once the damage ratio was reduced, they would nt knit-pick so much, and a better relationship would develop...Its all about on time performance and damage ratios...

It is not setup for true damage prevention, just cost cutting ploy. Qwest doesn't want damages to go away, that's revenue...someone is paying to fix the damage!

USIC didn't get invited to the bid? Why don't you bid on the gas in Colorado?

**iowagroundpainter** · July 30th, 2009, 05:47 PM

I dont care who has the contract and what type of relationship you try to establish. It will not work in Iowa or surrounding states for Qwest. been there done that