|
Delaware
|
95-1068610
|
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
|
Common
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
(Title of each class)
|
(Name of each exchange on which registered)
|
|
Large accelerated filer
x
|
Accelerated filer
o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer
o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Smaller reporting company
o
|
|
|
Emerging growth company
o
|
|
•
|
property tax processing, based on the number of loans under service;
|
•
|
flood zone determinations, based on the number of flood zone certification reports issued;
|
•
|
credit and income verification services to the U.S. mortgage lending industry, based on the number of credit reports issued;
|
•
|
property valuation and technology platform solutions, based on the number of in-house staff appraisers and inquiries received; and
|
•
|
multiple listing services ("MLS"), based on the number of active desktops using our technology.
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
% of Total Operating Revenue
|
|
2016
|
|
% of Total Operating Revenue
|
|
2015
|
|
% of Total Operating Revenue
|
|||||||||
PIRM
|
$
|
703,032
|
|
|
37.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
706,496
|
|
|
36.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
712,335
|
|
|
46.6
|
%
|
UWS
|
1,157,432
|
|
|
62.5
|
|
|
1,256,841
|
|
|
64.4
|
|
|
825,339
|
|
|
54.0
|
|
|||
Corporate and Eliminations
|
(9,347
|
)
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
(10,780
|
)
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
(9,564
|
)
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|||
Operating revenue
|
$
|
1,851,117
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,528,110
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
•
|
Our tenant screening business is subject to certain landlord-tenant laws and insurance agency laws;
|
•
|
Our loan document business must monitor state laws applicable to our clients relating to loan documents and fee limitations as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requirements to develop and maintain compliant loan documents and other instruments; and
|
•
|
Our activities in foreign jurisdictions are subject to the requirements of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and comparable foreign laws.
|
•
|
be expensive and time-consuming to defend;
|
•
|
cause us to cease making, licensing or using applications that incorporate the challenged intellectual property;
|
•
|
require us to redesign our applications, if feasible;
|
•
|
divert management's attention and resources; and
|
•
|
require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements in order to obtain the right to use necessary technologies.
|
•
|
create, incur or assume additional debt;
|
•
|
create, incur or assume certain liens;
|
•
|
redeem and/or prepay certain subordinated debt we might issue in the future;
|
•
|
pay dividends on our stock or repurchase stock;
|
•
|
make certain investments and acquisitions, including joint ventures;
|
•
|
enter into or permit to exist contractual limits on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us;
|
•
|
enter into new lines of business;
|
•
|
engage in consolidations, mergers and acquisitions;
|
•
|
engage in specified sales of assets; and
|
•
|
enter into transactions with affiliates.
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||||||||
|
High
|
Low
|
|
High
|
Low
|
||||||||
Quarter ended March 31,
|
$
|
40.94
|
|
$
|
34.59
|
|
|
$
|
36.79
|
|
$
|
30.73
|
|
Quarter ended June 30,
|
$
|
43.95
|
|
$
|
38.49
|
|
|
$
|
39.09
|
|
$
|
33.41
|
|
Quarter ended September 30,
|
$
|
48.02
|
|
$
|
42.32
|
|
|
$
|
43.43
|
|
$
|
38.00
|
|
Quarter ended December 31,
|
$
|
49.30
|
|
$
|
42.00
|
|
|
$
|
42.77
|
|
$
|
35.60
|
|
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Period
|
Total Number of Shares Purchased
|
|
Average Price Paid per Share (1)
|
|
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs
|
|
Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
|
||||||
October 1 to October 31, 2017
|
210,285
|
|
|
$
|
47.01
|
|
|
210,285
|
|
|
$
|
275,613,018
|
|
November 1 to November 30, 2017
|
919,715
|
|
|
$
|
45.91
|
|
|
919,715
|
|
|
$
|
233,392,416
|
|
December 1 to December 31, 2017
|
507,800
|
|
|
$
|
45.00
|
|
|
507,800
|
|
|
$
|
210,541,041
|
|
Total
|
1,637,800
|
|
|
$
|
45.77
|
|
|
1,637,800
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Calculated inclusive of commissions.
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
For the Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
Income Statement Data:
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
$
|
1,851,117
|
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
|
$
|
1,528,110
|
|
|
$
|
1,405,040
|
|
|
$
|
1,404,401
|
|
Operating income
|
$
|
238,618
|
|
|
$
|
277,940
|
|
|
$
|
203,449
|
|
|
$
|
170,517
|
|
|
$
|
143,557
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
$
|
(1,186
|
)
|
|
$
|
496
|
|
|
$
|
13,720
|
|
|
$
|
14,120
|
|
|
$
|
27,361
|
|
Amounts attributable to CoreLogic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Income from continuing operations, net of tax
|
$
|
149,534
|
|
|
$
|
109,946
|
|
|
$
|
128,400
|
|
|
$
|
89,741
|
|
|
$
|
100,313
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,315
|
|
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|
(16,653
|
)
|
|
14,423
|
|
|||||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
(7,008
|
)
|
|||||
Net income
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
127,844
|
|
|
$
|
73,200
|
|
|
$
|
107,728
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Assets of discontinued operations
|
$
|
383
|
|
|
$
|
662
|
|
|
$
|
681
|
|
|
$
|
4,267
|
|
|
$
|
38,926
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
4,077,413
|
|
|
$
|
3,907,534
|
|
|
$
|
3,673,716
|
|
|
$
|
3,487,295
|
|
|
$
|
2,981,316
|
|
Long-term debt
|
$
|
1,753,570
|
|
|
$
|
1,602,047
|
|
|
$
|
1,336,674
|
|
|
$
|
1,301,495
|
|
|
$
|
818,114
|
|
Total equity
|
$
|
1,007,876
|
|
|
$
|
1,002,984
|
|
|
$
|
1,049,490
|
|
|
$
|
1,014,167
|
|
|
$
|
1,044,373
|
|
Amounts attributable to CoreLogic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Basic income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Income from continuing operations, net of tax
|
$
|
1.79
|
|
|
$
|
1.26
|
|
|
$
|
1.44
|
|
|
$
|
0.99
|
|
|
$
|
1.05
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
0.15
|
|
|||||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|||||
Net income
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
$
|
1.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.81
|
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
Diluted income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Income from continuing operations, net of tax
|
$
|
1.75
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
$
|
1.42
|
|
|
$
|
0.97
|
|
|
$
|
1.03
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
0.15
|
|
|||||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|||||
Net income
|
$
|
1.78
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Basic
|
83,499
|
|
|
87,502
|
|
|
89,070
|
|
|
90,825
|
|
|
95,088
|
|
|||||
Diluted
|
85,234
|
|
|
89,122
|
|
|
90,564
|
|
|
92,429
|
|
|
97,109
|
|
•
|
compromises in the security or stability of our data and systems, including from cyber-based attacks, the unauthorized transmission of confidential information or systems interruptions;
|
•
|
limitations on access to or increase in prices for data from external sources, including government and public record sources;
|
•
|
changes in applicable government legislation, regulations and the level of regulatory scrutiny affecting our clients or us, including with respect to consumer financial services and the use of public records and consumer data;
|
•
|
our ability to protect proprietary technology rights;
|
•
|
difficult or uncertain conditions in the mortgage and consumer lending industries and the economy generally;
|
•
|
our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of certain acquisitions and the timing thereof;
|
•
|
intense competition in the market against third parties and the in-house capabilities of our clients;
|
•
|
risks related to the outsourcing of services and international operations;
|
•
|
the level of our indebtedness, our ability to service our indebtedness and the restrictions in our various debt agreements;
|
•
|
our ability to attract and retain qualified management;
|
•
|
impairments in our goodwill or other intangible assets;
|
•
|
our cost reduction program and growth strategies, and our ability to effectively and efficiently implement them; and
|
•
|
the remaining tax sharing arrangements and other obligations associated with the spin-off of FAFC.
|
(in thousands, except percentages)
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|||||||
PIRM
|
|
$
|
703,032
|
|
|
$
|
706,496
|
|
|
$
|
(3,464
|
)
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
UWS
|
|
1,157,432
|
|
|
1,256,841
|
|
|
(99,409
|
)
|
|
(7.9
|
)
|
|||
Corporate and eliminations
|
|
(9,347
|
)
|
|
(10,780
|
)
|
|
1,433
|
|
|
(13.3
|
)
|
|||
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,851,117
|
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
|
$
|
(101,440
|
)
|
|
(5.2
|
)%
|
(in thousands, except percentages)
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|||||||
PIRM
|
|
$
|
89,129
|
|
|
$
|
101,700
|
|
|
$
|
(12,571
|
)
|
|
(12.4
|
)%
|
UWS
|
|
233,366
|
|
|
255,583
|
|
|
(22,217
|
)
|
|
(8.7
|
)
|
|||
Corporate and eliminations
|
|
(83,877
|
)
|
|
(79,343
|
)
|
|
(4,534
|
)
|
|
5.7
|
|
|||
Operating income
|
|
$
|
238,618
|
|
|
$
|
277,940
|
|
|
$
|
(39,322
|
)
|
|
(14.1
|
)%
|
(in thousands, except percentages)
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|||||||
PIRM
|
|
$
|
706,496
|
|
|
$
|
712,335
|
|
|
$
|
(5,839
|
)
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
UWS
|
|
1,256,841
|
|
|
825,339
|
|
|
431,502
|
|
|
52.3
|
|
|||
Corporate and eliminations
|
|
(10,780
|
)
|
|
(9,564
|
)
|
|
(1,216
|
)
|
|
12.7
|
|
|||
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
|
$
|
1,528,110
|
|
|
$
|
424,447
|
|
|
27.8
|
%
|
(in thousands, except percentages)
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|||||||
PIRM
|
|
$
|
101,700
|
|
|
$
|
96,707
|
|
|
$
|
4,993
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
UWS
|
|
255,583
|
|
|
192,367
|
|
|
63,216
|
|
|
32.9
|
|
|||
Corporate and eliminations
|
|
(79,343
|
)
|
|
(85,625
|
)
|
|
6,282
|
|
|
(7.3
|
)
|
|||
Operating income
|
|
$
|
277,940
|
|
|
$
|
203,449
|
|
|
$
|
74,491
|
|
|
36.6
|
%
|
(in thousands)
|
Less than 1 Year
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
More than 5 Years
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||
Operating leases
|
$
|
27,860
|
|
|
$
|
49,408
|
|
|
$
|
27,105
|
|
|
$
|
62,175
|
|
|
$
|
166,548
|
|
Long-term debt
|
70,046
|
|
|
297,357
|
|
|
1,395,259
|
|
|
14,645
|
|
|
1,777,307
|
|
|||||
Interest payments related to debt (1)
|
61,775
|
|
|
114,854
|
|
|
78,546
|
|
|
6,081
|
|
|
261,256
|
|
|||||
Total (2)
|
$
|
159,681
|
|
|
$
|
461,619
|
|
|
$
|
1,500,910
|
|
|
$
|
82,901
|
|
|
$
|
2,205,111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Estimated interest payments, net of the effect of our Swaps, are calculated assuming current interest rates over minimum maturity periods specified in debt agreements.
|
(2)
|
Excludes a net liability of
$12.0 million
related to uncertain tax positions including associated interest and penalties, and deferred compensation of
$35.3 million
due to uncertainty of payment period.
|
|
Page No.
|
Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
Financial Statement Schedule:
|
|
(in thousands, except par value)
|
|
|
|
||||
Assets
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
118,804
|
|
|
$
|
72,031
|
|
Accounts receivable (less allowances of $8,229 and $8,857 in 2017 and 2016, respectively)
|
256,595
|
|
|
269,229
|
|
||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
46,837
|
|
|
43,060
|
|
||
Income tax receivable
|
7,649
|
|
|
6,905
|
|
||
Assets of discontinued operations
|
383
|
|
|
662
|
|
||
Total current assets
|
430,268
|
|
|
391,887
|
|
||
Property and equipment, net
|
447,659
|
|
|
449,199
|
|
||
Goodwill, net
|
2,250,599
|
|
|
2,107,255
|
|
||
Other intangible assets, net
|
475,613
|
|
|
478,913
|
|
||
Capitalized data and database costs, net
|
329,403
|
|
|
327,921
|
|
||
Investment in affiliates, net
|
38,989
|
|
|
40,809
|
|
||
Deferred income tax assets, long-term
|
366
|
|
|
1,516
|
|
||
Restricted cash
|
7,565
|
|
|
17,943
|
|
||
Other assets
|
96,951
|
|
|
92,091
|
|
||
Total assets
|
$
|
4,077,413
|
|
|
$
|
3,907,534
|
|
Liabilities and Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
$
|
143,849
|
|
|
$
|
168,284
|
|
Accrued salaries and benefits
|
93,717
|
|
|
107,234
|
|
||
Deferred revenue, current
|
303,948
|
|
|
284,622
|
|
||
Current portion of long-term debt
|
70,046
|
|
|
105,158
|
|
||
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
1,806
|
|
|
3,123
|
|
||
Total current liabilities
|
613,366
|
|
|
668,421
|
|
||
Long-term debt, net of current
|
1,683,524
|
|
|
1,496,889
|
|
||
Deferred revenue, net of current
|
504,900
|
|
|
487,134
|
|
||
Deferred income tax liabilities, long-term
|
102,571
|
|
|
120,063
|
|
||
Other liabilities
|
165,176
|
|
|
132,043
|
|
||
Total liabilities
|
3,069,537
|
|
|
2,904,550
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
CoreLogic, Inc.'s ("CoreLogic") stockholders' equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Preferred stock, $0.00001 par value; 500 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||
Common stock, $0.00001 par value; 180,000 shares authorized; 80,885 and 84,368 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
||
Additional paid-in capital
|
224,455
|
|
|
400,452
|
|
||
Retained earnings
|
877,111
|
|
|
724,949
|
|
||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
(93,691
|
)
|
|
(122,418
|
)
|
||
Total CoreLogic stockholders' equity
|
1,007,876
|
|
|
1,002,984
|
|
||
Total liabilities and equity
|
$
|
4,077,413
|
|
|
$
|
3,907,534
|
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Operating revenue
|
$
|
1,851,117
|
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
|
$
|
1,528,110
|
|
Cost of services (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
974,851
|
|
|
1,043,937
|
|
|
776,509
|
|
|||
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
459,842
|
|
|
458,102
|
|
|
397,775
|
|
|||
Depreciation and amortization
|
177,806
|
|
|
172,578
|
|
|
150,377
|
|
|||
Total operating expenses
|
1,612,499
|
|
|
1,674,617
|
|
|
1,324,661
|
|
|||
Operating income
|
238,618
|
|
|
277,940
|
|
|
203,449
|
|
|||
Interest expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Interest income
|
1,532
|
|
|
3,052
|
|
|
4,021
|
|
|||
Interest expense
|
63,356
|
|
|
63,392
|
|
|
66,486
|
|
|||
Total interest expense, net
|
(61,824
|
)
|
|
(60,340
|
)
|
|
(62,465
|
)
|
|||
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
|
(1,775
|
)
|
|
(26,624
|
)
|
|
(1,589
|
)
|
|||
Tax indemnification release
|
—
|
|
|
(23,350
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Impairment loss on investment in affiliates
|
(3,811
|
)
|
|
(23,431
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
(Loss)/gain on investments and other, net
|
(2,316
|
)
|
|
19,779
|
|
|
33,831
|
|
|||
Income from continuing operations before equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates and income taxes
|
168,892
|
|
|
163,974
|
|
|
173,226
|
|
|||
Provision for income taxes
|
18,172
|
|
|
54,524
|
|
|
57,394
|
|
|||
Income from continuing operations before equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates
|
150,720
|
|
|
109,450
|
|
|
115,832
|
|
|||
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
(1,186
|
)
|
|
496
|
|
|
13,720
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
149,534
|
|
|
109,946
|
|
|
129,552
|
|
|||
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,315
|
|
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income
|
152,162
|
|
|
106,550
|
|
|
128,996
|
|
|||
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,152
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
127,844
|
|
Amounts attributable to CoreLogic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
149,534
|
|
|
$
|
109,946
|
|
|
$
|
128,400
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,315
|
|
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
127,844
|
|
Basic income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
1.79
|
|
|
$
|
1.26
|
|
|
$
|
1.44
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
$
|
1.43
|
|
Diluted income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
1.75
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
$
|
1.42
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
1.78
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Basic
|
83,499
|
|
|
87,502
|
|
|
89,070
|
|
|||
Diluted
|
85,234
|
|
|
89,122
|
|
|
90,564
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Net income
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
128,996
|
|
Other comprehensive income/(loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Market value adjustments to marketable securities, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(550
|
)
|
|
275
|
|
|||
Market value adjustments on interest rate swaps, net of tax
|
5,481
|
|
|
4,618
|
|
|
(364
|
)
|
|||
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
22,440
|
|
|
(3,642
|
)
|
|
(36,968
|
)
|
|||
Supplemental benefit plans adjustments, net of tax
|
806
|
|
|
(2,728
|
)
|
|
727
|
|
|||
Total other comprehensive income/(loss)
|
28,727
|
|
|
(2,302
|
)
|
|
(36,330
|
)
|
|||
Comprehensive income
|
180,889
|
|
|
104,248
|
|
|
92,666
|
|
|||
Less: Comprehensive income attributable to the noncontrolling interests
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,152
|
|
|||
Comprehensive income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
180,889
|
|
|
$
|
104,248
|
|
|
$
|
91,514
|
|
(in thousands)
|
Common Stock Shares
|
|
Common Stock Amount
|
|
Additional Paid-in Capital
|
|
Retained Earnings
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
|
|
Total
|
|||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2015
|
89,343
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
605,511
|
|
|
$
|
492,441
|
|
|
$
|
(83,786
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,014,167
|
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
127,844
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
127,844
|
|
|||||
Shares repurchased and retired
|
(2,528
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(97,430
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(97,430
|
)
|
|||||
Shares issued in connection with share-based compensation
|
1,413
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
22,569
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
22,569
|
|
|||||
Tax withholdings related to net share settlements
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(15,230
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(15,230
|
)
|
|||||
Share-based compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
35,786
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
35,786
|
|
|||||
Adjust redeemable noncontrolling interests to redemption value
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,886
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,886
|
)
|
|||||
Other comprehensive loss
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(36,330
|
)
|
|
(36,330
|
)
|
|||||
Balance at December 31, 2015
|
88,228
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
551,206
|
|
|
$
|
618,399
|
|
|
$
|
(120,116
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,049,490
|
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
106,550
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
106,550
|
|
|||||
Shares repurchased and retired
|
(5,000
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(195,003
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(195,003
|
)
|
|||||
Shares issued in connection with share-based compensation
|
1,140
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
14,907
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
14,907
|
|
|||||
Tax withholdings related to net share settlements
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(10,507
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(10,507
|
)
|
|||||
Share-based compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
39,849
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
39,849
|
|
|||||
Other comprehensive loss
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(2,302
|
)
|
|
(2,302
|
)
|
|||||
Balance at December 31, 2016
|
84,368
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
400,452
|
|
|
$
|
724,949
|
|
|
$
|
(122,418
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,002,984
|
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
152,162
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
152,162
|
|
|||||
Shares repurchased and retired
|
(4,638
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(207,416
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(207,416
|
)
|
|||||
Shares issued in connection with share-based compensation
|
1,155
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
9,595
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
9,595
|
|
|||||
Tax withholdings related to net share settlements
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(14,043
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(14,043
|
)
|
|||||
Share-based compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
35,867
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
35,867
|
|
|||||
Other comprehensive income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
28,727
|
|
|
28,727
|
|
|||||
Balance at December 31, 2017
|
80,885
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
224,455
|
|
|
$
|
877,111
|
|
|
$
|
(93,691
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,007,876
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Net income
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
128,996
|
|
Less: Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,315
|
|
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|||
Less: Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
149,534
|
|
|
109,946
|
|
|
129,552
|
|
|||
Adjustments to reconcile net income from continuing operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Depreciation and amortization
|
177,806
|
|
|
172,578
|
|
|
150,377
|
|
|||
Amortization of debt issuance costs
|
5,650
|
|
|
5,785
|
|
|
6,259
|
|
|||
Provision for bad debts and claim losses
|
16,725
|
|
|
18,869
|
|
|
8,260
|
|
|||
Share-based compensation
|
35,867
|
|
|
39,849
|
|
|
35,786
|
|
|||
Tax benefit related to stock options
|
—
|
|
|
(2,315
|
)
|
|
(6,513
|
)
|
|||
Equity in losses/(earnings) of investee, net of taxes
|
1,186
|
|
|
(496
|
)
|
|
(13,720
|
)
|
|||
(Gain)/loss on sale of property and equipment
|
(246
|
)
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
24
|
|
|||
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
|
1,775
|
|
|
26,624
|
|
|
1,589
|
|
|||
Deferred income tax
|
(40,769
|
)
|
|
18,213
|
|
|
35,110
|
|
|||
Impairment loss on investment in affiliates
|
3,811
|
|
|
23,431
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Tax indemnification release
|
—
|
|
|
23,350
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Loss/(gain) on investments and other, net
|
2,316
|
|
|
(19,779
|
)
|
|
(33,831
|
)
|
|||
Change in operating assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Accounts receivable
|
15,522
|
|
|
(24,391
|
)
|
|
(15,400
|
)
|
|||
Prepaid expenses and other assets
|
4,942
|
|
|
2,823
|
|
|
7,104
|
|
|||
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
(44,629
|
)
|
|
(29,267
|
)
|
|
(45,289
|
)
|
|||
Deferred revenue
|
36,577
|
|
|
53,682
|
|
|
68,410
|
|
|||
Income taxes
|
(43
|
)
|
|
28,740
|
|
|
(32,771
|
)
|
|||
Dividends received from investments in affiliates
|
1,198
|
|
|
9,044
|
|
|
30,084
|
|
|||
Other assets and other liabilities
|
12,708
|
|
|
(42,652
|
)
|
|
11,118
|
|
|||
Net cash provided by operating activities - continuing operations
|
379,930
|
|
|
414,003
|
|
|
336,149
|
|
|||
Net cash provided by/(used in) operating activities - discontinued operations
|
3,655
|
|
|
(444
|
)
|
|
(7,612
|
)
|
|||
Total cash provided by operating activities
|
$
|
383,585
|
|
|
$
|
413,559
|
|
|
$
|
328,537
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Purchases of subsidiary shares from and other decreases in noncontrolling interests
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(18,023
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Purchases of property and equipment
|
(40,508
|
)
|
|
(45,211
|
)
|
|
(44,149
|
)
|
|||
Purchases of capitalized data and other intangible assets
|
(34,990
|
)
|
|
(35,507
|
)
|
|
(36,409
|
)
|
|||
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
(189,923
|
)
|
|
(396,941
|
)
|
|
(194,491
|
)
|
|||
Purchases of investments
|
(5,900
|
)
|
|
(3,366
|
)
|
|
(3,748
|
)
|
|||
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities
|
—
|
|
|
21,819
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
335
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
137
|
|
|||
Proceeds from sale of investments
|
1,000
|
|
|
2,451
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Change in restricted cash
|
7,947
|
|
|
(7,017
|
)
|
|
1,434
|
|
|||
Net cash used in investing activities - continuing operations
|
(262,039
|
)
|
|
(481,764
|
)
|
|
(277,226
|
)
|
|||
Net cash provided by investing activities - discontinued operations
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total cash used in investing activities
|
$
|
(262,039
|
)
|
|
$
|
(481,764
|
)
|
|
$
|
(277,226
|
)
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
$
|
1,995,000
|
|
|
$
|
962,000
|
|
|
$
|
114,375
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
(14,294
|
)
|
|
(6,314
|
)
|
|
(6,452
|
)
|
|||
Debt extinguishment premium
|
—
|
|
|
(16,271
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Repayments of long-term debt
|
(1,842,290
|
)
|
|
(709,983
|
)
|
|
(82,891
|
)
|
|||
Shares repurchased and retired
|
(207,416
|
)
|
|
(195,003
|
)
|
|
(97,430
|
)
|
|||
Proceeds from issuance of shares in connection with share-based compensation
|
9,595
|
|
|
14,907
|
|
|
22,569
|
|
|||
Minimum tax withholdings related to net share settlements
|
(14,043
|
)
|
|
(10,507
|
)
|
|
(15,230
|
)
|
|||
Tax benefit related to stock options
|
—
|
|
|
2,315
|
|
|
6,513
|
|
|||
Net cash (used in)/provided by financing activities - continuing operations
|
(73,448
|
)
|
|
41,144
|
|
|
(58,546
|
)
|
|||
Net cash used in financing activities - discontinued operations
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Total cash (used in)/provided by financing activities
|
$
|
(73,448
|
)
|
|
$
|
41,144
|
|
|
$
|
(58,546
|
)
|
Effect of exchange rate on cash
|
(1,325
|
)
|
|
2
|
|
|
2,182
|
|
|||
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
46,773
|
|
|
$
|
(27,059
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5,053
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
72,031
|
|
|
99,090
|
|
|
104,677
|
|
|||
Less: Change in cash and cash equivalents of discontinued operations
|
3,655
|
|
|
(444
|
)
|
|
(7,612
|
)
|
|||
Plus: Cash swept from/(to) discontinued operations
|
3,655
|
|
|
(444
|
)
|
|
(8,146
|
)
|
|||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
$
|
118,804
|
|
|
$
|
72,031
|
|
|
$
|
99,090
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Cash paid for interest
|
$
|
53,455
|
|
|
$
|
58,566
|
|
|
$
|
64,679
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes
|
$
|
71,697
|
|
|
$
|
31,382
|
|
|
$
|
47,783
|
|
Cash refunds from income taxes
|
$
|
9,413
|
|
|
$
|
537
|
|
|
$
|
3,737
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Capital expenditures included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
$
|
5,524
|
|
|
$
|
23,108
|
|
|
$
|
5,909
|
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Cumulative foreign currency translation
|
$
|
(95,630
|
)
|
|
$
|
(118,071
|
)
|
Cumulative supplemental benefit plans
|
(5,461
|
)
|
|
(6,267
|
)
|
||
Net unrecognized losses on interest rate swaps
|
7,400
|
|
|
1,920
|
|
||
Accumulative other comprehensive loss
|
$
|
(93,691
|
)
|
|
$
|
(122,418
|
)
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Land
|
$
|
7,476
|
|
|
$
|
7,476
|
|
Buildings
|
6,487
|
|
|
6,293
|
|
||
Furniture and equipment
|
63,255
|
|
|
61,582
|
|
||
Capitalized software
|
878,156
|
|
|
866,398
|
|
||
Leasehold improvements
|
39,990
|
|
|
29,420
|
|
||
Construction in progress
|
1,349
|
|
|
20,613
|
|
||
|
996,713
|
|
|
991,782
|
|
||
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
(549,054
|
)
|
|
(542,583
|
)
|
||
Property and equipment, net
|
$
|
447,659
|
|
|
$
|
449,199
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Property data
|
$
|
564,515
|
|
|
$
|
528,527
|
|
Flood data
|
55,416
|
|
|
55,416
|
|
||
Eviction data
|
17,017
|
|
|
17,082
|
|
||
|
636,948
|
|
|
601,025
|
|
||
Less accumulated amortization
|
(307,545
|
)
|
|
(273,104
|
)
|
||
Capitalized data and database costs, net
|
$
|
329,403
|
|
|
$
|
327,921
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2015
|
||
Statements of operations
|
|
||
Total revenues
|
$
|
244,647
|
|
Expenses and other
|
205,891
|
|
|
Net income attributable to RELS LLC
|
$
|
38,756
|
|
CoreLogic equity in earnings of affiliate, pre-tax
|
$
|
19,417
|
|
(in thousands)
|
PIRM
|
|
UWS
|
|
Consolidated
|
||||||
Balance at January 1, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Goodwill
|
$
|
963,680
|
|
|
$
|
925,392
|
|
|
$
|
1,889,072
|
|
Accumulated impairment losses
|
(600
|
)
|
|
(6,925
|
)
|
|
(7,525
|
)
|
|||
Goodwill, net
|
963,080
|
|
|
918,467
|
|
|
1,881,547
|
|
|||
Acquisitions
|
226,907
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
226,907
|
|
|||
Translation adjustments
|
(1,199
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,199
|
)
|
|||
Balance at December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Goodwill, net
|
1,188,788
|
|
|
918,467
|
|
|
2,107,255
|
|
|||
Acquisitions
|
127,805
|
|
|
1,700
|
|
|
129,505
|
|
|||
Translation adjustments
|
13,839
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
13,839
|
|
|||
Rental Property Solutions reclassification
|
5,521
|
|
|
(5,521
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Valuation Solutions reclassification
|
(307,330
|
)
|
|
307,330
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Balance at December 31, 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Goodwill, net
|
$
|
1,028,623
|
|
|
$
|
1,221,976
|
|
|
$
|
2,250,599
|
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||||||||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Gross
|
|
Accumulated Amortization
|
|
Net
|
|
Gross
|
|
Accumulated Amortization
|
|
Net
|
||||||||||||
Client lists
|
$
|
690,693
|
|
|
$
|
(303,632
|
)
|
|
$
|
387,061
|
|
|
$
|
637,053
|
|
|
$
|
(257,787
|
)
|
|
$
|
379,266
|
|
Non-compete agreements
|
28,118
|
|
|
(15,528
|
)
|
|
12,590
|
|
|
28,106
|
|
|
(11,136
|
)
|
|
16,970
|
|
||||||
Trade names and licenses
|
125,090
|
|
|
(49,128
|
)
|
|
75,962
|
|
|
121,086
|
|
|
(38,409
|
)
|
|
82,677
|
|
||||||
|
$
|
843,901
|
|
|
$
|
(368,288
|
)
|
|
$
|
475,613
|
|
|
$
|
786,245
|
|
|
$
|
(307,332
|
)
|
|
$
|
478,913
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
||
2018
|
$
|
60,646
|
|
2019
|
58,140
|
|
|
2020
|
55,950
|
|
|
2021
|
52,782
|
|
|
2022
|
50,852
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
197,243
|
|
|
|
$
|
475,613
|
|
|
December 31, 2017
|
|
December 31, 2016
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Gross
|
|
Debt Issuance Costs
|
|
Net
|
|
Gross
|
|
Debt Issuance Costs
|
|
Net
|
|||||||||||||
Bank debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Term loan facility borrowings due August 2022, weighted-average interest rate of 3.28% as of December 31, 2017
|
$
|
1,755,000
|
|
|
$
|
(17,017
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,737,983
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
Revolving line of credit borrowings due August 2022
|
—
|
|
|
(6,672
|
)
|
|
(6,672
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
|
Term loan facility borrowings due April 2020, weighted-average interest rate of 2.31% as of December 31, 2016, extinguished August 2017
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,298,125
|
|
|
(12,419
|
)
|
|
1,285,706
|
|
||||||
|
Revolving line of credit borrowings due April 2020, weighted-average interest rate of 2.31% as of December 31, 2016, extinguished August 2017
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
302,000
|
|
|
(4,761
|
)
|
|
297,239
|
|
||||||
Notes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
7.55% senior debentures due April 2028
|
14,645
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
14,597
|
|
|
14,645
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
14,593
|
|
||||||
Other debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Various interest rates with maturities through 2021
|
7,662
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
7,662
|
|
|
4,509
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
4,509
|
|
||||||
Total long-term debt
|
1,777,307
|
|
|
(23,737
|
)
|
|
1,753,570
|
|
|
1,619,279
|
|
|
(17,232
|
)
|
|
1,602,047
|
|
|||||||
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
70,046
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
70,046
|
|
|
105,158
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
105,158
|
|
|||||||
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
$
|
1,707,261
|
|
|
$
|
(23,737
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,683,524
|
|
|
$
|
1,514,121
|
|
|
$
|
(17,232
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,496,889
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Losses of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
||||||||||||
United States
|
$
|
155,598
|
|
$
|
(1,920
|
)
|
|
$
|
143,749
|
|
$
|
2,630
|
|
|
$
|
155,345
|
|
$
|
23,790
|
|
Foreign
|
13,294
|
|
—
|
|
|
20,225
|
|
(1,121
|
)
|
|
16,729
|
|
(970
|
)
|
||||||
Total
|
$
|
168,892
|
|
$
|
(1,920
|
)
|
|
$
|
163,974
|
|
$
|
1,509
|
|
|
$
|
172,074
|
|
$
|
22,820
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Losses of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
||||||||||||
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Federal
|
$
|
51,906
|
|
$
|
(638
|
)
|
|
$
|
28,232
|
|
$
|
871
|
|
|
$
|
17,108
|
|
$
|
7,910
|
|
State
|
3,872
|
|
(96
|
)
|
|
9,187
|
|
142
|
|
|
2,166
|
|
1,190
|
|
||||||
Foreign
|
4,268
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,881
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,394
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
|
60,046
|
|
(734
|
)
|
|
40,300
|
|
1,013
|
|
|
22,668
|
|
9,100
|
|
||||||
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Federal
|
(42,012
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
12,186
|
|
—
|
|
|
29,561
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
State
|
(2,293
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(267
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
3,562
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
Foreign
|
2,431
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,305
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,603
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
|
(41,874
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
14,224
|
|
—
|
|
|
34,726
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
Total income tax provision
|
$
|
18,172
|
|
$
|
(734
|
)
|
|
$
|
54,524
|
|
$
|
1,013
|
|
|
$
|
57,394
|
|
$
|
9,100
|
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|||||||||
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Losses of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
|
Continuing Operations Attributable to CoreLogic
|
Equity In Earnings of Affiliates
|
||||||
Federal statutory income tax rate
|
35.0
|
%
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
35.0
|
%
|
State taxes, net of federal benefit
|
2.7
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
3.4
|
|
Foreign taxes in excess of/(less than) federal rate
|
1.6
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
26.0
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
1.5
|
|
Nontaxable gain on contingent payment reversal
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
Nontaxable/nondeductible items
|
(1.9
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
—
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
—
|
|
Change from investee to subsidiary
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
—
|
|
Change in uncertain tax positions
|
(1.0
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
—
|
|
Research and development credits
|
(2.2
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
—
|
|
Net impact of FAFC indemnity
|
0.1
|
|
—
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
TCJA - Provisional remeasurement of federal deferred taxes
|
(22.5
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
Valuation allowance on impaired investments
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
Other items, net
|
(1.0
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
—
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
—
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
10.8
|
%
|
38.3
|
%
|
|
33.3
|
%
|
67.1
|
%
|
|
33.4
|
%
|
39.9
|
%
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
||||
Net losses and credit carryforwards
|
$
|
68,744
|
|
|
$
|
90,773
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
114,586
|
|
|
149,022
|
|
||
Investment in affiliates
|
4,375
|
|
|
14,501
|
|
||
Employee benefits
|
31,944
|
|
|
47,823
|
|
||
Accrued expenses and loss reserves
|
28,043
|
|
|
38,024
|
|
||
Other
|
12,296
|
|
|
20,692
|
|
||
Less: valuation allowance
|
(45,166
|
)
|
|
(44,879
|
)
|
||
|
$
|
214,822
|
|
|
$
|
315,956
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Depreciable and amortizable assets
|
299,578
|
|
|
415,879
|
|
||
Investment in affiliates
|
17,449
|
|
|
18,624
|
|
||
|
$
|
317,027
|
|
|
$
|
434,503
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
$
|
(102,205
|
)
|
|
$
|
(118,547
|
)
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Unrecognized tax benefits - opening balance
|
$
|
21,179
|
|
|
$
|
34,301
|
|
|
$
|
35,663
|
|
Gross increases - tax positions in prior period
|
503
|
|
|
1,835
|
|
|
13
|
|
|||
Gross decreases - tax positions in prior period
|
—
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
(2,152
|
)
|
|||
Gross increases - current-period tax positions
|
654
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
896
|
|
|||
Settlements with taxing authorities
|
—
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|||
FAFC indemnification release
|
—
|
|
|
(13,147
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Expiration of the statute of limitations for the assessment of taxes
|
(2,011
|
)
|
|
(2,215
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Unrecognized tax benefits - ending balance
|
$
|
20,325
|
|
|
$
|
21,179
|
|
|
$
|
34,301
|
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Numerator for basic and diluted net income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
149,534
|
|
|
$
|
109,946
|
|
|
$
|
128,400
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,315
|
|
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
152,162
|
|
|
$
|
106,550
|
|
|
$
|
127,844
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Weighted-average shares for basic income/(loss) per share
|
83,499
|
|
|
87,502
|
|
|
89,070
|
|
|||
Dilutive effect of stock options and restricted stock units
|
1,735
|
|
|
1,620
|
|
|
1,494
|
|
|||
Weighted-average shares for diluted income/(loss) per share
|
85,234
|
|
|
89,122
|
|
|
90,564
|
|
|||
Income/(loss) per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
1.79
|
|
|
$
|
1.26
|
|
|
$
|
1.44
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
$
|
1.43
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
1.75
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
$
|
1.42
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|||
Gain/(loss) from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic
|
$
|
1.78
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||
Change in projected benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
||||
Benefit obligation at beginning of period
|
$
|
65,108
|
|
|
$
|
61,256
|
|
Service costs
|
—
|
|
|
90
|
|
||
Interest costs
|
1,879
|
|
|
2,587
|
|
||
Actuarial losses
|
3,579
|
|
|
1,817
|
|
||
Benefits paid
|
(39,185
|
)
|
|
(2,989
|
)
|
||
Annuity carrier load
|
—
|
|
|
2,347
|
|
||
Projected benefit obligation at end of period
|
$
|
31,381
|
|
|
$
|
65,108
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Plan assets at fair value at beginning of period
|
$
|
25,225
|
|
|
$
|
21,175
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
(197
|
)
|
|
(458
|
)
|
||
Company contributions
|
14,157
|
|
|
7,497
|
|
||
Benefits paid
|
(39,185
|
)
|
|
(2,989
|
)
|
||
Plan assets at fair value at end of the period
|
—
|
|
|
25,225
|
|
||
Reconciliation of funded status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Unfunded status of the plans
|
$
|
(31,381
|
)
|
|
$
|
(39,883
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Accrued salaries and benefits
|
$
|
(1,513
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10,604
|
)
|
Other liabilities
|
(29,868
|
)
|
|
(29,279
|
)
|
||
|
$
|
(31,381
|
)
|
|
$
|
(39,883
|
)
|
Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
$
|
12,184
|
|
|
$
|
14,021
|
|
Unrecognized prior service credit
|
(3,341
|
)
|
|
(4,486
|
)
|
||
|
$
|
8,843
|
|
|
$
|
9,535
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Service costs
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
90
|
|
|
$
|
161
|
|
Interest costs
|
1,879
|
|
|
2,587
|
|
|
1,205
|
|
|||
Expected return on plan assets
|
(156
|
)
|
|
(160
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|||
Amortization of net (gain)/loss
|
(691
|
)
|
|
979
|
|
|
(620
|
)
|
|||
Net periodic benefit cost
|
$
|
1,032
|
|
|
$
|
3,496
|
|
|
$
|
746
|
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
|||
RELS Pension Plan
|
3.97
|
%
|
|
4.44
|
%
|
|
4.09
|
%
|
SERPs
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
4.20
|
%
|
|
3.85
|
%
|
Restoration Plan
|
4.08
|
%
|
|
4.32
|
%
|
|
3.98
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||
RELS Pension Plan
|
|
|
|
||
Discount rate
|
N/A
|
|
|
3.97
|
%
|
Salary increase rate
|
N/A
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
N/A
|
|
|
3.50
|
%
|
SERPs
|
|
|
|
||
Discount rate
|
3.50
|
%
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
Salary increase rate
|
N/A
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Restoration Plan
|
|
|
|
||
Discount rate
|
3.57
|
%
|
|
4.08
|
%
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Projected benefit obligation
|
$
|
31,381
|
|
|
$
|
65,108
|
|
|
$
|
61,256
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
$
|
31,381
|
|
|
$
|
65,108
|
|
|
$
|
61,256
|
|
Plan assets at fair value at end of year
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
25,225
|
|
|
$
|
21,175
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
||
Net actuarial loss
|
$
|
487
|
|
Prior service benefit
|
$
|
1,145
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
||
2018
|
|
$
|
1,539
|
|
2019
|
|
1,561
|
|
|
2020
|
|
1,540
|
|
|
2021
|
|
1,758
|
|
|
2022
|
|
1,974
|
|
|
2023-2027
|
|
9,492
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
17,864
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using
|
|
|
||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Fair Value
|
||||||||
Financial Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
118,804
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
118,804
|
|
Restricted cash
|
—
|
|
|
7,565
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
7,565
|
|
||||
|
$
|
118,804
|
|
|
$
|
7,565
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
126,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Financial Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Contingent consideration
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
Total debt
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,780,547
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,780,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Asset for interest rate swap agreements
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
11,985
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
11,985
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using
|
|
|
||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Fair Value
|
||||||||
Financial Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
72,031
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
72,031
|
|
Restricted cash
|
—
|
|
|
17,943
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
17,943
|
|
||||
|
$
|
72,031
|
|
|
$
|
17,943
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
89,974
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Financial Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Total debt
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,622,811
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,622,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Asset for interest rate swap agreements
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
5,392
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
5,392
|
|
Liability for interest rate swap agreements
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,283
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,283
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Remaining
Fair Value
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Impairment Losses
|
||||||||||
Property and equipment, net
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,005
|
|
Capitalized data and database costs, net
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
882
|
|
|||||
Investment in affiliates, net
|
5,662
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,662
|
|
|
23,431
|
|
|||||
|
$
|
5,662
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
5,662
|
|
|
$
|
26,318
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using
|
|
|
|||||||||
(in thousands)
|
Remaining
Fair Value
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Impairment Losses
|
|||||
Property and equipment, net
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,770
|
|
(in thousands, except weighted average fair value prices)
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
|
|||
Unvested RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2016
|
1,555
|
|
|
$
|
34.14
|
|
RSUs granted
|
708
|
|
|
$
|
40.32
|
|
RSUs vested
|
(884
|
)
|
|
$
|
34.25
|
|
RSUs forfeited
|
(70
|
)
|
|
$
|
36.29
|
|
Unvested RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2017
|
1,309
|
|
|
$
|
37.54
|
|
(1)
|
The risk-free interest rate for the periods within the contractual term of the PBRSUs is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant.
|
(2)
|
The expected volatility and average total shareholder return is a measure of the amount by which a stock price has fluctuated or is expected to fluctuate based primarily on our and our peers' historical data.
|
(in thousands, except weighted average fair value prices)
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
|
|||
Unvested PBRSUs outstanding at December 31, 2016
|
738
|
|
|
$
|
34.13
|
|
PBRSUs granted
|
310
|
|
|
$
|
41.08
|
|
PBRSUs vested
|
(227
|
)
|
|
$
|
31.90
|
|
PBRSUs forfeited
|
(162
|
)
|
|
$
|
36.48
|
|
Unvested PBRSUs outstanding at December 31, 2017
|
659
|
|
|
$
|
37.22
|
|
(in thousands, except weighted average prices)
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Weighted Average Exercise Price
|
|
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term
|
|
Aggregate Intrinsic Value
|
|||||
Options outstanding at December 31, 2016
|
1,504
|
|
|
$
|
21.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Options exercised
|
(318
|
)
|
|
$
|
23.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Options vested, exercisable, and outstanding December 31, 2017
|
1,186
|
|
|
$
|
20.67
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
$
|
30,295
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||
Restricted stock units
|
$
|
29,188
|
|
|
$
|
25,839
|
|
|
$
|
24,591
|
|
Performance-based restricted stock units
|
4,987
|
|
|
11,702
|
|
|
8,080
|
|
|||
Stock options
|
144
|
|
|
1,017
|
|
|
1,923
|
|
|||
Employee stock purchase plan
|
1,548
|
|
|
1,291
|
|
|
1,192
|
|
|||
|
$
|
35,867
|
|
|
$
|
39,849
|
|
|
$
|
35,786
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
||
2018
|
$
|
27,860
|
|
2019
|
26,699
|
|
|
2020
|
22,709
|
|
|
2021
|
17,328
|
|
|
2022
|
9,777
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
62,175
|
|
|
|
$
|
166,548
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
As of December 31, 2017
|
|
PIRM
|
|
UWS
|
|
ELI
|
|
AMPS
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||
Deferred income tax asset and other current assets
|
|
$
|
325
|
|
|
$
|
(231
|
)
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
$
|
383
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
|
$
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
1,632
|
|
|
$
|
1,806
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Deferred income tax asset, current
|
|
$
|
325
|
|
|
$
|
(231
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
568
|
|
|
$
|
662
|
|
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities
|
|
$
|
202
|
|
|
$
|
167
|
|
|
$
|
624
|
|
|
$
|
2,130
|
|
|
$
|
3,123
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
|
|
PIRM
|
|
UWS
|
|
ELI
|
|
AMPS
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations before income taxes
|
|
205
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
(614
|
)
|
|
4,154
|
|
|
3,751
|
|
|||||
Provision/(benefit) for income taxes
|
|
78
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
(233
|
)
|
|
1,589
|
|
|
1,436
|
|
|||||
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
(381
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,565
|
|
|
$
|
2,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
(Loss)/income from discontinued operations before income taxes
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
142
|
|
|
(1,600
|
)
|
|
(890
|
)
|
|
(2,385
|
)
|
|||||
(Benefit)/Provision for income taxes
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
50
|
|
|
(612
|
)
|
|
(343
|
)
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|||||
(Loss)/income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
$
|
(23
|
)
|
|
$
|
92
|
|
|
$
|
(988
|
)
|
|
$
|
(547
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
(650
|
)
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(230
|
)
|
|
(900
|
)
|
|||||
Benefit for income taxes
|
|
(204
|
)
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(88
|
)
|
|
(344
|
)
|
|||||
Income/(loss), net of tax
|
|
(446
|
)
|
|
32
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
|
(556
|
)
|
|||||
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
(Loss)/income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
$
|
(446
|
)
|
|
$
|
32
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(142
|
)
|
|
$
|
(556
|
)
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
|
|
PIRM
|
|
UWS
|
|
Corporate
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
Consolidated (Excluding Discontinued Operations)
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
703,032
|
|
|
$
|
1,157,432
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(9,347
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,851,117
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
99,558
|
|
|
$
|
57,397
|
|
|
$
|
20,851
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
177,806
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
89,129
|
|
|
$
|
233,366
|
|
|
$
|
(83,877
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
238,618
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
|
$
|
(420
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,258
|
)
|
|
$
|
492
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(1,186
|
)
|
Net income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
86,988
|
|
|
$
|
222,928
|
|
|
$
|
(160,382
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
149,534
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
56,157
|
|
|
$
|
7,569
|
|
|
$
|
11,772
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
75,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
706,496
|
|
|
$
|
1,256,841
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
(10,792
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,952,557
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
101,196
|
|
|
$
|
53,823
|
|
|
$
|
17,559
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
172,578
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
101,700
|
|
|
$
|
255,583
|
|
|
$
|
(79,343
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
277,940
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
|
$
|
(1,432
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,020
|
|
|
$
|
(1,092
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
496
|
|
Net income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
105,349
|
|
|
$
|
237,767
|
|
|
$
|
(233,170
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
109,946
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
53,217
|
|
|
$
|
8,951
|
|
|
$
|
18,550
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
80,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
712,335
|
|
|
$
|
825,339
|
|
|
$
|
39
|
|
|
$
|
(9,603
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,528,110
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
101,422
|
|
|
$
|
32,837
|
|
|
$
|
16,118
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
150,377
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
96,707
|
|
|
$
|
192,367
|
|
|
$
|
(85,625
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
203,449
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
|
$
|
(1,569
|
)
|
|
$
|
24,191
|
|
|
$
|
(8,902
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
13,720
|
|
Net income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
94,558
|
|
|
$
|
216,111
|
|
|
$
|
(181,117
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
129,552
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
56,467
|
|
|
$
|
5,149
|
|
|
$
|
18,942
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
80,558
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
As of December 31, 2017
|
|
PIRM
|
|
UWS
|
|
Corporate
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
Consolidated (Excluding Discontinued Operations)
|
||||||||||
Investment in affiliates, net
|
|
$
|
31,691
|
|
|
$
|
4,552
|
|
|
$
|
2,746
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
38,989
|
|
Long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
1,721,815
|
|
|
$
|
1,996,417
|
|
|
$
|
5,542,323
|
|
|
$
|
(5,613,410
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,647,145
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,911,222
|
|
|
$
|
2,151,092
|
|
|
$
|
5,628,824
|
|
|
$
|
(5,614,108
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,077,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Investment in affiliates, net
|
|
$
|
27,218
|
|
|
$
|
8,592
|
|
|
$
|
4,999
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
40,809
|
|
Long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
1,691,836
|
|
|
$
|
1,738,627
|
|
|
$
|
5,510,684
|
|
|
$
|
(5,425,500
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,515,647
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,842,361
|
|
|
$
|
1,914,814
|
|
|
$
|
5,575,846
|
|
|
$
|
(5,426,149
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,906,872
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
|
2015
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Domestic
|
|
Foreign
|
|
Domestic
|
|
Foreign
|
|
Domestic
|
|
Foreign
|
||||||||||||
PIRM
|
$
|
545,311
|
|
|
$
|
157,721
|
|
|
$
|
560,085
|
|
|
$
|
146,411
|
|
|
$
|
584,396
|
|
|
$
|
127,939
|
|
UWS
|
1,157,432
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,256,806
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
822,601
|
|
|
2,738
|
|
||||||
Corporate
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
39
|
|
||||||
Eliminations
|
(9,347
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(10,792
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
(9,603
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
||||||
Consolidated
|
$
|
1,693,396
|
|
|
$
|
157,721
|
|
|
$
|
1,806,099
|
|
|
$
|
146,458
|
|
|
$
|
1,397,394
|
|
|
$
|
130,716
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
||||||||||||||
(in thousands)
|
2017
|
|
2016
|
||||||||||||
|
Domestic
|
|
Foreign
|
|
Domestic
|
|
Foreign
|
||||||||
PIRM
|
$
|
1,392,580
|
|
|
$
|
329,235
|
|
|
$
|
1,374,390
|
|
|
$
|
317,446
|
|
UWS
|
1,996,417
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,738,627
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Corporate
|
4,796,378
|
|
|
745,945
|
|
|
4,764,740
|
|
|
745,944
|
|
||||
Eliminations
|
(4,867,465
|
)
|
|
(745,945
|
)
|
|
(4,679,560
|
)
|
|
(745,940
|
)
|
||||
Consolidated (excluding assets for discontinued operations)
|
$
|
3,317,910
|
|
|
$
|
329,235
|
|
|
$
|
3,198,197
|
|
|
$
|
317,450
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended
|
||||||||||||||
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
3/31/2017
|
|
|
6/30/2017
|
|
|
9/30/2017
|
|
|
12/31/2017
|
|
||||
Operating revenue
|
$
|
439,851
|
|
|
$
|
473,978
|
|
|
$
|
483,131
|
|
|
$
|
454,157
|
|
Operating income
|
$
|
32,563
|
|
|
$
|
78,393
|
|
|
$
|
62,296
|
|
|
$
|
65,366
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
$
|
(723
|
)
|
|
$
|
(280
|
)
|
|
$
|
(229
|
)
|
|
$
|
46
|
|
Amounts attributable to CoreLogic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
12,708
|
|
|
$
|
41,182
|
|
|
$
|
30,828
|
|
|
$
|
64,816
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
2,417
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
(74
|
)
|
|
(106
|
)
|
||||
Gain from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
313
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic stockholders
|
$
|
15,438
|
|
|
$
|
41,260
|
|
|
$
|
30,754
|
|
|
$
|
64,710
|
|
Basic income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Gain from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Net income
|
$
|
0.18
|
|
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
Diluted income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
0.03
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Gain from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
Net income
|
$
|
0.18
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Basic
|
84,432
|
|
|
84,548
|
|
|
83,362
|
|
|
81,656
|
|
||||
Diluted
|
86,341
|
|
|
86,097
|
|
|
85,090
|
|
|
83,539
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended
|
||||||||||||||
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
3/31/2016
|
|
|
6/30/2016
|
|
|
9/30/2016
|
|
|
12/31/2016
|
|
||||
Operating revenue
|
$
|
453,543
|
|
|
$
|
500,204
|
|
|
$
|
523,896
|
|
|
$
|
474,914
|
|
Operating income
|
$
|
58,225
|
|
|
$
|
76,398
|
|
|
$
|
85,721
|
|
|
$
|
57,596
|
|
Equity in (losses)/earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
$
|
(90
|
)
|
|
$
|
78
|
|
|
$
|
607
|
|
|
$
|
(99
|
)
|
Amounts attributable to CoreLogic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
27,538
|
|
|
$
|
40,424
|
|
|
$
|
36,002
|
|
|
$
|
5,982
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
(58
|
)
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
(936
|
)
|
|
(468
|
)
|
||||
Loss from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,930
|
)
|
||||
Net income attributable to CoreLogic stockholders
|
$
|
27,480
|
|
|
$
|
40,420
|
|
|
$
|
35,066
|
|
|
$
|
3,584
|
|
Basic income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
||||
Loss from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
||||
Net Income
|
$
|
0.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.40
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
Diluted income/(loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Net income from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.40
|
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
||||
Loss from sale of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
||||
Net Income
|
$
|
0.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.39
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Basic
|
88,310
|
|
|
88,572
|
|
|
87,584
|
|
|
85,534
|
|
||||
Diluted
|
89,919
|
|
|
89,968
|
|
|
89,188
|
|
|
87,289
|
|
(in thousands)
|
Balance at Beginning of Period
|
|
Charged to Costs & Expenses
|
|
Charged to Other Accounts
|
|
Deductions
|
|
Balance at End of Period
|
||||||||||
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Allowance for accounts receivable
|
$
|
8,857
|
|
|
$
|
9,633
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(10,261
|
)
|
(1)
|
$
|
8,229
|
|
Claim losses
|
$
|
26,939
|
|
|
$
|
15,272
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(15,332
|
)
|
(2)
|
$
|
26,879
|
|
Tax valuation allowance
|
$
|
44,879
|
|
|
$
|
(1,072
|
)
|
(3)
|
$
|
1,359
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
45,166
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Allowance for accounts receivable
|
$
|
6,212
|
|
|
$
|
8,508
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(5,863
|
)
|
(1)
|
$
|
8,857
|
|
Claim losses
|
$
|
25,344
|
|
|
$
|
15,816
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(14,221
|
)
|
(2)
|
$
|
26,939
|
|
Tax valuation allowance
|
$
|
19,171
|
|
|
$
|
25,946
|
|
(3)
|
$
|
(238
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
44,879
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Allowance for accounts receivable
|
$
|
10,826
|
|
|
$
|
1,736
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(6,350
|
)
|
(1)
|
$
|
6,212
|
|
Claim losses
|
$
|
24,871
|
|
|
$
|
10,448
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(9,975
|
)
|
(2)
|
$
|
25,344
|
|
Tax valuation allowance
|
$
|
21,911
|
|
|
$
|
(2,645
|
)
|
|
$
|
(95
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
19,171
|
|
(1)
|
Amount represents accounts written off, net of recoveries.
|
(2)
|
Amount represents claim payments, net of recoveries.
|
(3)
|
Amount includes an out-of-period adjustment identified in each respective year. See further discussion in
Note 2 – Significant Accounting Policies.
|
(i)
|
Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
|
(ii)
|
Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and
|
(iii)
|
Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
|
(a)
|
1. The following consolidated financial statements of CoreLogic, Inc. are included in Item 8.
|
Exhibit No.
|
Description
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
|
|
10.12
|
|
|
|
10.13
|
|
|
10.14
|
|
|
|
10.15
|
|
|
|
10.16
|
|
|
|
10.17
|
|
|
|
10.18
|
|
|
|
10.19
|
|
|
|
10.20
|
|
|
|
10.21
|
|
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
|
10.23
|
|
|
|
10.24
|
|
|
|
10.25
|
|
|
|
10.26
|
|
|
|
10.27
|
|
|
|
10.28
|
|
|
|
10.29
|
|
|
|
10.30
|
|
|
|
10.31
|
|
|
|
10.32
|
|
|
|
10.33
|
|
|
|
10.34
|
|
|
|
10.35
|
|
|
|
10.36
|
|
|
|
10.37
|
|
|
|
10.38
|
|
|
|
10.39
|
|
|
|
10.40
|
|
|
|
10.41
|
|
|
|
10.42
|
|
|
|
10.43
|
|
|
|
10.44
|
|
|
|
21.1
|
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
|
|
32.2
|
|
|
|
101
|
The following financial information from CoreLogic, Inc.'s Annual Report on From 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) and furnished electronically herewith: (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (ii) Consolidated Statements of Operations, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive (Loss)/Income, (iv) Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders' Equity, (v) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, and (vi) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
Included in this filing
|
|
|
*
|
Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement in which any director or named executive officer participates.
|
|
|
±
|
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and these confidential portions have been redacted from this exhibit. A complete copy of this exhibit, including the redacted terms, has been separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
|
|
^
|
Schedules and exhibits have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. The Company hereby agrees to furnish supplementally copies of any of the omitted schedules and exhibits upon request by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
|
|
†
|
This agreement contains representations and warranties by us or our subsidiaries. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the agreement and (i) has been qualified by disclosures made to such other parties, (ii) were made only as of the date of such agreement or such other date(s) as may be specified in such agreement and are subject to more recent developments, which may not be fully reflected in our public disclosures, (iii) may reflect the allocation of risk among the parties to such agreement and (iv) may apply materiality standards different from what may be viewed as material to investors. Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs at the date hereof and should not be relied upon.
|
|
|
CoreLogic, Inc.
|
|
|
(Registrant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
By: /s/ Frank D. Martell
|
|
|
Frank D. Martell
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
Date:
|
February 27, 2018
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Frank D. Martell
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
February 27, 2018
|
Frank D. Martell
|
|
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James L. Balas
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
February 27, 2018
|
James L. Balas
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John K. Stumpf
|
|
Controller
|
February 27, 2018
|
John K. Stumpf
|
|
(Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Paul F. Folino
|
|
Chairman of the Board, Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Paul F. Folino
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ J. David Chatham
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
J. David Chatham
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Douglas C. Curling
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Douglas C. Curling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John C. Dorman
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
John C. Dorman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Claudia Fan Munce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas C. O’Brien
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Thomas C. O’Brien
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Vikrant Raina
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Vikrant Raina
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jaynie Miller Studenmund
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Jaynie Miller Studenmund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David F. Walker
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
David F. Walker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Mary Lee Widener
|
|
Director
|
February 27, 2018
|
Mary Lee Widener
|
|
|
|
Cash Compensation
|
|
|
Annual Retainer-Non-Executive Director
|
$80,000
|
|
Annual Retainer-Non-Executive Board Chairman
|
$100,000
|
|
Annual Retainer-Committee Chairs
|
|
|
Audit Committee
|
$25,000
|
|
Compensation Committee
|
$20,000
|
|
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
|
$15,000
|
|
Acquisition and Strategic Planning Committee
|
$12,500
|
|
Annual Retainer-Committee Members
|
|
|
Audit Committee
|
$15,000
|
|
Compensation Committee
|
$10,000
|
|
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
|
$7,500
|
|
Acquisition and Strategic Planning Committee
|
$5,000
|
|
|
|
|
Fee for Attendance of Board and Committee
|
|
|
Meetings in Excess of Designated Number
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
Annual Equity Compensation-RSUs
|
$160,000
|
|
|
|
This document contains proprietary and confidential information of CoreLogic and NTT DATA Services. The information contained in this document may not be disclosed outside either Party without the prior written permission of the other Party.
|
|
|
|
1.
|
APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
|
2.
|
AmendmentS to supplement A
|
3.
|
NEW AND Amended Contract Documents
|
•
|
Provides more detailed definitions and measurement methodology for the Critical Service Levels and Key Measurements listed in Schedule A-3.1 Service Level Matrix
|
|
|
|
•
|
Simplified the Service Level Matrix to only list the Service Area, Service Level type, Category, and CSL Weighting and moved service level definitions and measurement methodology to Schedule A-3.2.
|
•
|
Replaced Tier 1,2,3 Storage Provisioning <***% of allocated - Key Measurement with Storage Request for Tier 1,2,3 for < *** TB - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Replaced Tier 1,2,3 Storage Provisioning >***% of allocated Key Measurement with Storage Request for Tier 1,2,3 for > *** TB - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Replaced Mainframe Availability Critical Service Level with T2L Critical Service Level
|
•
|
Replaced CICS Availability Critical Service Level with T2L - TPE Availability Critical Service Level
|
•
|
Removed Mainframe - Percentage Availability of ADABAS - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Removed EAPM - Percent Monitoring Setup (server based) - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Security Audit - Critical - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Security Audit - Normal - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Litigation Hold - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added HR Electronic Monitoring - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added General Request Fulfillment - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Change Success - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Change Causing Outages - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Incident Management - Medium - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Incident Management - Low - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added OPAS Availability - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Purchase Order Creation - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Disaster Recovery Exercise - RTO - Key Measurement
|
•
|
Added Disaster Recovery Exercise - RPO - Key Measurement
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Governing Law.
|
5.
|
Headings.
|
6.
|
Other Provisions of the Agreement Unchanged.
|
7.
|
Signatures.
|
|
|
|
This document contains proprietary and confidential information of CoreLogic and NTT DATA Services. The information contained in this document may not be disclosed outside either Party without the prior written permission of the other Party.
|
1. INTRODUCTION
|
1.1 Agreement. This
Schedule A-3.1
(this “
Schedule
”) is attached to and incorporated by reference in Supplement A, dated July 19, 2012, to that certain Master Services Agreement by and between CoreLogic and Supplier dated July 19, 2012 (the “
MSA
”).
|
1.2 References. All references in this Schedule to articles, sections and attachments shall be to this Schedule, unless another reference is provided.
|
1.3 Definitions. Terms used in this Schedule with initial capitalized letters but not defined in this Schedule shall have the respective meanings set forth in Schedule 1 to the MSA, Schedule A-1 to Supplement A or elsewhere in the Agreement.
|
The terms below shall have the following meanings:
|
"
Enterprise Infrastructure Applications
" include Exchange, File/Print Servers, Right Fax, Citrix, domain controller, active directory, LDAP, DHCP, DNS anything defined as enterprise system in SIDB.
|
"
High Availability
" or "
HA
" means redundancy such that a single operating system or device failure will not degrade the performance of a Service or cause a Service to become unavailable.
|
"
Normal Patch
" has the meaning given by the applicable product vendor.
|
"
Third Party Hardware Exception
" means Supplier's failure to meet the timing requirements of any single Unit that is subject to the applicable Service Level shall be excused if and to the extent such failure is caused by the failure of a third party vendor to repair or replace Equipment, other than Equipment that is included within Supplier’s cloud environment; but only if (i) Supplier uses commercially reasonable efforts to cause such third party vendor to perform within the time frame required for such Unit, (ii) Supplier notifies CoreLogic promptly after such third party vendor’s failure or delay and (iii) Supplier documents such failure in a Root Cause Analysis after such failure. Any time for which Supplier’s failure to meet the applicable timing requirement is excused by the immediately preceding sentence shall be removed (i.e., excluded) from the calculation of total time to restore such Unit as defined in the Service Level definition. For purposes of the Third Party Hardware Exception, "Unit" means the applicable unit of measurement for the applicable Service Level (e.g., Incident or other applicable unit that is being measured in accordance with the definition and formula for such Service Level).
|
Service Level
|
Category
|
Weighting
|
2.2.a CSL-SM-Incident Handling - Critical
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.2.b CSL-SM-Incident Handling - High
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.2.c KM-SM-INCIDENT COMMUNICATION
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.d KM-SM-PERCENTAGE OF INCIDENTS THAT ARE ACCURATELY TRIAGED
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.3 KM-SM-Incident Communication - Continual
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.f1/2.2.f2 KM-SM-Problem Management-Service Impact Document Delivery (AIR and RCA)
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.g KM-SM-ASSET INVENTORY- ACCURACY
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.h KM-SM-CSAT Operations Managers
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.h.1 KM-SM-CSAT Operations Managers Service Improvement (SI)
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.i KM-SM-CSAT-END USERS
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.j KM-SM-CSAT DROP-END USERS
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.a CSL-SD-AVERAGE SPEED TO ANSWER
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.3.b KM-SD-AVERAGE HANDLE TIME
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.c KM-SD-ABANDON RATE
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.d CSL-SD-FIRST CALL RESOLUTION
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.6.a KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE NEW USER SETUP
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.6.b1/2.6.b2 KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE SERVICES SUPPORT
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.6.c KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE TERMINATION
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.6.d KM-DT-REQUEST-PACKAGING (DEVELOP AND PUSH)
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.6.e1/2.6.e2 KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE MOVES/ADDS/CHANGES
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.a KM-ENT-PATCH MANAGEMENT SERVERS
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.b KM-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF RIGHTFAX SERVICE
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.c CSL-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF EXCHANGE EMAIL SERVICE
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.4.d CSL-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF CITRIX METAFRAME
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.9.a CSL-NW-Data Center LAN Availability
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.9.b CSL-NW-Data Center WAN Availability
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.9.c KM-NW-Campus LAN Availability
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.9.d1/2.9.d2 KM-NETWORK-REQUEST-FIREWALL, IP ADDRESS, HTTP PORT REQUESTS
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.9.e CSL-NW-VOIP Availability
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.9.f KM-NW-Call Center/Call Monitoring Requests
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.9.f1 KM-NW-Contact Center Call Flow
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.e CSL-MR-Server Availability - High
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.4.f CSL-MR-Server Availability - Standard
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.4.g KM-MR-Server Availability - Low
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.h KM-MR-Server Availability - Development
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.i KM-MR-PHYSICAL SERVER PROVISIONING REQUEST
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.j KM-MR-VIRTUAL SERVER PROVISIONING REQUEST
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.4.k KM-ENT-PATCH MANAGEMENT (Non-Enterprise)
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.a CSL-Storage-Availability
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.5.b KM-STORAGE-REQUEST FOR TIER 1,2,3 FOR < 100 TB
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.c KM-STORAGE-REQUEST FOR TIER 1,2,3 FOR >100 TB
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.d KM-STORAGE - ADD BACKUP REQUEST TO SERVER
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.e KM-STORAGE - EMERGENCY RESTORE REQUEST FROM BACKUP
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.f KM-STORAGE-BACKUP-JOB FAILURE
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.5.g KM-STORAGE-BACKUP-RESTORE SEMIANNUAL REQUEST COMPLETION
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.7.a CSL-T2L-Availability (Replaces Mainframe Availability CSL)
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.7.b CSL-T2L-TPE/BPE Availability (Replaces CICS Availability CSL)
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.7.c KM-EAPM-REQUEST-MONITORING SETUP (SYNTHETIC TRANSACTION)
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.1.a KM-CAP-NEW USER REQUEST
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.1.b1/2.1.b2 CSL-TERMINATION REQUEST
|
Critical Service Level
|
***
|
2.1.c1/2.1.c2 KM-CAP-FTP Add Account
|
Key Measure
|
|
3.0.a KM-Security Audit - Critical
|
Key Measure
|
|
3.0.b KM-Security Audit - Normal
|
Key Measure
|
|
3.0.c KM-Litigation Hold
|
Key Measure
|
|
3.0.d KM-HR Electronic Monitoring
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.e KM-SM-GENERAL REQUEST FULFILMENT
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.f KM-SM-CHANGE SUCCESS
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.g KM-SM-CHANGE CAUSING OUTAGES
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.h KM-SM-INCIDENT MANAGEMENT - MEDIUM
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.i KM-SM-INCIDENT MANAGEMENT - LOW
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.3.j KM-SM-OPAS AVAILABILITY
|
Key Measure
|
|
2.2.k KM-ENT-Purchase Order Creation
|
Key Measure
|
|
4.0.a KM-DR-Disaster Recovery Exercise - RTO
|
Key Measure
|
|
4.0.b KM-DR-Disaster Recovery Exercise - RPO
|
Key Measure
|
|
1.
|
Introduction
|
1.
|
Agreement
.
This
Schedule A-3.2
(this “
Schedule
”) is attached to and incorporated by reference in Supplement A to that certain Master Services Agreement by and between CoreLogic and Supplier dated July 19, 2012 (the “
MSA
”).
|
2.
|
References
.
All references in this Schedule to articles, sections and attachments shall be to this Schedule, unless another reference is provided.
|
3.
|
Definitions
.
Terms used in this Schedule with initial capitalized letters but not defined in this Schedule shall have the respective meanings set forth in Schedule 1 to the MSA, Schedule A-1 to Supplement A or elsewhere in the Agreement.
|
4.
|
General Service Level Exceptions
.
In addition to Section 10.2 and Section 4.4 (last sentence) of the MSA, any Service Levels affected by Software or Equipment listed in the known error database because the Software or Equipment is end of life or no longer vendor supported, or the version is out of currency, or for other known error or issue not caused by Supplier for which the recommended remedial action has not been approved or implemented by CoreLogic shall be an exception and excluded from the Service Level measurement.
|
5.
|
Valid Use of Pending
.
The following reasons are the only valid uses of pending, and must have an associated work note attached to the ticket describing the reason for the pending status.
|
1.
|
The following valid pending reasons apply to all ticket types:
|
a.
|
Waiting on CoreLogic
|
b.
|
Waiting on CoreLogic vendor
|
2.
|
The following valid pending reasons apply to incidents only:
|
a.
|
Waiting on an agreed upon scheduled change
|
b.
|
Pending approved by CoreLogic on MIM call for some other reason
|
c.
|
Time during application recovery or business validation after service or infrastructure is restored
|
d.
|
Previously unknown third party software defects
|
1.
|
Service Level Definitions
|
1.
|
2.2.a CSL-SM-Incident Handling - Critical
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the time interval between an Incident creation dates for tickets with Critical Priority to the time normal service operation is restored via implementing a solution to the known error or by employing a workaround
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Pending time allowed as indicated in section 1.6.
- If there are instances or circumstances at a non-Dell facility where equipment failures (outside of equipment that we support) fail and that inhibits/prohibits us from rendering services, then it’s suspended. Some of this could include Power failures, local equipment not in our support, etc.
- Time incurred restoring Application data and/or functionality from tape media after Supplier has returned Equipment to service.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA in order to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA.
Incidents and outages due to the following incident management exclusion reasons:
2.2.a.1 Scrub, Incident deemed misclassified by CoreLogic exclusion committee.
2.2.a.2 Scrub, Non-Supplier supported site.
2.2.a.3 Scrub, Server/System not in production (not in-service).
2.2.a.4 Scrub, CoreLogic Application related outage that is not Supplier infrastructure caused.
2.2.a.5 Scrub, duplicate Incident record.
2.2.a.6 Scrub, Scheduled Downtime per system.
2.2.a.7 Scrub, Monitoring Alerts, no outage or CoreLogic impact noted.
2.2.a.8 Scrub, Eligible Recipient requested escalation for Emergency Change, No CoreLogic outage.
2.2.a.9 Scrub, CoreLogic requested the Incident Severity be raised to bypass process/lead times.
2.2.a.10 Scrub, Non-Supplier Third Party outage.
2.2.a.11 Scrub, Final CoreLogic Resolver Group.
2.2.a.12 Scrub, Incident related to Supplier reported known errors where solution/remediation not approved by CoreLogic.
2.2.a 13 Scrub NDPM Non-Dell Project Management escalation and/or outage
2.2.a.13 Scrub, Aged CoreLogic records re-assigned to Dell Support.
2.2.a.14 Scrub, Internal Dell support created
2.2.a.15 Scrub, Project related
Critical & High priority incidents that are assigned & related as child records to the Dell Network Operations (NETOPS-GLOBAL-LEVERAGED) are excluded.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Priority (Severity) Level definitions are found in
Schedule A-1 Section 2
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any *** Incident is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply.
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Incidents are restored within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company+*
All Incident Recording during the Reporting Period
Priority*
Status. Resolved. Date/TIME
Exclude from Reporting based on RCA
Opened Date/Time
Total Pending Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
(a) Company+*="CORELOGIC ", “STARS”, “RELS”,”FINITI”
(b) Status. Resolved Date/TIME is within the data range selected for running the report
(c) Priority = “Critical”
(d) Submitted Date/Time
(e) Exclude from SLA Reporting <> “Yes”
(f) Support Organization= Dell* or Support Group = CLGX-AOC
2. Incident Handling calculation
Time to restore service = Status Resolved Date/TIME - Submitted Date/Time - Pending Time
On-time Resolution = Resolved - Opened - On Hold
Supplementary criteria
MIM (Major Incident Management) event Critical priority records that align with a Server and or Service Availability SLA’s utilize the AIR (After Incident Review) & Whiteboard documents to calculate business impact duration via the OPAS CI Unavailability record. Process & procedure related missed MIM records (Examples: Failing to place in pending or resolved status at appropriate times, Incident records created with a Dell OPAS people record that load non-CoreLogic SLM targets & milestones) utilize the AIR (After Incident Review) & Whiteboard documents to calculate true business impact duration.
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Count of Critical Tickets Resolved within Threshold/Critical Incidents Resolved during reporting period) * 100%
|
2.
|
2.2.b CSL-SM-Incident Handling - High
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Measures the time interval between an Incident Creation Date being registered in the service management tool for High Priority Incidents to the time normal service operation is restored via implementing a solution to the known error or by employing a workaround.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Pending time allowed as indicated in section 1.6 above.
- If there are instances or circumstances at a non-Dell facility where equipment failures (outside of equipment that we support) fail and that inhibits/prohibits us from rendering services, then it’s suspended. Some of this could include Power failures, local equipment not in our support, etc.
- Time incurred restoring Application data and/or functionality from tape media after Supplier has returned Equipment to service.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA.
Incidents and outages due to the following incident management exclusion reasons:
2.2.a.1 Scrub, Incident deemed misclassified by CoreLogic exclusion committee.
2.2.a.2 Scrub, Non-Supplier supported site.
2.2.a.3 Scrub, Server/System not in production (not in-service).
2.2.a.4 Scrub, CoreLogic Application related outage that is not Supplier infrastructure caused.
2.2.a.5 Scrub, duplicate Incident record.
2.2.a.6 Scrub, Scheduled Downtime per system.
2.2.a.7 Scrub, Monitoring Alerts, no outage or CoreLogic impact noted.
2.2.a.8 Scrub, Eligible Recipient requested escalation for Emergency Change, No CoreLogic outage.
2.2.a.9 Scrub, CoreLogic requested the Incident Severity be raised to bypass process/lead times.
2.2.a.10 Scrub, Non-Supplier Third Party outage.
2.2.a.11 Scrub, Final CoreLogic Resolver Group.
2.2.a.12 Scrub, Incident related to Supplier reported known errors where solution/remediation not approved by CoreLogic.
2.2.a 13 Scrub NDPM Non-Dell Project Management escalation and/or outage
2.2.a.13 Scrub, Aged CoreLogic records re-assigned to Dell Support.
2.2.a.14 Scrub, Internal Dell support created
2.2.a.15 Scrub, Project related
Critical & High priority incidents that are assigned & related as child records to the Dell Network Operations (NETOPS-GLOBAL-LEVERAGED) are excluded.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Priority (Severity) Level definitions are found in
Schedule A-1 Section 2
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single Incident is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply.
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Incidents are restored within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company+*
All Incident Recording during the Reporting Period
Priority*
Status. Resolved. Date/TIME
Exclude from Reporting based on RCA
Opened Date/Time
Total Pending Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
(a) Company+*="CORELOGIC ", “STARS”, “RELS”, ”FINITI”
(b) Status. Resolved Date/TIME is within the data range selected for running the report
(c) Priority = “Critical”
(d) Submitted Date/Time
(e) Exclude from SLA Reporting <> “Yes”
(f) Support Organization= Dell* or Support Group = CLGX-AOC
2. Incident Handling calculation
Time to restore service = Status Resolved Date/TIME - Submitted Date/Time - Pending Time
On-time Resolution = Resolved - Opened - On Hold
Supplementary criteria
MIM (Major Incident Management) event High priority records that align with a Server and or Service Availability SLA’s utilize the AIR (After Incident Review) & Whiteboard documents to calculate business impact duration via the OPAS CI Unavailability record. Process & procedure related missed MIM records (Examples: Failing to place in pending or resolved status at appropriate times, Incident records created with a Dell OPAS people record that load non-CoreLogic SLM targets & milestones) utilize the AIR (After Incident Review) & Whiteboard documents to calculate true business impact duration.
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Count of Critical Tickets Resolved within Threshold/Critical Incidents Resolved during reporting period) * 100%
|
3.
|
2.2.c KM-SM-INCIDENT COMMUNICATION
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Percentage of Critical and High Priority Incidents that are communicated within the target timeframe. Measures the time interval between an Incident record being registered in the service management tool for Critical and High Priority Incidents and the time a page/phone and email is sent to CoreLogic via OPAS's FYI paging functionality. Elapsed number of minutes between the creation of a Critical or High Priority Incident and the time that Dell activates the Major Incident Management (MIM) Process including notifying CoreLogic via using the standard critical Priority Incident Notification Email template, to resolve such Critical, as reflected in the corresponding Incident Ticket
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
25x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
N/A
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
None
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single Incident is not resolved within ten (30) minutes, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Incidents are communicated within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Company
Priority
OPAS FYI Notification Time Stamp
Email Work Log Time Stamp
Work Info Log Time Stamp for MIM Bridge Opening
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Support Company = “CORELOGIC”, STARS”,”RELS”,”FINITI”
Priority = “Critical” or “High”
Assigned Submitted Date/Time = reporting period
Resolved Date/Time within the SLA reporting period
Work log date/time Stamp
This is based on contractual SLA, which essentially covers Severity 1 and 2 (Critical and High) via OPAS FYI, and activation of MIM for Severity 1 (Critical) and notification to CoreLogic via email template within ***
.
Calculations (Manual)
The numbers are based on the following criteria:
1. Included Critical and High incidents that were deemed to be Business Impacting or MIM generated incidents.
2. Does not include every incident that triggered Critical or High (e.g., automated alert) that was not identified as business impacting (MIM generated).
3. FYI paging and/or email via OPAS FYI is based on self-subscription and does not qualify who from CoreLogic may have subscribed for FYI alerts. For clarity, the number of CoreLogic employees with FYI subscription (or none) does not influence met/missed for this aspect of the metric. Only the inability to deliver FYI notifications, regardless of the number of subscriptions influences the metric.
4. Only Critical incidents were included in the MIM email notification (per contract). This means Critical is subject to a two prong metric: FYI + MIM email within ***. A miss of *** was counted as a miss for that incident.
5. Total population subject to the SLA calculation (Total Critical + High Incidents that were MIM incidents).
|
4.
|
2.2.d KM-SM-PERCENTAGE OF INCIDENTS THAT ARE ACCURATELY TRIAGED
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Percentage of notifications (including automated alerts) that are accurately triaged, categorized and input into the appropriate Service Management system
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
25x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
Any trusted or custom event source incidents (those submitted from outside the current Supplier tools or teams) will be agreed upon before being included in this calculation.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of incidents that are submitted to the ticketing system and have initial accurate categorization and assignment. For greatest accuracy, an Incident record should be created to track each inaccuracy. This would be measured using OPAS Incidents and reporting exceptions.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Critical and High Priority Incidents are accurately triaged, categorized and input to system
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Incident Management Triage Field Flagging
Root Cause Analysis Report to include if Triage was done Accurately per guidelines defined in Problem Management process
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Steady State Service Management will review all Critical and High Priority during Root Cause Analysis, with CoreLogic, to agree on whether the Incident has had an Accurate Triage. Incident Ticket will be flagged using an identified field if it is accurately triaged or Not
Calculations (Manual)
% Accurately Triaged = (Total Tickets for High and Critical Priority -( Total Incident Tickets where Incident accuracy=”No” or Transfer Group >3))/ /Total Critical and High Priority Tickets during the reporting period
|
5.
|
2.2.3 KM-SM-Incident Communication - Continual
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure Continual: Percentage of Incidents where updates are sent within the target
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident
|
Exceptions:
|
This does not include any communication outside the Supplier Service Management process. Any Communication suspension as agreed by Dell and CoreLogic.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Critical Incidents where communication to established stakeholders is distributed within 5 minutes of the 30-minute target during the duration of the Critical Incident
NOTE:
Measurement of KM will be through an agreed-upon process and timestamp within the OPAS system or email transmission mechanism
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
None
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of all Critical Incident Communications sent no later than *** of the *** target.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CMDB Urgency
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”
Incident Records where Resolved Date/Time falls within reporting period
Priority = Critical
Calculations (will be done Manually by Service Management)
Service Level Achievement = (A/B) * 100%
A = Number of Critical Incident Communications which MET Target
B = Total count of Critical Incident Communications
Verification Steps:
1. Distribution Time Stamp of each Communication is reviewed to determine if update is sent at least every ***.
2. Critical Incident Communication = MET if step 1 is true and time stamp within *** of the *** target have elapsed since previous update
Example scenario: Initial MIM is sent at ***, the first update would be due at or between ***
|
6.
|
2.2.f1/2.2.f2 KM-SM-Problem Management-Service Impact Document Delivery (AIR and RCA)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the percentage of times an After Incident Report (AIR) document and final RCA that covers the items listed below is completed for Critical and High Priority Incidents and a Problem Review Meeting is completed within the target timeframe.
- Incident details through restoration
- Business impact
- RCA - if known
- Long term - fix if known
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Problem Management
|
Exceptions:
|
Excludes Problem records where CoreLogic critical/key stakeholder participation was not included within the target timeframe.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Critical priority - Within ***, an initial Problem record is created (After Incident Report (AIR)), and within ***, a final Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is completed.
High priority - Within ***, an initial Problem record is created (After Incident Report (AIR)), and within ***, a final Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is completed
Measures the percentage of times an AIR document and final RCA that covers the items listed below is completed for Critical & High Incidents and a Problem Review Meeting is completed within the target timeframe.
* Incident details through restoration
* Business impact
* RCA - if known
* Long term - fix if known
Actual closure of the RCA and Problem record is dependent on remediation activities needed.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of AIRs are delivered within *** and Final RCA is delivered and reviewed with CoreLogic within *** for Critical and *** for High Priority Incidents
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Company+*
Work Log Entry in Incident
Manual Report Tracking System
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “STARS”, “RELS”, “FINITI”
Problem Records where Completed Date/Time within the reporting period
Steady State must enter work log Information on Initial RCA and Final RCA into each Record. A report will be provided to support when RCAs are submitted based on Incident Critical/High work log Info.
Calculations (will be done Manually by Service Management)
Service Level Achievement = Total Records where Threshold is met during reporting period /Total Problem Records during the reporting Period
|
7.
|
2.2.g KM-SM-ASSET INVENTORY- ACCURACY
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
Per ***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to Measures the accuracy of ***% of CIs and associated attributes (as defined in the Policy and Procedures Manual) stored in the Supplier Asset Management Database.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
AMDB and KACE
|
Exceptions:
|
Any assets within the sample set that are unavailable or inaccessible to Supplier tools and/or Supplier Personnel will be excluded from this calculation
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
In order to measure this SLA each month a random sampling of ***% of the actively reporting KACE servers and workstations will be obtained. The criteria determine if the CIs are compliant will be the following:
Does the device exist in the AMDB?
If no, then this counts as a failure
If yes, then is the device in ‘deployed’ status in the AMDB?
If not in a ‘deployed’ status, then this counts as a failure
If yes and in a Deployed status then compare the data pulled from KACE and compare it to the comparable field of data in the AMDB
If any of the fields for a device does not match, then the device counts as a failure
All others are accurate [this count to feed into the count of accurately reported CIs within the sample set
Each device included in a random sample audit will be tagged with a Last Audit Date. Devices with Last Audit Dates within the preceding *** will be excluded from inclusion in the random sampling.
The results of the audit and supporting data will be provided to Service Management as per their processes to include the data in the SLA calculations and reporting requirements.
Each device failing the audit will be remediated each month and will have an on-line edit function to record notes as to the remediation.
Each *** prior to the new sampling, the previous *** sampling and remediation will be snapped to an archive.
Each *** Asset Management will review the previous *** audit results with CLGX.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supported Company
Random ***% of the CI Sampling
Attributes to be compared for audit consist of the following:
KACE ID - to identify matches in the AMDB
Host Name
Status
Domain
IP Address
MAC Address
OS Type
Service Pack
Hard Drive Size
Total RAM
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Manual Audit will be conducted. Any failure on data based on attribute to sampling of ***% of the CIs will be considered an SLA miss, a CI must meet the following requirements in order to pass the audit:
Device in AMDB = Yes
AMDB Status = Deployed
AMDB Data = KACE Data
Calculations (will be done Manually by Service Management)
Audit Accuracy = The count of accurately reported CIs within the sample set/ the total count of sample set CIs
|
8.
|
2.2.h KM-SM-CSAT Operations Managers
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
*** (every *** in ***)
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** (every ***), on or before the *** following the reporting period where the survey is closed
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure CoreLogic Operation Managers customer satisfaction
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Manual Report
|
Exceptions:
|
Minimum acceptable returned surveys: ***% of surveys returned
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures Supplier's performance through a jointly created *** (every *** and ***) survey to 'CoreLogic Operational Managers' (Measured on a *** scale). Expected survey set of *** individuals. Average of all the scores related to the single overall satisfaction question selected by an Operational Managers in such survey (on a scale of ***, with *** representing the highest level of satisfaction.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
>=***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Survey Sampling and Survey Results
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Total Survey Feedback received >= ***% of Surveys Sent
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Sum of score responses from Operational Managers/ Number of responses received) * 100%
|
9.
|
2.2.h.1 KM-SM-CSAT Operations Managers Service Improvement (SI)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
11/1/2016
|
First Reporting Period:
|
11/30/2016
|
First Report Date:
|
12/5/2016
|
Reporting Period:
|
*** (every ***)
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** (every ***), on or before the *** following the reporting period where the survey is closed
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Measures supplier's performance in delivering items collected during the Operation Managers Survey;
1) Publish initial results of survey within *** (Overall score).
2) Publish detailed results of survey within *** of survey closure (Detailed results for every question within survey).
3) Publish action items logged as a result of survey and interview feedback within *** of survey closure.
4) Status of action items *** post survey closure (prep for next survey)
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Manual Report
|
Exceptions:
|
N/A
|
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
= ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Survey Sampling and Survey Results
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Service Level Achievement = (A/B)
Calculations
A = In the reporting period is there a deliverable due? Y or N.
B = Pass / Fail
|
10.
|
2.2.i KM-SM-CSAT-E
ND
U
SERS
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure End User customer satisfaction
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS CSAT
|
Exceptions:
|
Minimum acceptable sample: 15% of surveys distributed
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures Supplier's performance through a survey sent to ***% of 'End Users' (Measured on a *** scale). Average of all of the numeric scores selected by an Authorized User in such survey (on a scale of ***, with *** representing the highest level of satisfaction
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
>=***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Customer Survey Rating per Customer Sat Record
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”STARS”, “RELS”, “FINITI”
Customer Satisfaction Survey Feedback during the Reporting Period
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Sum of score responses from Authorized Users/ Number of responses received)
|
11.
|
2.2.j KM-SM-CSAT
DROP
-E
ND
U
SERS
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure End User customer satisfaction drop
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Datamart
|
Exceptions:
|
Measured at the anniversary of Service Commencement Date
Drops in Authorized User satisfaction due to an agreed upon exceptional business events or due to CoreLogic directed |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Number of months in a year (measured annually) when end user CSAT dropped below the prior month. Auto surveys based on services requested across all towers/functions. Compiled and summarized ***
.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
*** where the CSAT is lower than ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Individual Monthly CSAT performances during ***
Supporting Company = CORELOGIC, STARS, RELS, FINITI
SLA Missed = Monthly CSAT where CSAT is lower than ***
Calculations
Total no. of months were SLA Missed ***
|
12.
|
2.3.a CSL-SD-AVERAGE SPEED TO ANSWER
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Average Speed to Answer (ASA) is the average across all calls to the Service Desk for the time taken from when a call is deemed to have entered the “wait queue” (once the caller has made their final selection from the IVR (interactive voice response) menu) to the time a Service Desk agent answers the call for the purposes of providing Services.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Dell-provided system logs and any other designated tracking systems (e.g., ACD system, IVR), tracking will be made using https://client.ps.net system. All calls that were abandoned by the Caller prior to Service Desk taking the call will be excluded from the SLA Calculation.
|
Exceptions:
|
Telephone calls to the Service Desk where the End User hangs up or disconnects prior to speaking with a Service Desk representative.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
None
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of calls answered <=***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Speed to Answer (SA) for each call
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = CORELOGIC, RELS, FINITI
Calculations
Total number of calls answered within ***/ total number of telephone calls answered by Service Desk during the Reporting Period
|
13.
|
2.3.b KM-SD-AVERAGE HANDLE TIME
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Average Handle Time (AHT) - Percentage of help desk calls that are handled within the target timeframe to support Speed to Answer (ASA) SLA attainment
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Automatic Call Distribution (ACD)
|
Exceptions:
|
None
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Average Handle Time (AHT) is the average across all calls to the Service Desk for a Measurement Period of the time taken on the phone by the Service Desk agent for each call.
Actual Performance will be reported every month until Dell and CoreLogic come to an agreement on the KPI measurement value.
The KPI, once defined, will be subject to the Continuous Service Improvement Process in Schedule A-03 Section 6 and will have a cap of ***
.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
<=***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Support Company
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Calls within the ACD for the reporting period
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “STARS”, “RELS”, “FINITI”
Calculations
Actual performance will be reported = Total time in *** of all calls answered by a Service Desk agent during the Measurement Period/ number of answered calls
|
14.
|
2.3.c KM-SD-A
BANDON
R
ATE
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Abandon Rate - Maximum percentage of help desk calls that are abandoned
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Automatic Call Distribution (ACD)
|
Exceptions:
|
Excludes calls abandoned < ***
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Call Abandon Rate measured as a percentage by adding the total number of calls to the Service Desk that hang up after selecting an option on the Voice Response Unit and before the call is answered by a live person and dividing this by the total number of calls to the Service Desk during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
<=***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Support Company
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Calls for Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”, “FINITI”, “STARS” during the reporting period
Calculations
Service Level Achievement =Total number of calls abandoned/Total calls - exempted calls x 100%
|
15.
|
2.3.d CSL-SD-FIRST CALL RESOLUTION
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
This Service Level measures the percentage of Incidents that are resolved during the first telephone Call to the Service Desk.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
- Incidents received by the Service Desk by means other than telephone (for example, e-mail, fax, self-service portal) will be excluded when calculating attainment for this Service Level.
- Calls for which a ticket has already been opened for the same Incident. Example given: large scale outage, multiple users calling in regards the same issue; the initial reported incident is calculated as part of the SLA. - Incidents that cannot be resolved by the Service Desk, as defined in a list to be developed by Dell during Transition Period and updated from time to time, in each case approved by CoreLogic. |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Reference Material for transactions included as part of FAR is found on :
***
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes
|
Threshold parameters:
|
Percentage of help desk calls that are resolved on the first call in less than *** >= ***% of the Time
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Incidents resolved by Service Desk through First Call resolution
Incident flagged as FAR(First Assignment Resolution)
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”, “STARS””
Status = Resolved
Assigned Date/Time
Resolved Date/Time
Support Group = CLGX-Service Desk
FAR Candidate Eligible for FAR = “Yes”
Group Transfer = 0
Source = Phone
Calculations
First Call Resolution = (total # of Incidents during a Reporting Period that are resolved by a Service Desk representative during the first telephone call to the Service Desk within ***/ Total FAR Eligible incidents) * 100
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the End User Device Setup (new user) - Percentage of new user setups that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Batch new user setups will be excluded from the On-Time Completion percentage calculation.
- Remote Location: The eleventh or more new user setup per day per remote location will be excluded from SLA calculation. - Campus Location: The sixteenth or more new user setup per day per campus location will be excluded from SLA calculation. - Time before arrival of assets will be excluded from this measurement (i.e., ticket is submitted after arrival of all necessary assets.) - Request for Non-Standard Hardware that requires unique configuration requirements not previously defined. _ A Batch will be defined as *** new user set-ups per day for Remote locations and *** new user set-ups per day for Campus Locations. |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of New Authorized User setup requests that are completed within the required timeframes during the Measurement Period Request Name : User Provisioning and Work Order = Computer Hardware Implementation
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***) then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested by Company
Request Summary
Closed Date/Time
Submitted Date/Time
Approval Date/Time
Pending Time
Status
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Request Records with Request Type = “New User Provisioning”
If Request Summary = “New User Provisioning”
Get Work Order Name = “*EUD*” or Work Order name = “Desk Phone*” or Work Order Name = “Mobile Device*” or ( Request Type = “
“TEMP NUP CLGX-Add or Install End User Device” or “
“TEMP NUP CLGX-Computer Hardware” or
“TEMP NUP CLGX-Desk Phone” or
“TEMP NUP CLGX-TEM-Mobile Device”)
Closed Date/Time is within the reporting date of the SLA
Excluded from SLA reporting <>”Yes”
Status = “Closed”
CoreLogic authorized users, currently:
Requested by Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”
Calculations
SLA Elapsed Time = Completed Date/Time - Approval Date/Time - Pending Time
Service Level Achievement = Number of End User Device Setup with SLA Elapsed time <=***/ Total number of End User Device Setup Service Requests for the Measurement Period
|
17.
|
2.6.b1/2.6.b2 KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE SERVICES SUPPORT
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the End User Device Services Support - Percentage of end user device service support Incidents that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management , OPAS Location Table
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Time that Incident Tickets are in "suspend mode" due to previously unknown third-party Software defects
- If there are instances or circumstances at a non-Dell facility where equipment failures (outside of equipment that Dell supports) fail and that inhibits/prohibits us from rendering services, then it’s suspended. Some of this could include facilities power failures, local equipment not in our support, etc. - Time incurred restoring Application data and/or functionality from tape media after Dell has returned Equipment to service.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA in order to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA
- Incident Priority = “Critical” or “High” (already part of Critical or High Incidents SLA)
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the time interval between an Incident record being registered in the service management tool for Desktop Services related Incidents to the time that operation is restored
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single Incident is not resolved within *** at staffed sites and more than *** for non-staffed sites, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Incidents completed within *** at staffed sites and within *** for non-staffed sites
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Customer Company
Reported Date/Time
Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
OPAS Location Site Group
Assignee Group
Site Alias
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Customer Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”, “FINITI”
Closed Date/Time within the reporting period
Priority = Medium or Low
Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”,
.Location Support Type = “Staffed*” or Non-Staffed*”
(Look up from location table)
Assignee Group = CLGX-FS* or Product Name = “*Phone*”
Calculations
Staffed SLA = (Resolved Date- Submit Date - Pending Time)/*meets SLA if Staffed SLA = ***
Non-Staffed SLA = (Resolved Date- Submit Date - Pending Time)/*meets SLA if Staffed SLA = ***
Service Level Achievement = (Total Met SLA for Staffed + Total Met SLA for Non-Staffed)/Total Incident Tickets during the reporting period based on Report Criteria x 100%
|
18.
|
2.6.c KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE TERMINATION
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the End User Device Termination - Percentage of employee end user device termination requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
This excludes any recovery of employee physical assets (for assets not in CoreLogic offices)
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the degree of compliance of request for End User Device termination within the time period specified. The time period used is the elapsed time from activation of a task to closure of the Service Management Workflow System record.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, if single Incident resulting in default is restored in less than ***
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested by Company
Request Summary
Closed Date/Time
Submitted Date/Time
Approval Date/Time
Pending Time
Status
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Request Records with Request Type = “Terminate a Resource (Employee/Contractor/Vendor)”
Work Order = “Terminate Computer Hardware” or Work Order = “Terminate Desk phone”, or Work Order = “Terminate Mobile Device”
Closed Date/Time is within the reporting date of the SLA
Excluded from SLA reporting <>”Yes”
Status = “Closed”
Requested by Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”, “STARS”
Calculations
SLA Elapsed Time = Completed Date/Time - Approval Date/Time - Pending Time
Service Level Achievement = Number of End User Device Termination with SLA Elapsed time <=***/ Total number of End User Device Setup Service Requests for the Measurement Period
|
19.
|
2.6.d KM-DT-REQUEST-PACKAGING (DEVELOP AND PUSH)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure Packaging - Percentage of packaging requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Any time greater than *** for CoreLogic to perform applicable testing of the software package.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the time taken to package software from the receipt of a request for new software to the time that the software is available for the Authorized User to install via the software distribution system. Software Package is a single software title whose installer has been modified in a manner to install with predetermined settings.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of work requests are completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested for Company
Request Summary
Closed Date/Time
Submitted Date/Time
Approval Date/Time
Status
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Request Records with Request Type = “Software Package Creation/Deployment - DTE”
Closed Date/Time is within the reporting date of the SLA
Excluded from SLA reporting <>”Yes”
Status = “Closed”
Requested by Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Calculations
SLA Elapsed Time = Completed Date/Time - Approval Date/Time - Pending Time
Service Level Achievement = Number of End User Packaging Request with SLA Elapsed time <=***/ Total number of End User Device Setup Service Requests for the Measurement Period
|
20.
|
2.6.e1/2.6.e2 KM-DT-END-USER DEVICE MOVES/ADDS/CHANGES
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure End User Device Moves/Adds/Changes - Percentage of move requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests, Location
|
Exceptions:
|
-Batch MACDs will be excluded from the On-Time Completion percentage calculation. Remote Location: The eleventh or more MACDs per day per remote location will be excluded from SLA calculation. Campus Location: The sixteenth or more MACDs per day per campus location will be excluded from SLA calculation. Batch (*** IMACDs in a day per CoreLogic Facility) Moves/Adds/Changes will be excluded from the on-Time Completion percentage calculation.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Moves/Adds/Changes (MACs) Service Requests completed within the required timeframes during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single Incident is not resolved within *** at staffed sites and more than *** for non-staffed sites, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within *** at staffed sites and *** at non-staffed sites
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested for
Company
Request Summary
Closed Date/Time
Submitted Date/Time
Approval Date/Time
Status
Excluded from SLA Reporting
Site Alias
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
All Request Records with Request Summary = “Move Request” , “Computer Hardware”;”De-Install Printer”, “Desk Phone”, “Install Printer - EUD”, “Mobile Device”
Closed Date/Time is within the reporting date of the SLA
Excluded from SLA reporting <>”Yes”
Status = “Closed”
Requested for Company = “CORELOGIC”, “RELS”,”FINITI”, “STARS”
Requester for. Location.Support Type = “staffed*” or Non-Staffed*”
(Look up people record of requested for to get location)
Calculations
Staffed SITE SLA = Completed Date/Time - Approval Date/Time /* SLA met = ***/
Non-Staffed SITE SLA = Completed Date/Time - Approval Date/Time /* SLA met = ****/
Service Level Calculation = (Total Staffed Site SLA Met + Total Non-Staffed Site SLA)/ Total no. of MAC request for the reporting period
|
21.
|
2.4.a KM-ENT-PATCH MANAGEMENT SERVERS
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure Patch management: Servers - Percentage of servers that are successfully patched within the target timeframe (from release of patch)
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Change Management
|
Exceptions:
|
- Post implementation of service pack, if Microsoft through their website releases a bug notification related to that specific Service Pack & that has caused unsuccessful implementation of patch.
- Time between Dell's request for CoreLogic's approval and when CoreLogic provides its approval |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Apply Patches to all instances of enterprise infrastructure applications including acquiring, testing, and installing multiple patches (Service Pack).
Patch management tasks include: maintaining current knowledge of available patches, deciding what patches are appropriate, ensuring that patches are installed properly, testing systems after installation, and documenting all associated procedures, such as specific configurations required.
Definition of Normal and Critical patches are part of the PPM documentation for Intel and Unix support.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of normal patches applied in *** and critical patches applied in ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested for Company
Actual Start Date/Time
Actual End Date/Time
Completed Date/Time
Exclude from SLA Reporting
Product Categorization Tier 1
Product Categorization Tier 2
Product Categorization Tier 3
Operational Categorization Tier 1
Operational Categorization Tier 2
Operational Categorization Tier 3
Excluded from SLA reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Requested Company = “CORELOGIC”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Completed Date and Time = within the SLA reporting period
Product Categorization 1 = “HARDWARE”;Product Categorization 2 = “SERVER”
Operational Category Tier 1 = “INSTALL”
Operational Category Tier 2 = “CODE”
Operational Category Tier 3 = “PATCH- MAINTENANCE”
Excluded from SLA Reporting <>”Yes”
Performance Rating = 5
Priority = Medium (target is Normal)
Priority = High (target is Critical)
Calculations
Critical Patches SLA = Complete Date/time - Submit Date/Time Date/Time (Should be equal to ***)
Normal Patches SLA = Complete Date/time - Submit Date/Time (Should be equal to ***)
Service Level Achievement = (Total number of Enterprise Patches that are successfully installed in accordance with SLA/ Total number of Enterprise Patches that are scheduled to be completed during the Measurement Period) * 100%
|
22.
|
2.4.b KM-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF RIGHTFAX SERVICE
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage Availability of Right Fax Service
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management , Change Management, Atrium
|
Exceptions:
|
- Single point of failure of hardware, software, or carrier services
Root Cause - All records that will indicate not part of this SLA as part of RCA from clause "Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach" flagged as Excluded from SLA reporting |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Service availability for Right Fax (including SQL server database) server to send and receive faxes.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Priority
Product Name
Incident ID
Incident Related Change
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Change ID
Change CI Unavailability
Change CI Unavailability Start Date/Time
Change CI Unavailability End Date/Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”STARS”,”RELS”,”FINITI”
Priority = Critical or High
Service Tier = “RightFax”
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Total number of hours of RightFax UPTIME/ Expected Uptime * 100%
|
23.
|
2.4.c CSL-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF EXCHANGE EMAIL SERVICE
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Service Availability is defined as the ability of an Authorized User on an Exchange account to (a) access and retrieve information from an individual mailbox, and (b) send and receive messages via his or her mailbox using the Services (Outlook MAPI, OWA, IMAP or POP3).
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management /Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- Individual mailbox or mobile device Availability, individual incoming and outgoing mail delivery time.
- Single point of failure (excluding RAID0 mail stores) of hardware, Software, or carrier services
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
Expected Service Level - ***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Priority
Product Catalogue Tier 3
Incident ID
Incident Related Change
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Change ID
Change CI Unavailability
Change CI Unavailability Start Date/Time
Change CI Unavailability End Date/Time
CMDB Service Tier
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”STARS”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,
Priority = Critical or High
CMDB Service Tier = “Exchange”
CI Name as provided above
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Total number of hours of Exchange Email Service UPTIME/ Expected Uptime * 100%
|
24.
|
2.4.d CSL-ENT-PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY OF CITRIX METAFRAME
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Service Availability is defined by availability of core Citrix services like IMA service, Print spooler, XML service and published applications.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Datamart Incident Management /Change Management, CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- Individual Citrix clients, individual Citrix Desktop Availability
- For published applications, where the application is the root cause of the unavailability.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
CMDB Service Tier=Citrix
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Priority
Product Name
Incident ID
Incident Related Change
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Change ID
Change CI Unavailability
Change CI Unavailability Start Date/Time
Change CI Unavailability End Date/Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,” RELS”,” FINITI”,” STARS”
Priority = High or Critical
CMDB Service Tier = Citrix
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Total number of hours of Exchange Email Service UPTIME/ Expected Uptime * 100%
|
25.
|
2.9.a CSL-NW-Data Center LAN Availability
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of Network Connectivity required for business operations - LAN (Data Center locations). Availability within data center, common communication between computing and associated devices. Redundant equipment is required. The service is determined to be available if either side of the redundancy is up and operational.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB. Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach.
|
Exceptions:
|
- No single LAN availability device could cause an SLA miss, unless that single device is unavailable for more than 4 hours.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
To determine the impact and duration to service availability, the following process is adhered. True impact and duration are determined by analyzing the MIM communications, AIR & RCA. With that extracted start & end times (Excluding any scheduled maintenance downtime) a CI unavailability record is created on the parent incident management record to reflect & report the service impact duration.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Data Center LAN Systems will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
Product Category Tier 3
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
26.
|
2.9.b CSL-NW-Data Center WAN Availability
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of Network Connectivity required for business operations - WAN (Data Center locations). Availability for inter-data center connection, internet, intranet, extranet, devices and circuits. Reachability; measurement of the total number of hours of Availability through VLANS and firewalls to internet service provider circuits, intranet and extranet circuit service providers, communication between data centers. Redundant equipment is required. The service is determined to be available if either side of the redundancy is up and operational.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB. Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach.
|
Exceptions:
|
- No single WAN availability device could cause an SLA miss, unless that single device is unavailable for more than ***.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
To determine the impact and duration to service availability, the following process is adhered. True impact and duration are determined by analyzing the MIM communications, AIR & RCA. With that extracted start & end times (Excluding any scheduled maintenance downtime) a CI unavailability record is created on the parent incident management record to reflect & report the service impact duration.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Data Center WAN Systems will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
Product Category Tier 3
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
27.
|
2.9.c KM-NW-Campus LAN Availability
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of Network Connectivity required for business operations - LAN (Campus locations, Dallas/Irving, Irvine & San Diego). Availability within campus buildings, common communication between computing and associated devices. Assume redundant equipment exists at some level. The service is determined to be available if either side of the redundancy is up and operational.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB. Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach.
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single Campus LAN availability device could cause an SLA miss, unless that single device is unavailable for more than ***.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
To determine the impact and duration to service availability, the following process is adhered. True impact and duration are determined by analyzing the MIM communications, AIR & RCA. With that extracted start & end times (Excluding any scheduled maintenance downtime) a CI unavailability record is created on the parent incident management record to reflect & report the service impact duration.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Campus LAN Systems will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
Product Category Tier 3
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
28.
|
2.9.d1/2.9.d2 KM-NETWORK-REQUEST-FIREWALL, IP ADDRESS, HTTP PORT REQUESTS
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the IT Security - Percent of Firewall requests, I.P. Address Add, Change or Open HTTP, Port requests that are successfully completed within Target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Any hold in approval processes or change request initiated by CoreLogic
- Supplier's failure to meet this Service Level in respect of any hardware-related Incidents shall be excused to the extent that such failure is caused by any Supplier third party provider's failure to perform, or delay in performing, any repair or replacement actions required to be performed by such third party provider in connection with the resolution of any such Incident; provided, that (i) Supplier uses commercially reasonable efforts to cause such third party providers to perform within the required time frame and (ii) to the extent documented in Supplier's Root Cause Analysis
- Pending Time based on allowed Pending Event
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the time taken between processing of approved request(s)
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***; ***% completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary Name = Firewall Request or IP Assignment
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
***% - Service Level Achievement (within ***)= (Number of successfully completed requests within ***/Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
***% - Service Level Achievement (within ***)= (Number of successfully completed requests within ***/Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
29.
|
2.9.e CSL-NW-VOIP Availability
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of the VOIP Service. VOIP Availability consists of time voice communication between users was available. Includes contact center and end user. Redundant equipment and circuits are required.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB. Cisco operations manager or equivalent. Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach.
|
Exceptions:
|
- Excludes Avaya, Nortel and other non-enterprise VOIP systems.
- No single VOIP availability device could cause an SLA miss, unless that single device is unavailable for more than ***. |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
To determine the impact and duration to service availability, the following process is adhered. True impact and duration are determined by analyzing the MIM communications, AIR & RCA. With that extracted start & end times (Excluding any scheduled maintenance downtime) a CI unavailability record is created on the parent incident management record to reflect & report the service impact duration.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of VOIP Systems will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
30.
|
2.9.f KM-NW-Call Center/Call Monitoring Requests
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Measures the time it takes to fulfill Call Center/Nice - Network Voice requests, including call agent IMACDs, call recording requests, etc.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CoreLogic”, “Finiti”,”Rels”,”Stars”
Request Type Name = “Call Center/Nice - Network Voice”
Request Completed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (within ***) = (Number of successfully completed requests within ***/Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
31.
|
2.9.f1 KM-NW-Contact Center Call Flow
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2017
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2017
|
First Report Date:
|
9/7/2017
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Measures the time it takes to fulfill Contact Center - Call Flow Add / Change.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Requests being measured under this key measurement include both project & non-project records
.
To determine project work, the NTT VOIP team review items requested with NTT Project Management team (examples; acquisitions where voice is being migrated, upgrades, disconnects of toll free numbers and removal of scripts).
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within 45 business days, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within *** business days
***% within *** business days
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CoreLogic”, “Finiti”,”Rels”,”Stars”
Request Type Name = “Contact Center - Call Flow Add / Change”
Work Order Type = “General” & “Project”
Request Completed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Pending time is not excluded from the calculation for this measurement
.
Service Level Achievement
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time
Service Level Achievement (***% within *** & ***% within ***) = (Number of successfully completed requests within ***/Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
32.
|
2.4.e CSL-MR-Server Availability - High
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as High.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single High availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as High which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
High Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Urgency = High
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of High Availability servers will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CMDB Urgency
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
33.
|
2.4.f CSL-MR-Server Availability - Standard
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as Standard.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single Standard availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as High which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Standard Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Urgency = Standard
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Standard Availability servers will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CMDB Urgency
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
34.
|
2.4.g KM-MR-Server Availability - Low
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as Low.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single Low availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as High which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Low Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Urgency = Low
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Low Availability servers will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CMDB Urgency
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
35.
|
2.4.h KM-MR-Server Availability - Development
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as Development.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single Low availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as High which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Development Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Urgency = Development
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CMDB Urgency
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Incident Priority = High or Critical
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
CMDB Urgency = “Development”
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Excluded from SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
|
36.
|
2.4.i KM-MR-PHYSICAL SERVER PROVISIONING REQUEST
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure Physical Server Provisioning - Percentage of physical server installation requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe (includes server configuration, backup and other workload automation)
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Greater than 10 in single request is batch and will be excluded from the on-Time Completion percentage calculation.
- Time before arrival of assets will be excluded from this measurement (i.e. ticket is submitted after arrival of all necessary assets.) - Customer Approval Time not included in SLA calculation - Pending Time based on Valid Pending Activity |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Physical Service Provisioning Service Requests that are fulfilled by Supplier within the required timeframe. This Service Level applies to standard configuration x*** servers
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary= “Physical Server Install - UNIX/Linux - Internal” or
“Physical Server Install - Windows - Internal”
Request ClosedDate/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
37.
|
2.4.j KM-MR-VIRTUAL SERVER PROVISIONING REQUEST
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the requests to add server(s) into Cloud Environment: Less than *** VM's - Percentage of server provisioning requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Greater than *** in single request is batch and will be excluded from the on-Time Completion percentage calculation.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Virtual Service Provisioning Requests (less than ***) that are fulfilled by Supplier within the required timeframe
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary
Work Order Summary
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Virtual Server Install - Linux - Internal
or “Virtual Server Install - Windows - Internal “
And Work Order Summary = “Provision Server” and Work Order Summary = “Service Device/QA”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Completed Date for Work Orders - Earliest Assigned Date for Work - Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
38.
|
2.4.k KM-ENT-PATCH MANAGEMENT (Non-Enterprise)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure Patch management: Non-Enterprise - Percentage of devices that are successfully patched within the target timeframe (from release of patch)
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Change Management
|
Exceptions:
|
- Post implementation of service pack, if Microsoft through their website releases a bug notification related to that specific Service Pack & that has caused unsuccessful implementation of patch.
- Time between NTT request for CoreLogic's approval and when CoreLogic provides its approval |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Apply Patches to all instances of non-enterprise infrastructure applications including acquiring, testing, and installing multiple patches (Service Pack).
Patch management tasks include: maintaining current knowledge of available patches, deciding what patches are appropriate, ensuring that patches are installed properly, testing systems after installation, and documenting all associated procedures, such as specific configurations required.
Definition of Normal and Critical patches are part of the PPM documentation
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of normal patches applied in *** month and critical patches applied in ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Requested for Company
Actual Start Date/Time
Actual End Date/Time
Completed Date/Time
Exclude from SLA Reporting
Product Categorization Tier 1
Product Categorization Tier 2
Product Categorization Tier 3
Operational Categorization Tier 1
Operational Categorization Tier 2
Operational Categorization Tier 3
Excluded from SLA reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Requested Company = “CORELOGIC”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Completed Date and Time = within the SLA reporting period
Product Categorization 1 = “HARDWARE”;Product Categorization 2 = “SERVER”
Operational Category Tier 1 = “INSTALL”
Operational Category Tier 2 = “CODE”
Operational Category Tier 3 = “PATCH- MAINTENANCE”
Excluded from SLA Reporting <>”Yes”
Performance Rating = ***
Priority = Medium (target is Normal)
Priority = High (target is Critical)
Calculations
Critical Patches SLA = Complete Date/time - Submit Date/Time Date/Time (Should be equal to ***)
Normal Patches SLA = Complete Date/time - Submit Date/Time (Should be equal to ***)
Service Level Achievement = (Total number of Enterprise Patches that are successfully installed in accordance with SLA/ Total number of Enterprise Patches that are scheduled to be completed during the Measurement Period) * 100%
|
39.
|
2.5.a CSL-Storage-Availability
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of the Storage Service. Service Availability is defined by availability of storage frames, NAS appliances, and SAN connectivity.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB. Will be measured using an Incident RCA based measurement approach.
|
Exceptions:
|
- No Single Storage availability device could cause an SLA miss, unless that single device is unavailable for more than ***.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
To determine the impact and duration to service availability, the following process is adhered. True impact and duration are determined by analyzing the MIM communications, AIR & RCA. With that extracted start & end times (Excluding any scheduled maintenance downtime) a CI unavailability record is created on the parent incident management record to reflect & report the service impact duration.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of Storage Systems will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
Product Category Tier 3
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
40.
|
2.5.b KM-STORAGE-REQUEST FOR TIER 1,2,3 FOR < 100 TB
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe - Tier 1, 2, 3 Storage Provisioning <***% of allocated
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Any Storage provisioning requests which exceed (in sum) more than 5% of allocated storage during the designated Measurement Period will be excluded.
- Locally attached storage - Third Party Hardware Exception |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Tier 1, 2, and 3 storage configuration service requests, less than 100TB of all allocated storage, that are performed within the required timeframe during the Measurement Period
Allocated Storage is equivalent last month’s storage capacity report which will be used a monthly baseline for the ***% value.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Server Storage Request” (question included at the work order level to indicate whether the request Total Size in GB)
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Total Size in GB <100 TB
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
41.
|
2.5.c KM-STORAGE-REQUEST FOR TIER 1,2,3 FOR >100 TB
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of requests that are successfully completed within the target timeframe - Tier 1, 2, 3 Storage Provisioning >***% of allocated
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
-Locally attached storage
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of Tier 1, 2, and 3 storage configuration service requests, more than 100TB of all allocated storage, that are performed within the required timeframe during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary Name = “Server Storage Request”)
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Total Size in GB >100TB
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
42.
|
2.5.d KM-STORAGE - ADD BACKUP REQUEST TO SERVER
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of requests to add servers to backup that are successfully completed within the target timeframe - Add backup service
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
- Add backup service requests - If the number of Add backup service requests is greater than *** per business day, this will be considered a batch submission and executed as a project.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of new backup Service Requests that are performed within the required timeframe during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Server Back-up Schedule”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
43.
|
2.5.e KM-STORAGE - EMERGENCY RESTORE REQUEST FROM BACKUP
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of restoration requests for business critical restore of file(s), folder(s), sub directory which is currently offsite completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management
|
Exceptions:
|
- The *** or more incidents per day will be excluded from SLA calculation.
- Batch emergency restores will be excluded from the On-Time Completion percentage calculation. |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of emergency restore Incidents that are initiated via the physical restore within the required timeframe during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of incidents initiated within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Product Name (Emergency restores will always be done via incident t)
Pending Time
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Name
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Incident Resolved date/time within the reporting period
Product Name = EMERGENCY RESTORE
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Service Level Achievement Total Number of Emergency Restore Tickets Resolved within ***/Total Number of Emergency Restore Tickets
|
44.
|
2.5.f KM-STORAGE-BACKUP-JOB FAILURE
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of backup job failures that are successfully addressed within the target timeframe - Business critical, backup job failure
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
Incident Ticket
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Time that Incident Tickets are in "pending mode" due to previously unknown third party software defects.
- Time that Incident Tickets are in "suspend mode" for equipment related failures at non Dell facilities.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA in order to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of backup job failures that are successfully completed within the required timeframe during the Measurement Period
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single failure successfully completed is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of failures are successfully completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Operational Category Tier 3
Excluded from Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, RELS”RELS”, “FINITI”, “STARS”
Incident Resolved Date/Time within the reporting period
Resolution Operational Category Tier 3 = BACK-UP FAILURE
Or Summary = “*Net Back-up*”
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = Total Incident Records Resolved within 2 days for Resolution Operational Category is Back-up Failure /Total Incident Records with Resolution Operational Category Tier 3 = BACK-UP FAILURE or Summary = “*Net Back-up*”
|
45.
|
2.5.g KM-STORAGE-BACKUP-RESTORE SEMIANNUAL REQUEST COMPLETION
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percentage of restores successfully completed within the target timeframe - CoreLogic requested restore of up to ***% of the backup media per/ semiannual or per compliance policy
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Reported semi-annually
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Change Records
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the percentage of random restores that are successfully completed during designated Change Window
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single restore is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of restores are successfully completed without fault and within ***
.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Changed Assigned Date/Time
Change Resolved Date/Time
Performance Rating
Operational Categorization Tier 3
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Change Resolved Date and Time is within the reporting period
Performance Rating = 5 / Successful implementation
Operational Categorization 3 = BACK-UP RESTORE SEMIANNUAL REQUEST
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = Total Number of Change Records completed within ***/Total Number of Change Records on Back-up Restore Semiannual Request
|
46.
|
2.7.a CSL-T2L-Availability (Replaces Mainframe Availability CSL)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
9/1/2017
|
First Reporting Period:
|
9/30/2017
|
First Report Date:
|
10/7/2017
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as T2L.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No single T2L availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as T2L which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
T2L Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of T2L Availability servers will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Incident Priority = High or Critical
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Excluded from SLA Reporting <> Yes
Review AIR/PM to determine if T2L server pool is impacted (audited availability pool quarterly with TAX team).
Calculations
Step 1. Calculate (A) = Unavailability minutes per server allowed = ***(***). Round up to nearest whole number = ***. This is not recalculated ***.
Step 2. Determine the count of servers in the T2L availability pool (B)
Step 3. Calculate (C) = The count of servers allowed to be unavailable more than (A) = (B)*(***) ceiling up to nearest whole number.
Example: if the unit count is ***, then the result of *** would be rounded up to ***
Step 4. Calculate (D) = Based on CI unavailability & RCA, determine the count of T2L servers that were unavailable for more than step 1 (A). If (D) is more than step 3 (C) then the SLA would be a miss.
Example: If the unit count is *** units with a unit target of ***% and an availability target of ***% this would mean that no server with more than *** of downtime would result in a miss of the SLA target.
|
47.
|
2.7.b CSL-T2L-TPE/BPE Availability (Replaces CICS Availability CSL)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
9/1/2017
|
First Reporting Period:
|
9/30/2017
|
First Report Date:
|
10/7/2017
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the Availability of an individual cluster or System that are classified as TPE/BPE.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24x7
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management and Change Management, Atrium CMDB
|
Exceptions:
|
- No single TPE/BPE availability server could cause an SLA miss, unless that single server is unavailable for more than ***.
- Lack of availability caused by CoreLogic or CoreLogic’s Third Party Contractor as documented in Supplier’s Root Cause Analysis - Third Party Hardware Exception - If any node of the cluster is not available and the cluster itself is available then cluster is considered available. - Any server classified as TPE/BPE which does not meet the minimal configuration requirements as defined in Resource Unit Definition Schedule A 4.2 at the time of the Incident will be excluded - Unavailability caused by a CoreLogic employee, as documented in the Root Cause Analysis - Scheduled Downtime due to Scheduled Changes |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
High Availability Server detailed attributes presented in Appendix C.
Configured Items related to this SLA will be:
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of the time, ***% of TPE/BPE Availability servers will be available.
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Incident Assigned Date/Time
Incident Priority
Incident ID
Incident Resolved Date/Time
Product Category Tier 1
Product Category Tier 2
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Scheduled Actual End Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual Start Date/Time
CI Unavailability Unscheduled Actual End Date/Time
Related Change to Incident Record
Excluded from SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”,”RELS”,”FINITI”,”STARS”
Incident Priority = High or Critical
Product Catalog Tier 1= HARDWARE
Product Catalog Tier 2 = SERVER
Incident Resolved Date/Time = Period of Reporting
Incident Related Changes for All incidents during the Period of Reporting
Excluded from SLA Reporting <> Yes
Review AIR/PM to determine if TPE/BRE server pool is impacted (audited availability pool quarterly with TAX team).
Calculations
Step 1. Calculate (A) = Unavailability minutes per server allowed = ****(***). Round up to nearest whole number = ***. This is not recalculated ***.
Step 2. Determine the count of servers in the TPE/BPE availability pool (B)
Step 3. Calculate (C) = The count of servers allowed to be unavailable more than (A) = (B)*(***) ceiling up to nearest whole number.
Example: if the unit count is ***, then the result of *** would be rounded up to ***
Step 4. Calculate (D) = Based on CI unavailability & RCA, determine the count of TPE/BPE servers that were unavailable for more than step 1 (A). If (D) is more than step 3 (C) then the SLA would be a miss.
Example: If the unit count is *** units with a unit target of ***% and an availability target of ***% this would mean that no server with more than *** of downtime would result in a miss of the SLA target.
|
48.
|
2.7.c KM-EAPM-REQUEST-MONITORING SETUP (SYNTHETIC TRANSACTION)
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
*** on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percent of Synthetic Transaction monitoring setup completed in the timeframe described.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the amount of time between receipt of a monitoring setup request and the completion of the monitoring setup activity
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within *** times, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of transactions (web page calls) completed in the target timeframe:
*** or fewer transactions - ***
*** transactions - ***
*** transactions - ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Closed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Application Monitoring -BAC “
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
No. of Trans (field in Details section of Work Order)
Calculations
Request SLA = Request Completed Date/Time - Request Approval Date/Time- Total Pending Time based on number of transactions
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
49.
|
2.1.a KM-CAP-NEW USER REQUEST
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure the Percent of new user account setup requests completed within the target timeframe
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business Hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Service Requests, OPAS Incidents
|
Exceptions:
|
- Any hold in approval processes or Change Request initiated by CoreLogic
- Any valid Pending events |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Measures the time taken between processing of approved request to setup the account(s) SecAdmin will be the support group for Dell that handles User Access New User Provisioning Request will include:
Active Directory
Check Writer
CRM
Oracle
Unix
VPN
TeamForge
TimeTrack
Mainframe
RightFax
Enterprise or Business Unit Software (list provided in the NUP form where Dell is required to provision logical access)
AS/400 iseries
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within 24 business hours, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Work Order Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
(Request Summary = “New User Provisioning “ and
Work Order Summary = “*SLA
or Request Summary = “*TEMP NUP CLGX-Oracle Access” or *TEMP NUP- SecAdmin- Mainframe/zSeries or *TEMP NUP UNIX User Addition or *TEMP NUP CLGX-Time Tracker or *TEMP NUP Digital Certificate (VPN) or
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Work Order Complete Date/Time
Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
AND All incident records with Summary = “PROVISION_CLGX:New User Activation*”
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work order Completed Date/Time - Work order earliest Assigned Date and Time- Total Pending Time
%Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests with Request SLA /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
50.
|
2.1.b1/2.1.b2 CSL-TERMINATION REQUEST
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Critical Service Level
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this Service Level is to measure whether requests are resolved in a timely manner according to Severity Levels.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management, OPAS Incident Records
|
Exceptions:
|
- Any hold in approval processes or Change Request initiated by CoreLogic
- Any termination requests over 40 during a given day will not be measured -Pending time from valid Pending Event |
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
Resolution Time means the elapsed time from the record being created to the time the record is completely resolved. Termination Request will include:
Active Directory ID
CRM
Mainframe
Oracle
Remote Access/VPN
UNIX
RightFax
TeamForge
TimeTracker
AS/400-iSeries
Enterprise Business Applications
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within *** and ***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Terminate A Resource (employee/contractor/vendor) and
Work Order Summary is = “Terminate System Access” or Terminate Mainframe Access or Terminate Remote Access VPN
AND All incident records for the period where
Summary = “TERMINATION_CLGX:Termination*”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Two (2) thresholds will be computed :
Threshold (1)
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests *** /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
Threshold (2)
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed requests within *** /Total number of requests in the measurement period) * 100%
|
51.
|
2.1.c1/2.1.c2 KM-CAP-FTP Add Account
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
12/1/2017
|
First Reporting Period:
|
12/31/2017
|
First Report Date:
|
1/5/2018
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
The intent of this SLA is to measure the completion time duration for FTP Add Account SRM.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
If over 25 requests per month the overage will be excluded from the measurement.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
N/A
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single request is not resolved within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% completed within *** & ***% completed within ***
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = FTP Add Account
Request Question = FTP Server
Request Answer = ANAFTP02 (FTP)
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Pending time is included
Calculations
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
52.
|
3.0.a KM-Security Audit - Critical
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
KM-Security Audit-Critical
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Security Audit Compliance Request” and Questions “Request Type” = “Client Audit”, “EI3PA/PCI”, “SOX”, “Remediation”, “SSAE16”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
53.
|
3.0.b KM-Security Audit - Normal
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
KM-Security Audit-Normal
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Security Audit Compliance Request” and Questions “Request Type” = “Client Audit”, “EI3PA/PCI”, “SOX”, “Remediation”, “SSAE16”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
54.
|
3.0.c KM-Litigation Hold
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
KM-Litigation Hold
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “Place Litigation Hold”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
55.
|
3.0.d KM-HR Electronic Monitoring
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
8/1/2013
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/31/2013
|
First Report Date:
|
9/6/2013
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
KM-HR Elecmon
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Request Summary = “HR ElecMon”
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
56.
|
2.3.e KM-SM-GENERAL REQUEST FULFILMENT
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Requests that are completed within the target timeframe. Measures the time interval between a Request being created in the service management tool to the time of work order completion
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Request Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Pending Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Supporting Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
All Request Management tickets that are not included in previous SLAs
Request Closed Date/Time is within the reporting period
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Calculations
Request SLA = Latest Work Order Completed Date/Time - earliest Work Order Assigned Date/Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Requests with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Requests for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
57.
|
2.3.f KM-SM-CHANGE SUCCESS
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Change performance rating will be agreed upon by both Dell and CoreLogic
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Change Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of closed changes successfully implemented
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Status
Status Reason
Change Completed Date/Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Location Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Status = Closed
Status Reason = “Automatically Closed”, “Final Review Complete”, “Successful”
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Service Level Achievement
Number of Changes with SLA criteria / Total number of changes for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
58.
|
2.3.g KM-SM-CHANGE CAUSING OUTAGES
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Change performance rating will be agreed upon by both Dell and CoreLogic.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Change Management, Incident Management
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
|
Threshold parameters:
|
< ***% of Change Requests causing outages (critical or high incident)
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Status
Status Reason
Change Completed Date/Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Location Company = “CORELOGIC”, “FINITI”,”RELS”,”STARS”
Status = Closed
Related Incident with Submit Date/Time within 24 hours and limited to 15 natural days after Change scheduled start date/time
Excluded in SLA Reporting <> Yes
Service Level Achievement
Number of Changes with SLA criteria / Total number of changes for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
59.
|
2.3.h KM-SM-INCIDENT MANAGEMENT - MEDIUM
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Incident Handling Medium: Percent of Medium Incidents that are restored within the target timeframe. Measures the time interval between an Incident record being registered in the service management tool for Medium Incidents to the time normal service operation is restored via implementing a solution to the known error or by employing a workaround.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Time that Incident Tickets are in "suspend mode" due to previously unknown third-party software defects.
- If there are instances or circumstances at a non-Dell facility where equipment failures (outside of equipment that we support) fail and that inhibits/prohibits us from rendering services, then it’s suspended. Some of this could include Power failures, local equipment not in our support, etc
.
- Time incurred restoring Application data and/or functionality from tape media after Supplier has returned Equipment to service.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA in order to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA.
Incidents and outages due to the following incident management exclusion reasons:
2.2.a.1 Scrub, Incident deemed misclassified by CoreLogic exclusion committee.
2.2.a.2 Scrub, Non-Supplier supported site.
2.2.a.3 Scrub, Server/System not in production (not in-service).
2.2.a.4 Scrub, CoreLogic Application related outage that is not Supplier infrastructure caused.
2.2.a.5 Scrub, duplicate Incident record.
2.2.a.6 Scrub, Scheduled Downtime per system.
2.2.a.7 Scrub, Monitoring Alerts, No outage or CoreLogic impact noted.
2.2.a.8 Scrub, Eligible Recipient requested escalation for Emergency Change, No CoreLogic outage.
2.2.a.9 Scrub, CoreLogic requested the Incident Severity be raised to bypass process/lead times.
2.2.a.10 Scrub, Non-Supplier Third Party outage.
2.2.a.11 Scrub, Final CoreLogic Resolver Group.
2.2.a.12 Scrub, Incident related to Supplier reported known errors where solution/remediation not approved by CoreLogic.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company+*
All Incident Recording during the Reporting Period that are not already include in previous SLAs
Priority*
Status.Resolved. Date/TIME
Opened Date/Time
Total Pending Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
(a) Company+*="CoreLogic ", “STARS”, “RELS”,”FINITI”
(b) Status.Resolved Date/TIME is within the data range selected for running the report
(c) Priority = “Medium”
(d) Opened Date/Time
(e) Exclude from SLA Reporting <> “Yes”
Calculations
Time to restore service = Status Resolved Date/Time - Opened Date/Time - Pending Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Incidents with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Incidents for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
60.
|
2.3.i KM-SM-INCIDENT MANAGEMENT - LOW
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Incident Handling Medium: Percent of Medium Incidents that are restored within the target timeframe. Measures the time interval between an Incident record being registered in the service management tool for Medium Incidents to the time normal service operation is restored via implementing a solution to the known error or by employing a workaround.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS Incident Management
|
Exceptions:
|
Restoration Time does not include the following:
- Time that Incident Tickets are in "suspend mode" due to previously unknown third-party software defects.
- If there are instances or circumstances at a non-Dell facility where equipment failures (outside of equipment that we support) fail and that inhibits/prohibits us from rendering services, then it’s suspended. Some of this could include Power failures, local equipment not in our support, etc
.
- Time incurred restoring Application data and/or functionality from tape media after Supplier has returned Equipment to service.
- Third Party Hardware Exception
- Adjustments to the Service Levels approved by CoreLogic in its sole discretion pursuant to the last sentence of Section 4.4 of the MSA in order to permit the performance of new or additional work activities as contemplated by Section 4.4 of the MSA.
Incidents and outages due to the following incident management exclusion reasons:
2.2.a.1 Scrub, Incident deemed misclassified by CoreLogic exclusion committee.
2.2.a.2 Scrub, Non-Supplier supported site.
2.2.a.3 Scrub, Server/System not in production (not in-service).
2.2.a.4 Scrub, CoreLogic Application related outage that is not Supplier infrastructure caused.
2.2.a.5 Scrub, duplicate Incident record.
2.2.a.6 Scrub, Scheduled Downtime per system.
2.2.a.7 Scrub, Monitoring Alerts, No outage or CoreLogic impact noted.
2.2.a.8 Scrub, Eligible Recipient requested escalation for Emergency Change, No CoreLogic outage.
2.2.a.9 Scrub, CoreLogic requested the Incident Severity be raised to bypass process/lead times.
2.2.a.10 Scrub, Non-Supplier Third Party outage.
2.2.a.11 Scrub, Final CoreLogic Resolver Group.
2.2.a.12 Scrub, Incident related to Supplier reported known errors where solution/remediation not approved by CoreLogic.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of Requests completed within ***
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company+*
All Incident Recording during the Reporting Period that are not already include in previous SLAs
Priority*
Status.Resolved. Date/TIME
Opened Date/Time
Total Pending Time
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
(a) Company+*="CoreLogic ", “STARS”, “RELS”,”FINITI”
(b) Status.Resolved Date/TIME is within the data range selected for running the report
(c) Priority = “Low”
(d) Opened Date/Time
(e) Exclude from SLA Reporting <> “Yes”
Calculations
Time to restore service = Status Resolved Date/Time - Opened Date/Time - Pending Time
Service Level Achievement
Number of Incidents with SLA Elapsed time under the threshold / Total number of Incidents for the Measurement Period * 100%
|
61.
|
2.3.j KM-SM-OPAS AVAILABILITY
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
3/31/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Percentage OPAS Availability. OPAS Availability consists of time the OPAS ticketing system is fully available to users.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
24X7 see
1.4.8 Time Definitions
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS outage records
|
Exceptions:
|
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***%
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Calendar
Maintenance Window
Performance Tool
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Use normal group & device (region/job name) approach where downtime are set tin OPAS with information on date, start time and end time of downtime.
Represented Total Downtime inclusive of planned change.
Calculations
Service Level Agreement = Total Number of Hours Uptime/Expected Uptime x 100%
|
62.
|
2.2.k KM-ENT-Purchase Order Creation
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
7/1/2015
|
First Reporting Period:
|
8/1/2015
|
First Report Date:
|
9/5/2015
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Measures Dell Purchase Orders (PO) created within the target timeframe, for hardware being purchased on CoreLogic’s behalf at CoreLogic’s request. This will encompass RU based server related and/or any approved project based purchase requests regardless of hardware or vendor. Measures the time interval between an OPAS request or project Work Order/Change Order being approved to the time of purchase order creation.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
Business hours - *** = 1 business day
|
Reporting Tools:
|
OPAS
|
Exceptions:
|
Any other purchase requests that are not RU based or through an approved project. Circuits are excluded, but circuit hardware is not.
CoreLogic cancellations of a PO request.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
For the RU based purchase requests, the request types include:
Physical Server Install - (All Platform/Types)
Server Storage Request
Server Request - Hosted
For approved project based purchase requests, request types are irrelevant. Reference the methodology below.
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
Yes, provided that if any single purchase request is not completed within ***, then this Low Volume exception shall not apply.
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of purchase orders created in the target timeframe:
*** (***) regardless of vendor or hardware type
Note: *** = 1 business day
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
Supporting Company
Request Summary Name
Request Approval Date/Time
Request Assigned Date/Time
Request Completed Date/Time
Excluded in SLA Reporting
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
For RU based purchase requests in OPAS:
(a) Company+*="CoreLogic ", “STARS”, “RELS”
(b) Request Summary in:
Physical Server Install - (All Platform/Types)
Server Storage Request
Server Request - Hosted
(c) Request Approval Date/Time
For all types, to determine monthly data inclusion:
Dell Internal SRM Work Order creation Timestamp for Dell hardware or Ariba PO creation Timestamp for non-Dell hardware is within the date range selected for running the report
Calculations
For RU based purchase requests:
SLA = Dell Internal SRM PO Work Order creation Timestamp for Dell hardware or Ariba PO creation Timestamp for non-Dell hardware - OPAS Request Approval Date/Time
For approved project based requests:
SLA = Dell Internal SRM PO Work Order creation Timestamp for Dell hardware or Ariba PO creation Timestamp for non-Dell hardware - Work Order/Change Order Signature Date/Time
Service Level Achievement (Number of successfully completed purchase requests within SLA /Total number of purchase requests in the measurement period) * 100%
NOTE: Pending time is not excluded from measurement
|
63.
|
4.0.a KM-DR-Disaster Recovery Exercise - RTO
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2016
|
First Reporting Period:
|
4/1/2016
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2016
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Percent of Product or Business Line infrastructure that is restored within the target timeframe based on published infrastructure Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) as agreed by both parties.
Measures the on-time percentage of applicable infrastructure RTO.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
DRE RTO detailed data as provided by Dell
|
Exceptions:
|
If during the measurement period, the schedule DR exercise involves first time testing of Business Line / Product infrastructure & applications those results will be excluded from this measurement. This exception would not include first time testing of application subcomponents, where the Business Line / Product had been involved in prior exercise.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of infrastructure RTO objectives met in a DRE for each Product or Business Line
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Published infrastructure RTO objectives
DRE RTO detailed data
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Count of infrastructure RTO objectives met in a DRE / Count of infrastructure RTO objectives in a DRE) * 100%
|
64.
|
4.0.b KM-DR-Disaster Recovery Exercise - RPO
|
DATES
|
|
SLA Start Date:
|
3/1/2016
|
First Reporting Period:
|
4/1/2016
|
First Report Date:
|
4/7/2016
|
Reporting Period:
|
***
|
Reporting Frequency:
|
***, on or before the *** following the reporting period
|
UNDERSTANDING
|
|
Contract Reference:
Category:
|
CORELOGIC-Dell Schedule A-3.1(Service Level Matrix)
CORELOGIC-Dell Supplement A
Key Measurement
|
Interpreted Intent of SLA:
|
Percent of Product or Business Line infrastructure that is restored within the target timeframe based on published infrastructure Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) as agreed by both parties using data recovery systems managed by Dell. Measures the actual data recovery point vs planned data recovery point.
|
Associated hours of Operation:
|
N/A
|
Reporting Tools:
|
DRE RPO detailed data as provided by Dell
|
Exceptions:
|
If during the measurement period, the schedule DR exercise involves first time testing of Business Line / Product infrastructure & applications those results will be excluded from this measurement. This exception would not include first time testing of application subcomponents, where the Business Line / Product had been involved in prior exercise.
|
Supplemental definition of terms:
|
|
Low Volume Eligible:
|
No
|
Threshold parameters:
|
***% of infrastructure RPO objectives met in a DRE for each Product or Business Line
|
SLA Metrics and parameters:
(field names in OPAS)
|
|
Logical description of the SLA calculation:
|
Report Criteria
Published infrastructure RPO objectives
DRE RPO detailed data
Calculations
Service Level Achievement = (Count of infrastructure RPO objectives met in a DRE / Count of infrastructure RPO objectives in a DRE) * 100%
|
65.
|
Document History
|
Date
|
Name
|
Version
|
|
8/15/2017
|
Initial creation
|
***
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Subsidiary
|
State or Country Under Laws of Which Organized
|
ACN 105 907 319 Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
ACN 108 719 197 Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
ACN 108 794 449 Pty Ltd (formerly Megaw & Hogg Melbourne Pty
|
Australia
|
America’s Innovative Insurance Solutions, Inc.
|
California
|
Appraisal Scope Inc.
|
Maryland
|
BMH Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, t/n COMPARATOR
|
Australia
|
Brennan Partners Trust
|
Australia
|
CDS Business Mapping, LLC
|
Connecticut
|
Clareity Security, LLC
|
Arizona
|
Clareity Ventures, Inc.
|
Arizona
|
CompuNet Credit Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
Cordell Information Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
CoreLogic (India) Services Private Limited
|
India
|
CoreLogic Acquisition Co. I, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Acquisition Co. III, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Acquisition Co. IV, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic AG
|
Switzerland
|
CoreLogic Australia Holdings Pty Limited
|
Australia
|
CoreLogic Australia Pty Limited
|
Australia
|
CoreLogic Background Data, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Case-Shiller, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
|
Florida
|
CoreLogic Credco of Puerto Rico, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Credco, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Default Information Services, LLC
|
Florida
|
CoreLogic Dorado, LLC
|
California
|
CoreLogic Flood Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Holdings II, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Holdings Limited
|
United Kingdom
|
CoreLogic India Pty. Ltd.
|
Australia
|
CoreLogic Information Resources, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Investments Corporation
|
Cayman Islands
|
Corelogic NZ Limited
|
New Zealand
|
CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic SARL
|
France
|
CoreLogic Screening Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Solutions Canada, ULC
|
British Columbia, Canada
|
CoreLogic Solutions Limited
|
United Kingdom
|
CoreLogic Solutions, LLC
|
California
|
CoreLogic Spatial Solutions, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Tax Collection Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
CoreLogic Valuation Solutions, Inc.
|
California
|
CoreLogic Ventures Holdings Pty. Ltd.
|
Australia
|
CSAU Pty Ltd (formerly Carshow.com.au Pty Ltd)
|
Australia
|
DataQuick Information Systems, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
Decision Insight Information Group (U.S.) I, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
Decision Insight Information Group (U.S.) III, LLC
|
Delaware
|
ECMK Solutions Limited
|
United Kingdom
|
EQECAT, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
eTech Solutions Limited
|
United Kingdom
|
EVR Services Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Finiti, LLC*
|
Delaware
|
Finiti Group, LLC*
|
Delaware
|
Finiti Title, LLC*
|
Delaware
|
Finiti Title of Alabama, LLC*
|
Alabama
|
FNC Holding Company, Inc.
|
Mississippi
|
FNC br Services em Tecnologia Dainformacao Ltda
|
Brazil
|
FNC Brazil Holding Company, Inc.
|
Mississippi
|
FNC Brazil, Inc.
|
Mississippi
|
FNC, Inc.
|
Mississippi
|
FPS Direct, LLC
|
Delaware
|
Happy Home Buying, Ltd.
|
Cayman Islands
|
HEAU Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Jacisa Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
LeadClick Media, LLC
|
California
|
Listem Australia Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Localwise Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Marshall & Swift/Boeckh (Canada) Ltd.
|
Canada
|
Marshall & Swift/Boeckh, LLC
|
Delaware
|
Mercury Network, LLC
|
Florida
|
MN Sponsor, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
Multifamily Community Insurance Agency, LLC
|
Maryland
|
Myriad Development BG
|
Bulgaria
|
Myriad Development, Inc.
|
Texas
|
Myriad NHD, LLC
|
Delaware
|
Myrp.com.au Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
New Decision Insight Information Group (U.S.) III, Inc.
|
Delaware
|
Onthhouse.com.au Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
OTH Web & Data Group Pty. Ltd.
|
Australia
|
Platinum Data Solutions, Inc.
|
California
|
Prime Valuation Services, LLC
|
Minnesota
|
PropertyWeb Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Real Soft Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Realtor.com.au Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
RELS, LLC
|
Delaware
|
RELS Management Company, LLC
|
Delaware
|
RELS Title Services, LLC
|
Delaware
|
RES Direct, LLC
|
Delaware
|
Residex Pty Ltd.
|
Australia
|
RP (HK) Data Limited
|
Hong Kong
|
RP Data New Zealand Ltd
|
New Zealand
|
RP Data Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
RP Data Radio Show Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
RP Data Valuation Services Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Servicios Profesionales Atlas, S. de R.L. de C.V.
|
Mexico
|
Soluciones Prediales de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
|
Mexico
|
Teletrack, LLC
|
Georgia
|
Teletrack UK Limited
|
United Kingdom
|
The Ad Network Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Valex Group Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Valuation Exchange Pty Ltd
|
Australia
|
Valuation Ventures, LLC
|
Delaware
|
ValuePad, LLC
|
Maryland
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CoreLogic, Inc.;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
By: /s/ Frank D. Martell
|
|
Frank D. Martell
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
1.
|
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CoreLogic, Inc.;
|
2.
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|
3.
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|
4.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
(a)
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
|
(b)
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
|
(c)
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
|
(d)
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
|
5.
|
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
(a)
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
|
(b)
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|
By: /s/ James L. Balas
|
|
James L. Balas
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
(1)
|
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|
|
By: /s/ Frank D. Martell
|
|
|
Frank D. Martell
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
Date:
|
February 27, 2018
|
(1)
|
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
(2)
|
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|
|
By: /s/ James L. Balas
|
|
|
James L. Balas
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
|
Date:
|
February 27, 2018
|