News
A top state official blasted Lockheed Martin Corp. yesterday for the “outrageous” failure of a call center during last week’s Great Appliance Exchange - when only 133 calls were handled despite more than 900,000 calls made to the center.
While the Web site MassSave.com initially crashed due to heavy traffic, the 39,173 reservations for rebates eventually made online were a huge success compared to the 133 reservations made using the Lockheed call center.
Phil Giudice, commissioner of the state’s Department of Energy Resources, said the rate of unsuccessful calls at the center was “outrageous.”
“We demand an explanation from Lockheed Martin and a full accounting of what happened here,” Giudice said in a statement.
Lockheed received $454,000 to manage the call center for the Massachusetts program and to create a reservation tool on the program’s Web site, according to the state’s energy department.
Lockheed spokeswoman Emily Simone said yesterday that MassSave was “originally conceived as an online program.”
In a statement, she did not comment on Giudice’s criticism of the call center and instead credited Lockheed with shifting online traffic to an alternate Web site when the first one crashed.
In all, the Bay State spent more than $800,000 to distribute $5.4 million in federal stimulus rebates for the appliance exchange program - rebates that were gobbled up in less than two hours. The program offered rebates to state residents who traded their old freezers, washers, refrigerators and dishwashers for new energy-efficient appliances.
“There shouldn’t be that much overhead for a program that was exhausted so quickly,” said Steve Ellis, vice president for programs for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington.
Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said spending the $800,000 might have been necessary. “But it is unfortunate that it was so costly for such a limited program,” he said.
Robert Keough, a spokesman for the state Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, defended the amount, saying federal guidelines recommend administrative costs fall between 10 percent and 25 percent of the total amount awarded the state.
Massachusetts’ administrative costs for running the exchange, at about 13 percent, were significantly higher than those for running a similar program in New Hampshire but comparable to the costs in other New England states.
New Hampshire’s overhead costs were 5 percent of the nearly $1.2 million in stimulus money it received for an appliance exchange program, according to the director of the state’s Office of Energy and Planning.
Rhode Island’s overhead costs were 8 percent of its $3.4 million total; Connecticut’s costs were about 10 percent of its total; and Maine’s costs were about 15 percent of its total, according to officials from the respective states.
While the Web site MassSave.com initially crashed due to heavy traffic, the 39,173 reservations for rebates eventually made online were a huge success compared to the 133 reservations made using the Lockheed call center.
Phil Giudice, commissioner of the state’s Department of Energy Resources, said the rate of unsuccessful calls at the center was “outrageous.”
“We demand an explanation from Lockheed Martin and a full accounting of what happened here,” Giudice said in a statement.
Lockheed received $454,000 to manage the call center for the Massachusetts program and to create a reservation tool on the program’s Web site, according to the state’s energy department.
Lockheed spokeswoman Emily Simone said yesterday that MassSave was “originally conceived as an online program.”
In a statement, she did not comment on Giudice’s criticism of the call center and instead credited Lockheed with shifting online traffic to an alternate Web site when the first one crashed.
In all, the Bay State spent more than $800,000 to distribute $5.4 million in federal stimulus rebates for the appliance exchange program - rebates that were gobbled up in less than two hours. The program offered rebates to state residents who traded their old freezers, washers, refrigerators and dishwashers for new energy-efficient appliances.
“There shouldn’t be that much overhead for a program that was exhausted so quickly,” said Steve Ellis, vice president for programs for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington.
Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said spending the $800,000 might have been necessary. “But it is unfortunate that it was so costly for such a limited program,” he said.
Robert Keough, a spokesman for the state Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, defended the amount, saying federal guidelines recommend administrative costs fall between 10 percent and 25 percent of the total amount awarded the state.
Massachusetts’ administrative costs for running the exchange, at about 13 percent, were significantly higher than those for running a similar program in New Hampshire but comparable to the costs in other New England states.
New Hampshire’s overhead costs were 5 percent of the nearly $1.2 million in stimulus money it received for an appliance exchange program, according to the director of the state’s Office of Energy and Planning.
Rhode Island’s overhead costs were 8 percent of its $3.4 million total; Connecticut’s costs were about 10 percent of its total; and Maine’s costs were about 15 percent of its total, according to officials from the respective states.
