Fleet Cost & Mobility Optimisation · Data Sheet
Fleet Cost Financial Results
Financial and operating results from a concluded fleet cost and control mandate, with each component percentage shown against its share of the baseline.
2 · Core cost structure
The defined baseline, by component
Scroll table sideways →
| Component | Baseline contribution | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Vehicle rentals | 70.2 | Dominant fixed and contractual cost. |
| Fuel | 27.9 | Primary variable operating cost. |
| Card administration | 1.2 | Recurring account and card overhead. |
| Interest | 0.4 | Financing and settlement charge, subject to contract test. |
| Transaction charges | 0.3 | Usage-linked fleet-card fee. |
| Total | 100.0 | Defined core baseline. |
Tolls and exceptional event costs are controlled separately: they are usage and event driven, and were not repriced through the concluded model.
3 · Concluded outcome
Each line, indexed before and after
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Before | After | Reduction | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defined core annualised fleet cost | 100.0 | 98.6 | 1.4% | Concluded |
| Fuel component | 100.0 | 98.7 | 1.3% | Concluded |
| Rental + recurring card-charge block | 100.0 | 98.5 | 1.5% | Concluded |
| Card administration component | 100.0 | 62.9 | 37.1% | Concluded |
| Rental component | 100.0 | 99.1 | 0.9% | Concluded |
The overall percentage is intentionally lower than the card-administration reduction, because rentals are roughly seven-tenths of the defined core baseline. A large reduction in a small fee line is not presented as though it applied to the whole base.
4 · Fuel optimisation
Only the eligible population was re-costed
Scroll table sideways →
| Fuel population | Treatment | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Coastal fuel | Retained at the existing grade basis | No saving assumed |
| Inland 93-octane transactions | Retained | No double counting |
| Eligible inland 95-octane transactions | Re-costed to the appropriate 93-octane equivalent | Included in the concluded fuel result |
The transaction population showed repeated use of the higher-octane grade at inland locations. Only those fills where the lower grade was technically appropriate were re-costed, producing a 1.3% reduction in the analysed annual fuel component.
5 · Incumbent repricing
Where the movement actually happened
Scroll table sideways →
| Charge line | Indexed result | Financial significance |
|---|---|---|
| Card administration | 62.9 | 37.1% reduction in the line item. |
| Vehicle rental | 99.1 | 0.9% across the rental line — small, but on the dominant component. |
| Interest | 100.0 | Separately reviewed for contractual compliance. |
| Transaction fee | 100.0 | Retained at the concluded incumbent basis. |
The rental line moved less than 1% and was financially the most important movement in the engagement, because rental dominates the cost base.
6 · Market test
Five alternatives, all modelled
Scroll table sideways →
| Route | Core cost index | Potential reduction | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative A | 98.3 | 1.7% | Modelled |
| Alternative B | 98.2 | 1.8% | Modelled |
| Alternative C | 98.3 | 1.7% | Modelled |
| Alternative D | 97.9 | 2.1% | Modelled |
| Alternative E | 97.7 | 2.3% | Modelled |
Alternative structures were re-costed against the same core baseline. They are not combined with the achieved incumbent result, because implementation evidence for a provider change is not part of the concluded record.
7 · A potential recovery, left unquantified
The contract review found a mismatch between the interest basis stated in the underlying arrangement and the average rate reflected in the analysed charges.
It was isolated as a potential refund or reconciliation matter. The supplied evidence does not contain the final credit or recovery outcome, so no recovery percentage is added to the concluded result — the item is reported, not counted.