Intact's DRP Program: How Canadian Shops Should Document and Track Performance

Key findings

1. 1Intact is Canada's largest P&C insurer at roughly 21% market share, which means most multi-line Canadian shops carry an Intact DRP relationship alongside provincial programs.
2. 2DRP scorecards across Intact, Aviva, and the major US carriers weight four metrics: keys-to-keys cycle time, supplement frequency, customer satisfaction (NPS or CSI), and severity / parts mix.
3. 3Supplement frequency is the single most controllable scorecard input - shops that move teardown documentation forward of the initial estimate cut supplement rates by 30 to 50%.
4. 4OEM position statements (pre/post scan, calibration, sectioning) are now treated as the source of truth on Intact files; missing per-VIN documentation is the most common cause of denied line items.
5. 5Shops without a DRP dashboard view their performance only through each carrier's portal, which delays corrective action by 30 to 60 days versus a real-time, carrier-weighted internal scorecard.

Body

1. What the Intact DRP program is, and how it differs from MPI/SGI

Intact's direct repair program is a private contractual network where Intact refers first-party and third-party claims to accredited shops in exchange for documentation, cycle time, and CSI commitments. Unlike Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) or Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), there is no published Light Vehicle Tariff (LVT) and no provincially mandated labour rate. Pricing is negotiated, often using Mitchell Connect or CCC ONE as the estimating platform, with Intact's appraisal team reviewing files through a carrier portal.

Practically, the Intact relationship behaves much more like a US DRP (think State Farm Select Service or GEICO ARX) than a public-insurer program. The shop is measured against a scorecard, the scorecard drives referral volume, and documentation discipline is the lever that keeps the shop on the network.

2. The four metrics that drive every Intact DRP scorecard

Every modern DRP scorecard, including Intact's, weights four buckets: cycle time, supplement frequency, customer satisfaction, and severity / parts mix. The weighting differs between carriers, but the categories are stable enough that a shop can build one internal dashboard and map it across Intact, Aviva, Wawanesa, and US programs.

Cycle time (keys-to-keys days)

Measured from FNOL or vehicle drop-off to vehicle return. Intact and most Canadian DRPs benchmark against repairable severity bands; a $4,500 repairable should clear in materially fewer keys-to-keys days than a $12,000 file. Shops that don't segment cycle time by severity get punished on scorecards because their average masks the simple jobs that drag.

Supplement frequency and severity

Intact, like CCC-driven US DRPs, looks at supplements per claim and supplement dollars as a percentage of the original estimate. The industry trendline (per CCC Crash Course) shows supplement frequency above 70% on US repairable claims. Shops that document teardown findings inside the initial estimate (rather than as a supplement after blueprint) bring this number down materially.

Customer satisfaction (NPS / CSI)

Intact uses post-repair surveys; a single low score can move a quarterly average. CSI is mostly a function of communication cadence and accurate promise dates - both downstream of cycle time and supplement discipline.

Severity and parts mix

Carriers track average severity, alternative parts use (recycled, aftermarket, OEM), and Realized Parts Savings analogues. Intact does not publish an MPI-style RPS metric, but the underlying logic - that the shop should source the most appropriate part at the most appropriate price - is identical.

3. Documentation requirements: what Intact files actually need

Intact files - and increasingly all Canadian DRP files - require a per-VIN documentation trail that proves each line item was necessary, performed, and aligned to an OEM procedure or position statement. The carrier is no longer satisfied by a clean estimate alone.

• Pre-repair scan report with date/time stamp and DTC list, tied to the VIN
• Post-repair scan report confirming codes cleared and no new faults
• OEM position statement or procedure citation for any non-obvious operation (sectioning location, weld type, calibration trigger, refinish blend rationale)
• Calibration documentation (static, dynamic, or both) for any ADAS-equipped vehicle where a sensor or related panel was disturbed
• Photo documentation of teardown, mating surfaces, corrosion protection, and any concealed damage
• Parts invoices showing source (OEM, recycled, aftermarket) and price for alternative-parts decisions

On Intact reviews, the most common reason a line item gets pushed back is not that the operation was wrong - it's that the per-VIN supporting document was not attached to the file at the time of review. The work was done; the proof was missing.

4. Where shops typically lose ground on Intact files

The losses are predictable and almost always upstream of the actual repair. They show up at write-up, at teardown, and at the file-close handoff.

1. 1Write-up too thin: initial estimate captures visible damage only, forcing a supplement after teardown that inflates cycle time and supplement frequency on the scorecard.
2. 2Missing OEM citations: scan, calibration, and sectioning operations entered without the position statement or procedure attached, causing line-item denials on review.
3. 3Teardown findings not converted into estimate lines: tech notes stay on paper or in a body-shop management system but never make it into Mitchell Connect / CCC ONE before the file is sent.
4. 4Calibration trigger missed: a sensor-adjacent operation (windshield, bumper, mirror) is performed without the calibration line item, then surfaces as a customer complaint or post-repair safety issue.
5. 5No internal scorecard: the shop only sees its Intact performance through Intact's portal, weeks after the quarter has closed, and cannot correct in-quarter.

5. Building a DRP dashboard weighted by carrier

A useful internal DRP dashboard does three things: it tracks the same four metrics each carrier weights, it weights them the way each carrier weights them, and it shows the shop's position relative to the rest of that carrier's network in the local market. The point is not to replicate the carrier's scorecard - it is to see scorecard movement before the carrier does.

6. How RocketPros aligns to Intact DRP documentation

RocketPros runs alongside Mitchell Connect or CCC ONE and surfaces estimate-completeness signals at write-up - the carrier's published rules, OEM position statements, and calibration triggers stay the source of truth. The software does not replace Intact's network rules or the OEM procedure. It makes compliance with them mechanical.

On an Intact file, that means: at write-up, RocketPros checks whether the estimate captures the operations the VIN and damage profile imply (pre/post scan, calibration where triggered, OEM procedure citations on non-obvious operations). On file close, it reports claim-level metrics back to the shop - keys-to-keys, supplement count, missing-document exceptions, and a carrier-weighted composite - so the shop sees scorecard movement in real time rather than 30 to 60 days after the quarter closes through Intact's portal.

Multi-carrier shops get one consistent documentation discipline mapped across Intact, Aviva, Wawanesa, Definity, MPI, SGI, and US DRPs - because the underlying signals (OEM procedures, scan reports, calibration triggers, parts sourcing rationale) are the same across all of them.

7. The carrier perspective: why Intact pays for documentation discipline

From Intact's side, the value of a documentation-disciplined shop is fewer re-inspections, fewer customer complaints, and tighter severity control. Each supplement consumes appraisal capacity; each missing OEM citation forces a back-and-forth that delays the file and erodes CSI. A shop that closes files clean the first time costs the carrier less per claim and earns more referrals as a result.

Intact's growth in Canadian DRP capacity - including the company-owned repair operations it has piloted - reflects a broader carrier thesis: the shops that win are the ones whose documentation makes the program rules visible and auditable on every file. That's the same thesis behind State Farm's Select Service evolution, GEICO's ARX program, and MPI's accreditation framework. The mechanics differ; the direction is identical.

8. Mapping one documentation discipline across all Canadian DRPs

A shop carrying Intact, Aviva, Wawanesa, Definity, and MPI/SGI doesn't need five documentation playbooks. It needs one playbook expressed five ways. The underlying inputs - pre/post scan, OEM procedure citations, calibration triggers, teardown-forward write-up, parts sourcing rationale - are constant. What changes is the scorecard weighting and the portal where the file lands.

• Build the estimate to OEM and position-statement standard, every file, every carrier
• Attach scan reports, calibration documentation, and procedure citations per VIN at write-up, not at file close
• Convert teardown findings into estimate lines before sending - drive supplement frequency down structurally
• Track keys-to-keys by severity band, not as a single average
• Run a single internal DRP dashboard, weighted per carrier, refreshed weekly

Frequently asked

Citations

1. [1]Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) - P&C industry data, market share by carrier, and Canadian auto insurance environment.https://www.ibc.ca
2. [2]Intact Financial Corporation - investor materials and operational disclosures on Canadian P&C share and claims operations.https://www.intactfc.com
3. [3]CCC Intelligent Solutions, Crash Course Report, 2024 Edition - North American repairable severity, supplement frequency, and cycle time benchmarks.https://cccis.com
4. [4]Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) - consumer tip on Direct Repair Programs and industry guidance.https://scrs.com/scrs-consumer-tip-what-is-a-direct-repair-program-drp/
5. [5]Manitoba Public Insurance - Body Shop & Glass Information portal (Light Vehicle Tariff, accreditation framework, RPS).https://www.mpi.mb.ca/
6. [6]Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) - accredited repair facility program documentation and rate schedule.https://www.sgi.sk.ca/
7. [7]Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index - vehicle parts, maintenance and repairs (Table 18-10-0004-01).https://www150.statcan.gc.ca
8. [8]Canadian Collision Industry Forum (CCIF) - industry standards, OEM procedure adoption, and best-practice frameworks.https://ccif.ca
9. [9]I-CAR Repairability Technical Support (RTS) - OEM position statements, procedure portals, and calibration guidance.https://rts.i-car.com
10. [10]Repairer Driven News - reporting on DRP scorecards, OEM position statements, and calibration documentation expectations.https://repairerdrivennews.com
11. [11]Collision Repair Magazine - Canadian industry coverage of Intact's repair operations and DRP environment.https://www.collisionrepairmag.com
12. [12]Mitchell International Industry Trends Report - North American collision severity, parts mix, and DRP performance benchmarks.https://www.mitchell.com

What this looks like inside RocketPros

The audit logic, scoring, and documentation patterns in this paper map directly to four RocketPros modules. If you want this applied to your shop's real estimates, start with the module that fits the workflow you're trying to fix.

• RPS ComplianceTrack MPI, SGI, and DRP program risk before it affects scorecards.
• Estimate AnalysisCatch missed labor, materials, parts, and documentation gaps before submission.
• AutomationRead saved Mitchell, CCC, and Audatex files without manual upload.
• ADAS CalibrationSurface calibration triggers tied to sensors and OEM procedures.

← Back to all research