Fleet Cost & Mobility Optimisation · Technical White Paper
Fleet Cost & Mobility Optimisation
A technical method for treating rental, fuel, card charges, interest, telematics and infringement administration as one fleet-cost architecture — and for reporting a modest result honestly.
Weighted result principle
The concluded core cost index moved from 100.0 to 98.6. The resulting 1.4% is the weighted result across the defined cost base. It is not an average of the individual percentage reductions, and it cannot be reconstructed by averaging them.
5 · Fuel-grade optimisation
Five controls on a single substitution
Scroll table sideways →
| Test | Control |
|---|---|
| Geographic eligibility | Only inland locations included in the grade-switch model. |
| Existing compliant spend | 93-octane purchases retained, generating no saving. |
| Price basis | Historical per-litre differential applied transaction by transaction. |
| Volume basis | Actual litres retained; no assumed reduction in travel demand. |
| Result boundary | No vehicle downsizing or route reduction included in the fuel result. |
The analysis did not assume all higher-octane purchases were avoidable. The 1.3% result is modest at portfolio level and technically robust, because it rests on actual transaction volumes rather than a generic fuel-efficiency assumption.
6 · Card and rental repricing
Why a low monthly fee is not a low total cost
The recurring charge review separated card administration, transaction charges, interest and vehicle rentals. Different providers price the same fleet-card service through different combinations of monthly card fees, transaction charges, interest and once-off implementation fees. A low headline monthly fee does not produce the lowest total cost if transaction or financing charges sit higher.
The incumbent negotiation produced a 37.1% reduction in card administration and 0.9% on the rental line — 1.5% across the combined block. The rental percentage is small and was the most valuable movement in the engagement, because rental is the dominant share of the base.
9 · Fleet structure
The question a cost-only review misses
Whether the fleet is correctly configured at all. The register showed two principal vehicle classes across seven locations, with monthly mileage varying by vehicle and region — which let the market quotation pack specify actual class and utilisation rather than seeking a generic fleet quote.
- Vehicle-class comparison should consider passenger and cargo requirement, transmission specification, safety requirements and route conditions before any downsizing.
- Mileage data identifies persistently low-utilisation vehicles, excessive travel or location imbalance — but the source evidence must support any disposal or redeployment decision.
- Written-off and accident-replacement vehicles should be isolated, so exceptional events do not distort fleet-sizing conclusions.
- A replacement or lease-renewal decision should compare total cost of use, not rental alone.
10 · Telematics
The value is in the exceptions, not the data
Telematics changes fleet management from retrospective invoice review to operational exception management. Depending on the configured service, useful outputs include location, trip history, odometer support, route patterns, unauthorised use, harsh-event or speed exceptions and service-planning data.
The value does not come from collecting more data. It comes from defining which exceptions require action, who receives them, how responses are recorded, and how the data links back to fuel, maintenance, insurance and utilisation decisions.
Information governance
Where telematics data can be linked to an identifiable driver, it becomes part of the organisation's personal-information environment. Access rights, purpose specification, retention, operator arrangements and driver communication therefore form part of the control design — not a separate compliance exercise afterwards.
12 · Insurance interface
Why these three cannot be managed independently
The insurance evidence confirms a fleet-policy structure with tracking and security conditions for higher-value vehicles. Removing a tracking service to save a small monthly fee can be commercially negative if it creates an excess, a coverage issue or theft exposure.
- Check vehicle-value and security requirements whenever vehicles are added or replaced.
- Reconcile tracking installation to insurer requirements and vehicle records.
- Keep accident replacement, write-off settlements, tyre and licence charges identifiable as exceptional cost classes.
- Feed claims history back into vehicle selection, driver controls and renewal strategy where the data allows.
14 · Regulatory context
What the commercial review has to preserve
Scroll table sideways →
| Framework | Relevance to fleet management |
|---|---|
| National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 | Vehicle, driver and road-traffic compliance remains the baseline operating framework. |
| Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act 46 of 1998, and its 2026 commencement instruments | Supports the need for a controlled infringement-management process and a current review of fine administration. |
| Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 | Relevant wherever telematics, vehicle allocation or driver records process identifiable personal information. |
| Insurance policy conditions | Tracking, driver and claims conditions can materially change the commercial value of a proposed fleet change. |
15 · Limitations
What the published result deliberately excludes
- The internally consistent 15-vehicle estate is the core result population. Broader account comparisons are not merged into the headline.
- The core saving excludes exceptional write-off and replacement costs, tolls, and anything else the concluded intervention did not change.
- Fuel savings are transaction-based and limited to the eligible grade substitution in the source model. No speculative efficiency improvement is added.
- Alternative provider results are market-tested scenarios, not implemented savings.
- The interest item is a potential recovery matter and is not treated as cash recovered.
- Telematics and fine-management benefits are described as control outcomes unless a quantified financial result is independently evidenced.