Keys to Crafting a Strong Fleet Telematics RFP

Developing a strong telematics request for proposal (RFP) is a critical and somewhat complex process that can present a host of potential challenges. To learn more about what it takes for utility fleet professionals to successfully navigate this task, UFP spoke with Beth Daiber, superintendent of field support and analysis for Ameren Illinois, and Steven Berube, vice president of sales at Geotab, who shared their perspectives on fundamental telematics RFP requirements, errors to watch out for, implementation best practices and more.

Goals and Requirements
Ideally, fleet professionals should begin the RFP drafting process by clearly outlining their telematics-related goals and requirements.

Specifying goals – “whether that’s improving driver safety, optimizing asset use, reducing fuel costs or meeting emissions regulations,” Berube said – helps fleet managers ensure the telematics solution they ultimately select will align with their needs.

Daiber said requirements should include a “description of hardware, hardware warranty, installation and quality control guidelines, monthly service fees, reporting capabilities, possible custom reporting, and the ability to integrate with other data platforms.”

Berube also highlighted near real-time asset visibility and customizable reporting, and he recommended that fleets ensure “the [telematics] platform supports various vehicle types, including trailers and off-road equipment.” Security, scalability and hardware flexibility should be considered as well.

Vital Feedback
To confirm that the priorities listed in the RFP match overall organizational priorities, fleet managers must seek feedback from senior operations and safety leaders, Daiber said. This will also aid fleets as they research and identify telematics vendors to meet their specific needs.

Berube advised utility fleet managers to select an “open, API-friendly platform,” enabling seamless telematics integration with existing systems – such as enterprise resource planning systems, geographic information systems, work order tools and fuel cards – to enhance cross-functional efficiency. Further, he emphasized seeking features beyond basic tracking: “Access to fault codes, engine health trends and vehicle usage patterns helps prevent costly downtime.”

Berube also said fleet professionals shouldn’t overlook other sophisticated telematics features, like mobile access for field teams, in-cab driver coaching, and customizable alerts for events including idling and harsh braking. Use of these tools can lead to safer employee driving, better resource management and improved responsiveness.

Mistakes to Avoid
It’s important to recognize the mistakes commonly made by fleet professionals when drafting telematics RFPs. Some have rushed through the process without piloting the hardware and platform – essential activities that should not be skipped, Daiber warned.

Berube pointed to the failure to define return-on-investment metrics and key performance indicators. Without these parameters in place, fleets may struggle to compare vendors or measure success. He added that some RFPs “also over-specify technical details without linking them to business outcomes.”

Fleet professionals will want to sidestep these errors as well: excluding key stakeholders (e.g., the IT department, safety managers, maintenance leads) from the process; neglecting to request vendor demonstrations or customer references; and overlooking data ownership and exportability terms, which could create headaches during future audits or when switching platforms.

Undefined Vendor Expectations
One final mistake that fleet professionals sometimes make is failing to clearly outline vendor expectations (e.g., timelines, training) in the telematics RFP. This can pose significant problems, as Daiber pointed out: “There are a number of risks involved … especially around installs.”

A poorly installed telematics system could lead to incorrect data, operational downtime and overspending. Unclear timelines may result in extended rollouts and missed operational targets, Berube explained. And insufficient or poorly tailored training could contribute to low user adoption and waste resources. Given these risks, utility fleet professionals must stipulate ongoing support requirements in the telematics RFP to prevent service delivery gaps.

Stakeholder Input
When collecting stakeholder input during the RFP development process, it is especially important to consider what fleet maintenance teams find valuable relative to their work, according to Daiber. “This includes availability and accuracy of maintenance codes/diagnostics, ease of use accessing asset location, as well as fleet’s ability to proactively manage nonreporting units.”

Similarly, Berube stated that “stakeholder input is essential for building a usable solution.” Shop employees can offer valuable insights into the practical aspects of vehicle maintenance and use. Fleet leaders can leverage discussions with safety officers and IT teams to better define organizational priorities regarding training, data security and compliance. Engaging stakeholders early in the process typically aids in the development of a more robust and precise RFP while also fostering a sense of employee ownership, helping to smooth the eventual transition to the new telematics system.

Evaluating Proposals
When evaluating vendor proposals, Daiber said the most practical approach is to assess each telematics system through a product pilot.

Berube advised fleet managers to evaluate proposals based on strategic fit and adaptability to future challenges. The vendor’s product roadmap and commitment to innovation must be reviewed, especially given emerging trends in electrification and artificial intelligence. “Consider the total cost of ownership,” he said.

About the Author: Grace Suizo has been covering the automotive fleet industry since 2007. She spent six years as an editor for five fleet publications and has written more than 100 articles geared toward both commercial and public sector fleets.