Forums

This just looks like an advertisement to me, especially with this being your first post.

Xactimate announced a similar tool to determine the amount of drying equipment per there news release earlier this month http://www.xactware.com/news/releas...80506.html  and my initial reaction was similar to Marc's. And I was at a site last week where the equipment was sitting there unplugged, there are just so many variables... but I hate the trend of trying to get this stuff to fit in a neat little box and reduce costs - when you may have a place where the water was running from a blown upstairs toilet line that put TONS of water into wall cavities etc. and it just takes lots of equip and opening up the walls and ceilings with daily monitoring.

I don't try to estimate emergency services - I estimate the "put back" once it is dry and stable. I trust the emergency vendor to get it dry and stable, and I do look at the site if at all possible. Doing that from a desk would drive me nuts, and speaking of nuts, it would sort of castrate the emergency vendor from doing his job - we trust them to use meters and pull the plug when it is dry and stable.

Great points that each of you made, however I think we are missing the point.  This Validation tool is not designed to replace a psychometrics chart or moisture meters. However these can also be challenged if the same person doing the drying is the author of the charts.  That is why when we clerk a project we author and document the charts and verify that equipment is running, etc.... .  

This is a simple tool that works well for validation purposes and the best part it is simple and easy to use.  What brought this about is not to determine the RH or Temp as we all know that these two items are the recipe to drying the structure, but what we found is regardless of the RH and Temp we needed to validate recommended sizes and qty's.  Why?  In a audit we learned that a price was negotiated for a Time and Materials job on drying equipment with the adjuster.  That seemed to work for the adjuster and the drying contractor, but the questioned that remained was somewhat a hidden and a validation audit found the hidden answer to a very common hidden question.  See the results below

The Scenario below is the best way to describe the importance of Validation Services

Dehumdifier orignal price was set at $125.00 per day / No Monitoring (No Monitoring - Defined - Monitoring was not included in the daily rate it was a separate item - charge as a Labor Item)   Negotiated and Agreed Price - $100.00 per day (ea)

Air Movers - Orginal price per day - $25.00  - Negotiated and Agreed Price - $22.50 per day

According to the Sizing and Recommended # of units for this area was ( 5 XLRG Dehumidifiers (LGR) and (8) min / (16) max airmovers.  Using this as a reference tool here are the results of our findings - The price was negotiated on the surface but who can validate that extra equipment wasn't placed to overcome the negotiated price?  We seen the charts and moisture readings and we also take into consideration of who was the author of the charts??  Complex yes, worth the Valdiation - We say "YES" and this example backs up our reason why  we say "YES", 

Question: Was this a matter of agreeing to a lower rate but making up the difference in placing extra equipment?  Only one person knows the real answer to this question, but with our findings we did raise alot of awareness and the best part is our charts did not match the drying companies charts why? (2 different author's one being paid by the day and piece and the other being paid to clerk and validate the final results)  Question still remains was this overbilled $1960.00 or was it $640.00?  Bottom line is without this type of validation then who holds who accountable? 

I wanted to respond to the post and the truth of the matter is we are Clerks that have a responsibility and are accountable to accurately report on activities, quanitify and Validate these daily.   We clerk and validate projects and billings, we present our findings and the person that hired us has the option to challenge our findings further and then challenge the contractor or simply just pay the bill.  That's the final option to the person paying the bill,

Clerking is a complex business when it comes to validating mitigation and/or rebuilding a structure but without tools like this and several others that we use then how can we back up our findings when it comes to challenges and expert litigation?  A simple estimating program alone was not enough for us, we use many tools but the end of the day our findings can be 100% backed up with industry guidelines and standards, we all know that these are simply set in stone as references "ONLY".  The industry is like any other - you present your findings you better be prepared to back them up and flip of the coin - you are presented with guidelines and standards that challenge your submitted report or billing, then you better be prepared to back up your submissions.

I think it is great that this is a tool that software companies are using or starting to use, but the experience I have in the industry is that most do not use the software that may have this available, but nearly 100% of everyone has Microsoft® Excel and that is what made this an easy pick.  

Our Slogan is Simple - Validate IT - Before you Pay IT  - Thanks for everyone's input and some will agree and other will not agree - that is not because one is right and one is wrong - That is the wonderful world of Business especially in an industry that requires adjusting and validations to determine the payment for a loss or service to one that wants more that what they had or simply to one that wants to maximize not only profits but the most importantly MARGINS and in some cases BOTH and that is when our job becomes the most important Validate IT and then Adjust IT

Validating invoices by simple equations is a disservice in that it fails to take into consideration all the factors attendant to a proper drying job. Granted the drying charts are prepared by the mitigating firm however it is not difficult to ascertain if they were fudged. Continuing water leakage, improperly sealed structures, installing equipment before sucking up the water or removal of wet materials all change the timeframes and parameters. Onsite verification, equipment placement and capacity analysis, structural analysis and proper record keeping provide a much better portrait. As I said before I think any tool in the hand of the inexperienced leads to questionnable conclusions. I wouldn't want an examiner questionning an invoice for emergency work I recommended being subject to your programs analysis. It would be too easy to question. Having clerked a 500 million dollar project after 9/11  and several since I've learned that tools need to be used by folks with a basic understanding of the matter being analyzed. This tool will be beneficial to those seeking to analyze without understanding.

I respect your reply, I still believe you are missing the entire point.  You have to ask if this was not a valuable tool then why are the big estimating companies spending the money to add equipment sizing to their programs?  Why does the psychometric charts guidelines express the importance of equipment sizing and qty's, and how many times have we had to provide documentation to back up the chart to defend the right sizes and qty's were used and the number of days billed was correct or vice versa?  How would you do this in a very agressive setting such as litigation?  by charts alone? No, by experts that use a variety of tools and references, I have been in this business for over 24 years with a mix of experience in General Contractor, Drying Contractor, multiline adjuster ,a Certified Arbritrator, and  a published author.   

I understand your point clearly, but Clerk of the Works is a valuable services to any loss and we have our  tools that prepare us to defend or back up the documentation to multiple perils of any loss that may be filed away or that be the difference between a win or loss in litigation.

This was not intended to be a debate but good points have been brought forward and we feel that it is only fair to reply.  Clerk of the works is a valid service and can be an adjuster best tool. 

I'm not debating the usefulness of your program in some situations. I've spent thirty four years in the claims business as an independent, manager, large loss expert and as the national manager of a large loss restoration firm. What I'm saying is charts don't tell the whole story. Analyzing equipment capacity and room sizes for instance doesn't address whether the equipment was necessary in the first place.What I don't want to see happening is the inexperienced examiner/adjuster using your program as the sole methodology for ascertaining the validity of an invoice. What happens is the reliance on software which removes too much of the thinking process. All tools are useful when utilized properly. Lets just add the caveat that this is not a one size fits all solution to the drying issue but rather a tool in the toolbox of experience.

Why dont the water suckers have a chart of experience like the medical doctors. If we use agressive treatment you will be feeling better in 3 days. If we do nothing you will feel better in 4 days. What is the lasting effects of the latter treatment ?

Not very measurable in total dollars saved by the insurance company.  Another stat that is not used. How many water spills occur that never get into the mix and what is the pure economic loss nationwide?

We are in the initial phases of integration with Loss Technology which should be completed by this summer.  The are a validation service used by several of the larger carriers.  Read below...

OREM, Utah—May 06, 2008— Xactware Solutions, Inc. and Loss Technology Services, Inc. announced a new compatibility between Xactware tools and Loss Technology Services’ water mitigation modeling program. The combined tools provide an important new water-mitigation solution for insurance repair and restoration professionals.

Loss Technology Service’s water mitigation modeling program, Water Event Manager, is now compatible with the pricing research used in Xactware’s industry-leading estimating software, Xactimate, and its online claims management network, XactAnalysis. This compatibility helps ensure accurate and reasonable water mitigation services on each claim.

Water Event Manager is an online tool that utilizes sophisticated algorithms based on industry standards and drying science. This qualitative analysis integrates with Xactware software to provide real-time project scope and projected pricing for water loss claims.

“It is with great pleasure that we announce the compatibility between Xactware and Loss Technology Services. Using Xactware tools with LTS’s Water Event Manager will truly revolutionize how property loss claims are processed. Our users will benefit from objective, real-time validation of water loss services that result in appropriate claims cycle time and costs,” said Christopher H. Uhland, Loss Technology Services’ CEO.

Uhland says that the demand for verification of property repair services is significantly increasing as insurers attempt to reduce Severity and Loss Adjustment Expense and contractors search for innovative ways to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. Water Event Manager meets both parties’ needs by providing scientific verification of project scope and administration along with respected pricing research from Xactware.

“Water Event Manager’s compatibility with Xactware products and pricing research gives repair professionals quick access to information that helps manage and successfully mitigate water damage,” said Rick Johnson, Director, Strategic Alliances for Xactware.

Water Event Manager will be available for purchase on May 29, 2008. For more information on Water Event Manager, please visit [script removed]www.losstechnologyservices.com/may29.

The third paragraph from the bottom explains this smoke job.  The plain meaning is cut out the outside adjuster expense by sending out a contractor; but we can.t trust contractors; therefore, we must all agree how much mouth space these little pigs get at the insurance industry feeding trough to keep them from growning up to be big hogs.

Does anyone else wonder, when you look at the figures posed above, whey carriers don't just supply some of their leading producers with a ready stock of drying equipment and have trained personnel on salaried standby to do mitigation?  These same salaried persons could include those that sit on their duffs a good part of the time (my sincere apologies here to all boiler inspectors, risk/safety analists, etc), that can/do have very flexible and non-committed hours.  That salaried person can be the over-seer, with temp help used to rip up move furniture/contents & pull carpet.  Hope none of the carriers are reading this, or otherwise there goes more potential work out the window! 

I think part of the problem lies in the way the restoration community responds to catastrophe situations. Obviously keeping a sufficient pool of highly qualified drying techs on staff outside of cat season is a non starter cost wise. During major cats drying techs come from labor ready type organizations. Although supposedly supervised by qualified folks the latter can only work so many hours and be in so many places at once. There is rarely a lack of equipment or capacity just staff. It's interesting to note that the restoration industry is mostly governed by trade groups. There are no set educational standards for the different positions i.e. drying tech, restoration tech. When putting together a vendor program I was amazed at the various rates charged by vendors for their personnel especially when they had not even defined their specific roles and educational or training requirements for each position. Theoretically and sometimes realistically the $12.00 an hour labor ready person becomes a tech charged out at $48.00 an hour within the same day. This is even a better rate of return than vendors using the three day newbies. In order to alleviate the pricing,training disparities more education is required for the folks transacting these matters. If examiners attended dry out school and had a concept of psychrometrics and if vendors prepared better for mass drying situations the wild pricing variances and methods utilized could be more closely scrutinized. These matters are all tangibles best handled by competent personnel.

For Fifty years I have known one fact about the insurance industry. High loss amounts = higher profits by increased premium to the consumers.

Water extraction contractors are not a factor on hurricane claims. The reason is very simple. They are not able to respond within the first 48 hours of the wetting event and most of the water mitigation is done by the homeowners. They really have nothing to sell. It is what it is and it will not get better or worse.

The real big bucks are made within the first 4-6 hours. If the homeowners was given an approximate cost price list before work starts on a no cure no pay basis very few contacts would be signed. The most destruction to real and personal property is a fire loss with lots of water to extinguish. You never see the water suckers as it is what it is and it will not get any better.

Russell as you are well aware there are many schools of thought regarding proper drying techniques and the application of the various drying processes available in the competitive market place of today. Heat or no heat? Desicant vs. refigerant? My main focus as an adjuster retained to mazimize the recovery dollar for my client be they the carrier or insured is to make sure that the most effective, cost efficient methodology is utilized. Documenting the drying effort, having a drying plan,and utilizing the proper equipment is paramount. Charging for mobilized but not installed equipment, utilizing too little or too much equipment, using improper capacity equipment, drying instead of removing, drying with standing water still evident, drying within an open environment  are some of the things we attempt to negate amongst others. It's not always about price it's about process. Reduced rental rates combined with inefficient process do not result in savings.