(617) 574-0741

January Index Tech Tips Local News National News Biz Tips

Hood Underside 2nd color in Audatex

On some vehicles the underside of the hood or the inside of other parts may be a different color than the outside. It may be a greenish or grayish color and possible some other color that is not the same as the outside color. So when replacing a hood there will be time needed to mix and refinish the outside and also time needed to mix another time and refinish the inside because it is a different color. So is the mixing of the second color for the inside an included operation with the exterior refinish in Audatex?

NO it is not.

The DEG has submitted in inquiry to Audatex asking this question and the response from Audatex was additional time should be added for the mix of the second color. The system is not automated which means within the estimating system we can click for the option to mix an additional color so we must create a manual line for this operation. Below is the inquiry and also the response from Audatex.

DEG Inquiry 3913

Issue Summary-Hoods underside is a 2nd color (greyish) with c/c. Is the underside time the same as 1 color? If so how is the second mix of paint calculated in the labor since not all applications require a second mix?

Response from Audatex

We have reviewed your inquiry, if you are replacing the hood and select two-stage interior the estimate writer needs to add a manual entry for the second color setup. This is covered in the reference manual (see attachment), if the hood underside is being only repaired the writer only needs to select the hood underside from the parts choice box and two-stage interior.The above example would be for replacement of a hood and as the resolution states if you are repairing the hood then you can select the hood underside from the parts choice. This inquiry can be found on our website by visiting www.degweb.org and typing the inquiry number (3913) in the search box located on the right side of the website. While there you can also submit an inquiry if you have any questions or issues in regards to your estimating system or browse our extensive database of submitted inquires.

For more information go to the DEG website

Mitchell Seam Sealer

During the replacement of some OE parts it may be necessary to apply seam sealer to the edges of the panel. Toyota hoods and doors are 2 examples of parts that come from the OE with no seam sealer applied so during the repair process we must allocate time and materials to do this operation. In the Mitchell collision estimating guide or P-Pages it states the labor to apply the seam sealer “if necessary” is an included operation with the replacement of the panel. It states that the labor is included but not the materials so they would need to be charged on the estimate.Replacing the sealer can be a tedious job when done correctly. There have been DEG users submit inquiries stating their time study to replace the seam sealer could be up to 1 hour. The below inquiry is just one example of when the time is not sufficient to replace the seam sealer and also change out the hood. In this case Mitchell increased the time by .3 after a review of the replacement procedure.

IssueSummary:
Mitchell Includes replacement of factory seam sealer for all panels in their labor time. Time paid for replacement is 0.7

Suggested Action
Increase time to accurately reflect the necessary procedures and operations to put vehicle back to OEM specifications.

Resolution
Proposed Response Text:

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE LABOR ALLOWANCE TO R&R THE HOOD PANEL, AND THE DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED AS FOLLOWS:

R&R HOOD PANEL …… 1.0

While completing your estimating process if you come across a time that is low like the example above then please submit an inquiry to the DEG so we can work with the IP to get the labor changed to accurately reflect the proper time. You can submit an inquiry on our website at www.degweb.org.

For more information go to the DEG website

OE procedures vs. estimating systems on sectioning vehicles

What do you do when the OEM’s repair procedure on sectioning does not match what is in the estimating system?

Quarter Section N/A

During the repair process sometimes it is necessary to review the OE’s repair process for replacement of a panel. The OE outlines the proper way to replace or section a panel. An example would be a quarter panel, rocker or frame rail. Reviewing the OE process will be helpful in preparing your repair plan and allocating the correct time needed to repair the vehicle, but what if the OE’s repair process does not match what is in the estimating system. If the estimating system shows a sectioning time but the OE does not recommend or have a sectioning procedure what do we do? The correct process will always be to follow the OE’s repair process. Below I have given two examples of where the estimating system shows a sectioning time but the OE does not have a procedure to section the panel.

DEG Inquiry 3843 shows the estimating system has listed a sectioning time that stops at the sail panel but the OE panel and procedure is to section in the same area so there should not be any reduced labor. The resolution was to remove the sectioning time in the estimating system and a note that states “Time is for replacement as outlined by the OEM”

PartName//QUARTER PANEL

Part Number// 616123A231 & 6161130910

Issue Summary
REPLACEMENT PANEL FROM THE FACTORY STOPS AT SAIL PANEL, FULL REPLACEMENT TIME IS AT THE SAIL PANEL. SECTION TIME SHOULDN’T BE AVAILABLE, AS THERE IS NO REDUCION FROM INSTALLING THE FULL REPLACEMENT PANEL.

Suggested Action
FULL QTR REPLACEMENT OF 17 (RIGHT) & 17.5 (LEFT) ARE FINE, REMOVE SECTION OPTION FOR 2 HOURS LESS.

Resolution:
Estimated UM Release Date: 11/14/2011
Estimated DVD Release Date: 12-2011
MOTOR Publication Fix Date: 01-2012

Proposed Resolution: MOTOR stated:

After review, the following changes have been made:

1. Removed the sectioning operation that stated: “Section quarter panel, cut in sail panel” along with the footnote that stated: “LABOR: Time is for sectioning. See Guide To Estimating, special precautions.”2. The footnote applied to the Quarter Panel has been adjusted to state: “LABOR: Time is for replacement as outlined by the OEM.”DEG Inquiry 3367 was submitted because the estimating system listed a sectioning time for a quarter panel but there was not a sectioning time listed for the quarter panel by the OEM. The inquiry asked the information provider to remove the sectioning time form the database. The resolution was to remove the sectioning time from the database.

Part Number – 715032KC10

Issue Summary:
Our shop figured full quarter panel replacement at 16.8 hours. Insurance Co. independent appraiser wants us to use partial replacement per Audatex at 5.7 hours. This time is insufficient. We would need to make 3 sleeves instead of 2 over highly contoured areas. The new OEM replacement quarter is a section of the entire body side and has no natural seams.

Suggested Action:
The time savings to section the quarter per appraiser is minimal, maybe 1-2 hours at the most. Suggested action is to change sectioning quarter panel time from 5.7 hours to 15.3 hours. Then at least 1 hour should be added to make additional sleeve, weld sleeve, leveling with body filler, feather prime & block.

Resolution:
The Panel,Quarter (GN 0389,0390) has been obsoleted from the database due to invalid partial operations applied to the part and moved to guide numbers 0420,0421. The full panel replacement represent replacing in the quarter glass opening. The PANEL,QUARTER FRONT (GN 0649,0659) partial replacement operation has been removed from the database. The changes will appear on the July 2011 release.

Both of the inquiries above are examples of when the estimating systems need to be changed to reflect the actual repairs that need to be performed to the vehicle as outlined by the OEM. If you see any problems or issues in the estimating systems please feel free to contact the DEG so we can work with the information provider to reach a resolution and get the database to reflect the OEM procedure.

For more information go to the DEG website

When Things Don’t Add Up !!!!!!

The DEG received an inquiry from a shop that was asking if color sand and buff is an included operation within Audatex. The reason for the inquiry was because the shop had written for color sand and buff on an Insurance estimate but the adjuster said they would not pay and that color sand and buff is included within Audatex. After several unsuccessful tries to negotiate the shop asked for the adjuster to show where in Audatex it states the item is included. The adjuster sent over a document to the shop and the last line of the “included operations” for two stage was color sand and buff. The shop was confident that the document was not valid but the adjuster was adamant and refused to pay for color sand and buff.

Frustrated the shop turned to the DEG and submitted an inquiry asking if we could provide any documents that color sand and buff was not included. Along with the inquiry the shop submitted the document that was provided by the adjuster. We contacted Audatex and provided to them the document and asked if they could validate or deny the accuracy of the document. Below is the complete inquiry that shows the response from Audatex and as the shop suspected Audatex states the document did not come from Audatex and color sand and buff is NOT and included operation.

Inquiry Number 3959
Color Sand and Buff

IssueSummary:

“OUR DATABASE MANUAL SAYS FINAL SAND AND POLISH IS NOT INCLUDED IN TWO STAGE REFINISH,THE ADJUSTER PRINTED A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS IT IS WHO IS RIGHT?”

DEG Response

Due to the nature of this inquiry the DEG contacted Audatex via email and forwarded the document provided by the user. Below is the response from Audatex.

Response from Audatex

This most certainly is not a document from ADP/Audatex that I can find anywhere. I went back into DBRM\’s to 1993 looking for it. It is not from our current DBRM. I have attached the included/not included page from the current DBRM. You will note a disclaimer at the bottom of the page along with a version number none of which is contained on the document you supplied. This was done to insure being able to identify the current DBRM being used. All prior DBRM versions are invalid.

One can only speculate how the document was created but unfortunately this type of problems exists in our industry. The shop was confident that the document was not valid but without written information from the IP the shop could not collect on money that is due to them. Anytime that you question a procedure or information from an adjuster or insurance company you can submit an inquiry to the DEG and we will work with the IP to get the correct information. You can visit our website at www.degweb.org

For more information go to the DEG website