This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-731 
entitled 'U.S. Postal Service: Mail Processing Network Initiatives 
Progressing, and Guidance for Consolidating Area Mail Processing 
Operations Being Followed' which was released on June 16, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

June 2010: 

U.S. Postal Service: 

Mail Processing Network Initiatives Progressing, and Guidance for 
Consolidating Area Mail Processing Operations Being Followed: 

GAO-10-731: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-731, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Deteriorating financial conditions and declining mail volume have 
reinforced the need for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to increase 
operational efficiency and reduce expenses in its mail processing 
network. This network consists of interdependent functions in nearly 
600 facilities. USPS developed several initiatives to reduce costs and 
increase efficiency; however, moving forward on some initiatives has 
been challenging because of the complexities involved in consolidating 
operations. In response to a conference report directive, GAO assessed 
(1) the overall status and results of USPS’s efforts to realign its 
mail processing network and (2) the extent to which USPS has 
consistently followed its guidance and applied these criteria in 
reviewing Area Mail Processing (AMP) proposals for consolidation since 
the beginning of fiscal year 2009. To conduct this assessment, GAO 
reviewed USPS’s Network Plan, area mail processing consolidation 
guidance and proposals as well as other documents; compared USPS’s 
actions related to consolidation of area mail processing facilities 
with its guidance, and interviewed officials from USPS, the USPS 
Office of Inspector General, and employee organizations. 

GAO provided USPS with a draft of this report for comment. In 
response, USPS provided technical comments that were incorporated 
where appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

USPS has realigned parts of its mail processing network since the 
beginning of fiscal year 2009 and continues to seek additional 
opportunities to achieve its goal of creating an efficient and 
flexible network and realize cost savings. Specifically, USPS: 

* eliminated all functions of the Airport Mail Centers, closed 9 of 
these facilities, and now uses the remaining 12 for other purposes, 
resulting in a realized cost savings of about $12.2 million in fiscal 
year 2009; 

* reorganized the functions of the 21 Bulk Mail Centers into newly 
developed Network Distribution Centers, resulting in a realized cost 
savings of about $17.7 million in fiscal year 2009; and; 

* implemented 23 proposals to consolidate AMP operations and 
facilities and approved another 6 AMP consolidation proposals. USPS 
estimated an annual cost savings of about $98.5 million for the 29 
approved and implemented AMP proposals. 

Additionally, USPS officials stated that they plan to integrate the 
Surface Transfer Center functions into the Network Distribution Center 
network to further eliminate redundancy in transporting mail. USPS has 
developed specific program targets for the ongoing reorganization 
efforts of the Network Distribution Centers and estimated a cost 
savings of about $233.8 million for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 from 
reduction in work hours and transportation costs. 

On the basis of GAO’s analysis of 32 AMP proposals that were 
implemented, approved, or not approved since the beginning of fiscal 
year 2009, USPS has followed its realignment guidance by completing 
each step of the process and consistently applying its criteria in its 
reviews. GAO’s analysis found that it took about 6 months on average—a 
month more than USPS’s target of 5 months—to complete the review 
process from initiating an AMP proposal to making a decision. USPS 
officials noted the importance of the AMP decisions and the need to 
sometimes take longer than what the guidance suggests to ensure the 
correct decision. GAO also found that USPS consistently notified 
stakeholders when key steps of the AMP process were completed, such as 
when an AMP proposal was initiated, or public meetings were held. For 
each of the AMP proposals that GAO reviewed, USPS also consistently 
evaluated its four criteria related to AMP consolidations: (1) impacts 
on the service standards for all classes of mail, (2) issues important 
to local customers, (3) impacts to USPS staffing, and (4) savings and 
costs associated with moving mail processing operations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-731] or key 
components. For more information, contact Phillip Herr at (202) 512-
2834 or herrp@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

USPS Has Realigned Part of Its Mail Processing Network and Has 
Estimated Cost Savings: 

USPS Has Followed Its Guidance and Consistently Applied Criteria in 
Consolidating Its AMP Facilities: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Area Mail Processing Proposals: 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Status and Results of USPS Mail Processing Network 
Initiatives from October 2008 through March 2010: 

Table 2: Facilities Involved in AMP Proposals Under Review by USPS as 
of March 2010: 

Table 3: Facilities Involved in AMP Proposals USPS Approved from 
October 2008 through March 2010: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Simplified Mail Flow through the National Infrastructure: 

Figure 2: Keys Steps of USPS's AMP Process: 

Figure 3: Processing Time for AMP Proposals We Reviewed (October 2008- 
March 2010): 

Abbreviations: 

AMC: Airport Mail Center: 

AMP: Area Mail Processing: 

BMC: Bulk Mail Center: 

CSMPC: Customer Service Mail Processing Center: 

MPA: Mail Processing Annex: 

NDC: Network Distribution Center: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

P&DC: Processing and Distribution Center: 

P&DF: Processing and Distribution Facility: 

PIR: postimplementation review: 

PO: Post Office: 

SCF: Sectional Center Facility: 

STC: Surface Transfer Center: 

SVP: Senior Vice President: 

USPS: United States Postal Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 16, 2010: 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable José E. Serrano: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

While the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) generated $68.1 billion in 
revenue in fiscal year 2009, deteriorating financial conditions and 
declining mail volume have reinforced the need to increase operational 
efficiency and reduce expenses in its mail processing network. The 
network consists of interdependent functions and operations in nearly 
600 facilities with various equipment that sorts mail and prepares it 
for transportation and delivery. From fiscal years 2007 through 2009, 
the economic downturn and changing uses of the mail contributed to 
decreasing USPS mail volumes of 36 billion pieces (about 17 percent), 
which amounted to a loss of $12 billion. During that time, USPS also 
eliminated about $1.3 billion in FY 2008 and $6 billion in FY 2009 in 
operating expenses through actions such as instituting a nationwide 
hiring freeze, cutting work hours, and halting construction of new 
postal facilities. Most recently, total mail volume for the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2010 was down almost 4.5 billion pieces--a 
decrease of almost 9 percent over last year--and USPS does not expect 
total mail volume to return to its former level when the economy 
recovers from the recent downturn. 

USPS has made realigning its mail processing network an ongoing effort 
and has developed several initiatives to reduce costs and increase 
efficiency. One such initiative, Area Mail Processing (AMP), was 
designed to consolidate operations at facilities with excess machine 
capacity to improve operational efficiency and service. However, 
moving forward on the AMP initiative has been challenging because of 
the complexities involved in consolidating operations, as well as 
stakeholder resistance to consolidating operations and closing 
facilities. In 2005 and 2007, we issued reports that evaluated USPS's 
network plans and included recommendations for improvement.[Footnote 
1] In 2008, we reported on the progress USPS had made toward 
implementing our previous recommendations on realigning its mail 
processing network.[Footnote 2] This report responds to a directive in 
a conference report for GAO to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations and assesses (1) the overall status and 
results of USPS's efforts to realign its mail processing network and 
(2) the extent to which the USPS has consistently followed its 
guidance and applied these criteria in reviewing its AMP facilities 
for consolidation since the beginning of fiscal year 2009. 

To determine the status and results of USPS's efforts to realign its 
mail processing network, we reviewed the USPS Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) January 2010 report on network initiatives,[Footnote 3] 
USPS's updated 2009 Network Plan, other USPS documents, and prior GAO 
reports. We also interviewed officials from USPS and its OIG to 
discuss overall progress in USPS's mail processing initiatives. To 
assess the extent to which USPS has consistently followed its guidance 
and applied criteria in consolidating its AMP operations and 
facilities since the beginning of fiscal year 2009, we reviewed USPS's 
AMP Handbook PO-408 and its updated December 2009 AMP Communication 
Plan. We focused on the AMP initiative because its total number of 
facilities and mail processing operations are considerably larger and 
more extensive than the operations of USPS's other network 
initiatives. We reviewed files maintained in USPS headquarters for 32 
AMP proposals that were approved, implemented, or not approved from 
October 2008 to March 2010 to determine whether the USPS had 
consistently followed its established process and criteria in 
reviewing AMP proposals for consolidation. We did not include AMP 
proposals that were terminated or put on hold since they did not fully 
go through the process. We collected key data from the AMP files 
maintained in USPS headquarters and analyzed the extent to which USPS 
followed the decision-making phase of the process--that is, the period 
from when a study of the potential for consolidation is initiated to 
when the final decision is made as to whether a consolidation will 
occur. We also determined whether USPS achieved its timeliness goal 
for completing the decision-making process in 5 months, as established 
in the AMP Handbook PO-408. It was outside the scope of this work to 
assess the timeliness of the interim steps of the process that are 
completed by local and regional management.[Footnote 4] We also 
interviewed representatives from the American Postal Workers Union and 
National Mail Handlers Union to obtain their perspective on the AMP 
process. We conducted this performance audit from March 2010 to June 
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

USPS's mail processing network consists of multiple facilities with 
different functions, as shown in a simplified version of this complex 
network in figure 1. USPS can receive mail into its processing network 
from different sources such as mail carriers, post offices, and 
mailing companies. Once USPS receives mail from the public and 
commercial entities, it processes and distributes the mail on 
automated equipment that cancels stamps and sorts bar coded mail. Once 
mail distribution has been completed by other operations, the mail is 
transported between processing and distribution facilities. Depending 
on the mail shape and classification, USPS processes the mail through 
different types of facilities that perform various functions.[Footnote 
5] While mail is processed mainly through these facilities, mail 
processing operations also occur in other facilities, such as at 
annexes that are temporary facilities used as overflow for mail 
processing. 

Figure 1: Simplified Mail Flow through the National Infrastructure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Originating mail: 

Carrier collection: 
Mail is picked up from homes, businesses, and mailboxes. 

Window mail: 
Collected at Post Office or branch. 

Alternate access: 
Click and ship contract postal unit. 

All of the preceding is sent to: Post Office. 

Bulk Mail Entry Unit or Detached Entry Unit: 
Commercial mail. 

From Post Office and Bulk Mail Entry Unit or Detached Entry Unit to: 

Mail Processing Network: 

Processing and Distribution Center: 
Processes and dispatches incoming and outgoing mail for a designated 
service area (268 facilities nationwide). 

Network Distribution Center: 
Processes and distributes Standard Mail® and parcels (21 facilities 
nationwide). 

Surface Transfer Center: 
Consolidates containers from multiple facilities to maximize 
transportation utilization (20 facilities nationwide). 

Logistics and Distribution Center: 
Processes multiple types of mail, including Priority Mail® (14 
facilities nationwide). 

Within the Mail Processing Network, the preceding three centers 
forward mail to: 

Processing and Distribution Center. 

Destinating Mail: 

From the Processing and Distribution Center and Bulk Mail Entry Unit 
or Detached Entry Unit, to: 

Post Office: 
Carrier Delivery: mail is delivered. 

Sources: GAO and USPS. 

Note: Originating mail refers to outgoing and local mail that enters 
the point of origin for mail processing. Local mail remains within the 
facility and is combined with destinating mail from other origin 
facilities. Destinating mail refers to mail arriving at point of entry 
for distribution and dispatch to a post office for delivery. 

[End of figure] 

In its June 2008 Network Plan, USPS determined that it will reexamine 
its mail processing network on an ongoing basis given changes in mail 
volume and outlined several initiatives to improve management of its 
mail processing operations, retail operations, and workforce to 
increase efficiency and reduce costs. With regard to its mail 
processing operations specifically, USPS identified three major 
initiatives to improve efficiency: (1) closing Airport Mail Center 
(AMC) operations, (2) transforming the Bulk Mail Center (BMC) network, 
and (3) consolidating AMP operations. USPS's Network Plan also 
included criteria for evaluating decisions, the three most important 
of which were cost, service, and capacity. In September 2008, we 
reported that USPS took steps to address our prior recommendations to 
strengthen planning and accountability for its network initiatives, 
which was important as USPS began implementing them.[Footnote 6] 
However, we also found limited information on performance targets or 
on the costs and savings attributable to USPS's various mail 
processing network initiatives. 

In the case of consolidating AMP operations, USPS revised its guidance 
on the process for AMP consolidations in March 2008. The revised 
guidance included key steps and time frames associated with them, as 
well as criteria to consider when making a decision to consolidate 
operations. The AMP Handbook does not provide guidance regarding how 
to identify potential opportunities for consolidation. In January 
2010, the USPS OIG recommended that the Vice President of Network 
Operations develop and document specific criteria to identify 
consolidation opportunities, and USPS management agreed with this 
recommendation. In December 2009, USPS also updated the AMP 
Communication Plan, which supplements the AMP guidelines and provides 
specific guidance on communicating with stakeholders. 

USPS Has Realigned Part of Its Mail Processing Network and Has 
Estimated Cost Savings: 

USPS has realigned parts of its mail processing network and continues 
to seek additional opportunities to achieve its goal of creating an 
efficient and flexible network. For fiscal year 2009, USPS realized a 
cost savings of almost $30 million from eliminating all AMC operating 
functions and closing nine of these facilities and reorganizing the 
functions of the BMC to the Network Distribution Centers (NDC). Table 
1 shows the status of USPS's three major processing network 
initiatives intended to lower costs and achieve savings by reducing 
excess capacity and fuel consumption. 

Table 1: Status and Results of USPS Mail Processing Network 
Initiatives from October 2008 through March 2010: 

Network initiatives: Elimination of AMC operating functions; 
Status: 
* Eliminated all functions of AMC; 
* Closed 9 AMC facilities; 
* 12 AMC facilities remain open and perform other functions; 
Results: 
* In FY 2009, about $12.2 million realized in cost savings; 
* $113.9 million in total cost savings from fiscal year 2007 through 
fiscal year 2009. 

Network initiatives: Reorganization of BMC functions to NDC; 
Status: 
* Reorganized functions of BMC network, including renaming it, into 
NDC network to reflect the type of operations at the facilities; 
* 21 NDCs in operation; 
Results: 
* In FY 2009, about $17.7 million realized in cost savings; 
* USPS projects $233.8 million in cost savings in fiscal years 2010 
and 2011. 

Network initiatives: Consolidation of AMP operations and facilities; 
Status: 
* 23 AMP consolidations implemented, including 1 Processing & 
Distribution Center closed (Kansas City, KS); 
* 6 AMP approved for consolidation, but not yet fully implemented; 
* 3 AMP consolidations not approved; 
* 9 AMP consolidations on hold or study halted; 
Results: 
* USPS expects an annual cost savings of about $98.5 million for the 
29 approved and implemented AMP consolidations. 

Source: GAO analysis of USPS data. 

[End of table] 

Specific steps taken on the three major mail processing network 
initiatives are as follows: 

* Elimination of AMC operating functions. Of its three major network 
initiatives, USPS has taken the most action by eliminating the AMC 
function and closing 9 AMC facilities. In the past decade, USPS has 
closed 68 of 80 AMC facilities. Located on airport property, AMC 
facilities primarily processed mail to expedite its transfer, to and 
from, up to 55 different commercial passenger airlines. Over time, 
USPS reduced the number of commercial airlines transporting mail from 
55 to 7 and, from 2001 to 2007, the volume of mail transported by 
commercial airlines decreased by over 87 percent. At the same time, 
USPS contracted with air freight carriers to transport most of the 
mail requiring air transfer. In response, many AMC facilities made use 
of the available processing space by taking on additional processing 
functions typically handled by local processing and distribution 
centers (P&DCs), such as carrier and retail operations. In 2006, in an 
effort to eliminate redundancy and reduce costs, USPS began 
transferring functions performed at AMCs to nearby P&DCs or 
outsourcing these operations and, in September 2008, we reported that 
USPS estimated a targeted total savings of $117 million for closing 
these AMC facilities. Since our 2008 report, USPS has closed 9 AMC 
facilities, avoiding an estimated $12.2 million in costs. It has also 
revised the total cost savings to $113 million resulting from 
eliminating the AMC function and closing facilities, from fiscal year 
2007 to fiscal year 2009. USPS officials told us that they plan to 
reclassify the 12 remaining facilities and determine whether some of 
them can be closed. 

* Reorganization of BMC functions into NDC Network. USPS has 
reorganized the functions of its 21 BMCs into an NDC network with 
expanded functions that more efficiently use long-haul transportation 
and better align work hours with workload, according to the 2009 
Updated Network Plan. Before the reorganization, all BMCs performed 
the same functions of processing local, destinating, and originating 
mail (e.g., Standard Mail®, Periodicals, and Package Services). 
[Footnote 7] In fiscal year 2009, USPS reorganized the BMC network, 
including renaming the facilities as NDC, to reflect the type of 
operations that are occurring at the facilities, according to USPS 
officials. The NDC network is divided into three tiers of facilities 
with different distribution and processing roles: 

* Tier 1 NDC facilities process local and destinating mail; 

* Tier 2 facilities process local, destinating, and originating mail; 
and: 

* Tier 3 facilities handle Tier 2 functions and consolidate less-than- 
truckload volumes of mail from Tier 2 facilities. 

As a result of the reorganization, USPS reduced the number of 
facilities processing originating mail from 21 to 10; the remaining 11 
facilities continue to process local and destinating mail. 

According to officials, USPS completed the reorganization of the BMC 
functions to NDC in March 2010 and plans to further integrate other 
mail processing operations to NDC. USPS realized a cost savings of 
about $17.7 million for fiscal year 2009, with a projected cost 
savings of about $233.8 million from additional reorganization in 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. According to officials, USPS also plans to 
integrate its Surface Transfer Center (STC) functions into the NDC 
network to further eliminate redundancy and move all mail traveling 
the same route through the same facilities.[Footnote 8] USPS officials 
told us they are currently identifying and assessing opportunities for 
consolidating STC functions into the NDC network; however, USPS has 
not established a definitive timeline as to when the functions of the 
STC are to be integrated into the NDC network because such integration 
depends on future mail volumes, space requirements and space 
availability, and necessary equipment. 

* Consolidation of AMP operations and facilities. As shown in table 1, 
USPS has continued to initiate, review, and make decisions on AMP 
proposals to consolidate its operations and facilities. AMP proposals 
are intended to reduce costs and increase efficiency by making better 
use of excess capacity or underused resources, primarily at USPS's 
P&DC facilities; the AMP proposals consist of consolidating all 
originating, destinating, or both types of operations, from one mail 
processing facility that downsizes its mail processing operations to 
other facilities nearby that gains the processing operations. While 
local and regional USPS management is responsible for conducting a 
feasibility study and developing an AMP proposal, USPS headquarters 
approves or disapproves the AMP proposal. Upon an approval from USPS 
headquarters, local and regional USPS management implements the 
consolidation of processing operations identified in an AMP proposal. 
According to USPS officials, the AMP initiative is an ongoing effort 
to identify opportunities to achieve efficiencies and, as such, USPS 
has not developed a program target for annual savings from AMP 
consolidations. As of March 2010, USPS was studying or reviewing 24 
additional AMP proposals. (See appendix I for a list of the AMP 
proposals under review.) 

USPS Has Followed Its Guidance and Consistently Applied Criteria in 
Consolidating Its AMP Facilities: 

USPS Has Followed Its Process for Consolidating Area Mail Facilities: 

On the basis of our analysis of 32 AMP proposals that were 
implemented, approved, or not approved since October 2008, USPS has 
followed the key steps in the AMP process. (See app. I for a list of 
the AMP proposals we reviewed.) As shown in figure 2, USPS has 
developed key steps for the AMP process, and it has established an 
overall goal of making an AMP decision within 5 months of the study 
being initiated. Our analysis found that USPS completed each step of 
the AMP process. It took about 6 months on average to complete the 
review process from initiating an AMP proposal to making a decision on 
27 AMP proposals we analyzed.[Footnote 9] 

Figure 2: Keys Steps of USPS's AMP Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Key step: Feasibility study; 
* Regional USPS management notifies Senior Vice President (SVP) of 
Operations in USPS headquarters about intention to conduct a 
feasibility study of an AMP proposal. 
* Stakeholders are notified of the intent to conduct a feasibility 
study of an AMP proposal. 
* Within 2 months, local USPS management completes the feasibility 
study of an AMP proposal and submits it to the regional USPS 
management, along with required documentation. 
Goal for completion time: 2 months. 

Key step: Public input and management review; 
* Within 45 days after completing and submitting a feasibility study, 
local USPS management must conduct a public input meeting. 
* After the public input meeting, 15 days are provided to the public 
to submit additional written comments and for the local USPS 
management to summarize the meeting. 
* Concurrently, after the feasibility study of an AMP proposal is 
submitted, regional and headquarters management conducts a 60-day 
review. 
Goal for completion time: 2 months. 

Key step: AMP proposal and approval; 
* After the receipt of public comments and the feasibility study, 
regional management decides on an AMP proposal and submits it to 
headquarters. Generally, this step should be completed within 2 weeks. 
* SVP Operations in USPS headquarters makes final decision to approve 
or disapprove an AMP proposal within 2 weeks of receiving it from 
regional management. 
* Stakeholders are notified of the decision prior to implementation of 
an approved AMP. 
Goal for completion time: 1 month. 

Key step: Postimplementation review; 
* Regional management must conduct two postimplementation reviews 
(PIRs) to assess whether planned savings, work hours, and levels of 
services are met. The first PIR covers the first 6 months after 
implementation, and the final PIR covers the first year after 
implementation. 

Source: GAO analysis of USPS data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 3, 4 of the 27 AMP proposals we reviewed were 
completed in less than 5 months, while others took longer because of 
various factors, such as resolving conflicting interests from 
stakeholders and staffing issues. According to USPS officials, the 
time frames are goals to ensure the process moves forward, but USPS 
will take the time necessary to ensure that any issues that arise from 
an AMP proposal are resolved and appropriate decisions are made, even 
if doing so means going beyond the targeted 5-month time frame. For 
example, while USPS headquarters completed its review in June 2009 of 
consolidating the Dallas, TX, P&DC into the North Texas P&DC, the AMP 
proposal was not approved until December 2009 partially because the 
OIG was concurrently reviewing the AMP proposal in response to a 
congressional request. Many of the interim steps in the process 
conducted by the local and regional management also have time frames 
associated with them, such as studying the feasibility of an AMP 
proposal within a 2-month period. However, according to officials, 
USPS does not centrally track all the dates associated with the 
interim steps in the process because reviewing AMP proposals is an 
ongoing, iterative process with some steps occurring concurrently 
among local and regional USPS management and headquarters. 

Figure 3: Processing Time for AMP Proposals We Reviewed (October 2008- 
March 2010): 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Goal for completing AMP review time: 5 months. 

AMP proposal: Dallas P&DC, TX; 
Processing time: 9.2 months. 

AMP proposal: Wilkes-Barre P&DF, PA; 
Processing time: 8.1 months. 

AMP proposal: Palatine P&DC, IL; 
Processing time: 7.9 months. 

AMP proposal: Binghamton P&DF, NY; 
Processing time: 7.9 months. 

AMP proposal: Hattiesburg CSPMC, MS; 
Processing time: 7.8 months. 

AMP proposal: Athens CSPMC, GA; 
Processing time: 7.8 months. 

AMP proposal: Oxnard P&DF, CA; 
Processing time: 7.5 months. 

AMP proposal: Newark P&DC, NJ; 
Processing time: 7.0 months. 

AMP proposal: Mansfield P&DF, OH; 
Processing time: 6.9 months. 

AMP proposal: Long Beach P&DC, CA; 
Processing time: 6.7 months. 

AMP proposal: South Florida P&DC, FL; 
Processing time: 6.6 months. 

AMP proposal: Winchester SCF, VA; 
Processing time: 6.2 months. 

AMP proposal: Portsmouth P&DF, NH; 
Processing time: 6.2 months. 

AMP proposal: New Castle P&DF, PA; 
Processing time: 6.2 months. 

AMP proposal: Charlottesville P&DF, VA; 
Processing time: 6.0 months. 

AMP proposal: Watertown PO, NY; 
Processing time: 6.0 months. 

AMP proposal: Queens P&DC, NY; 
Processing time: 5.8 months. 

AMP proposal: Frederick P&DF, MD; 
Processing time: 5.7 months. 

AMP proposal: Marysville P&DF, CA; 
Processing time: 5.7 months. 

AMP proposal: Kinston P&DF, NC; 
Processing time: 5.6 months. 

AMP proposal: Hickory P&DF, NC; 
Processing time: 5.6 months. 

AMP proposal: Cape Cod P&DF, MA; 
Processing time: 5.6 months. 

AMP proposal: Bloomington MPA, IN; 
Processing time: 5.3 months. 

AMP proposal: Western Nassau P&DC, NY; 
Processing time: 4.9 months. 

AMP proposal: Manasota P&DC, FL; 
Processing time: 4.8 months. 

AMP proposal: Lakeland P&DC, FL; 
Processing time: 4.8 months. 

AMP proposal: Staten Island P&DF, NY; 
Processing time: 4.6 months. 

CSMPC - Customer Service Mail Processing Center; 
MPA - Mail Processing Annex; 
P&DC - Processing and Distribution Center; 
P&DF - Processing and Distribution Facility; 
PO - Post Office
SCF - Sectional Center Facility. 

Source: GAO analysis of USPS data. 

Note: The processing time was calculated using 30 days in a month; as 
a result, the calculation above includes portions of the days in 
months it took USPS to complete processing an AMP proposal. For 
example, 7.5 months above translates to 7 months and 15 days for USPS 
to complete processing the Oxnard P&DF proposal. 

[End of figure] 

An important part of the process is notifying and communicating with 
stakeholders, and USPS completed these steps as called for in its 
guidance. USPS is required to notify stakeholders, including 
employees, employee organizations, appropriate individuals at various 
levels of government, local mailers, community organizations, and the 
local media, as to when a feasibility study is initiated and when a 
final decision is made on the AMP proposal. According to its guidance, 
USPS must also provide stakeholders with available information about 
any service changes that may be affected from the proposed AMP 
consolidation and give ample opportunities for stakeholders to provide 
input on the AMP proposals. USPS is also required to conduct a public 
meeting after the local USPS management completes and forwards the 
feasibility study to regional and headquarters management for their 
review. We reported in 2008 that USPS had improved communication with 
stakeholders with regard to AMP proposals. In our analysis, we found 
that USPS consistently notified the stakeholders when a feasibility 
study was initiated and when a final decision was made; we also found 
that USPS consistently held public meetings and summarized public 
input for each AMP proposal we reviewed. Representatives of the postal 
unions we spoke with also commented that the USPS has been following 
the process and communicating with them and that the local union 
representatives generally attended the public meetings and were 
involved with the process. 

The last step in the AMP process is completion of two 
postimplementation reviews to assess the results of the consolidation. 
USPS has completed two reviews of the 32 AMP proposals we reviewed and 
is in the process of completing five more. The postimplementation 
reviews are intended to evaluate and measure the actual results of 
consolidation decisions, including realized savings in work hours, 
transportation, maintenance, and facility costs. In the first 
postimplementation review of the consolidation of the Kansas City P&DC 
in Kansas into the Kansas City P&DC in Missouri, USPS identified cost 
savings of about $22.3 million after the consolidation--$13 million 
more than its original projected savings of $9.3 million.[Footnote 10] 
USPS officials commented that several factors unrelated to the 
consolidation, such as the use of in-house maintenance employees 
rather than outsourced labor for facility projects and incentives for 
retirement in the fall of 2009, contributed to the larger than 
expected savings. Similarly, USPS identified cost savings of about 
$6.3 million in the first postimplementation review of the Canton P&DC 
consolidation with the Akron P&DC in Ohio--$4.1 million more than its 
original projected savings of $2.2 million. According to USPS 
officials, the original projections were made based on expected 
savings resulting from the consolidation. For both postimplementation 
reviews, additional savings have been realized in part because mail 
volume has continued to decline resulting in further reductions in 
work hours and transportation costs. 

USPS Has Consistently Considered Its Criteria in the Decision-Making 
Process: 

Based on our analysis of 32 AMP proposals that USPS had decided on 
since October 2008, USPS consistently considered the criteria in its 
guidance when making its decisions. According to the AMP guidance, 
USPS must consider the following four criteria: 

* impacts on the service standards for all classes of mail, 

* issues important to local customers, 

* impacts to USPS staffing, and: 

* savings and costs associated with moving mail processing operations. 

We also found that USPS has standardized its AMP data sources and 
analytical methodologies to achieve more consistent analysis when 
evaluating the criteria during the decision-making process. In 
addition, the OIG independently reviews data and the criteria USPS has 
used to validate the business cases for some AMP proposals. For 
instance, the OIG validated the business case for some of the AMP 
proposals we reviewed, including the consolidations of operations at 
Dallas P&DC into North Texas P&DC in Texas and New Castle processing 
and distribution facility (P&DF) into Pittsburgh P&DC in 
Pennsylvania.[Footnote 11] Additionally, the OIG concurred with the 
business decisions for consolidating mail processing operations at the 
Canton P&DC with the Akron P&DC in Ohio and Lakeland P&DC and Manasota 
P&DC with the Tampa P&DC in Florida. While USPS consistently evaluated 
these criteria, a stakeholder we spoke with commented that USPS does 
not provide a complete set of data it uses to make its decisions. 
Although USPS is not required to provide complete data that are used 
to consider AMP proposals under the AMP guidance, the stakeholder 
believed that more data transparency is needed to permit validation of 
USPS's AMP decisions. According to USPS officials and USPS guidance, 
AMP proposals contain commercially sensitive information, and public 
disclosure of the information could cause competitive harm to USPS. 
Accordingly, sensitive data contained in AMP proposals is redacted. 

For the proposals we reviewed, we found that USPS assessed the impact 
that a consolidation would have on the service standards for all 
classes of mail and considered issues important to local customers. 
[Footnote 12] Two of the AMP proposals we reviewed--the consolidation 
of operations at Mansfield P&DF into Akron P&DC in Ohio and Zanesville 
Post Office into Columbus P&DC in Ohio--were not approved due to a 
potential downgrade in the delivery services for First-Class Mail®, 
despite potential cost savings for consolidating those facilities. In 
other instances, the AMP proposal was approved even though a downgrade 
in service for a particular class of mail was identified, such as 
Package Services, because an upgrade in delivery services of other 
mail classes was also identified, such as First-Class Mail®. According 
to USPS officials, it is the overall net effect of changes in delivery 
services that are considered in the decision-making process. In the 
case of considering issues important to local customers, USPS assessed 
whether the AMP proposal would impact customer service, such as any 
changes in mail pickup times, hours for business mail acceptance, and 
hours of retail operations. In many of the AMP proposals we reviewed, 
USPS forecasted that there would be no adverse impact on local 
customer service. USPS also forecasted that many of the retail hours 
at bulk mail entry units covered in the AMP proposals would not be 
changed. 

The impact that an AMP proposal would have on USPS staffing and 
estimating savings and costs associated with the consolidation are 
also important criteria in the AMP decision process. When considering 
the impact on staffing, USPS examined and estimated the potential 
number of positions that would be reduced or transferred to gaining 
facilities. This is a reduction in the number of positions that are 
allotted to a facility and not necessarily a loss of employees. 
Employees, who are impacted by the consolidation, are given positions 
in the gaining facility, or other facilities, in accordance to their 
respective collective bargaining agreements.[Footnote 13] USPS 
estimated a total reduction of 1,263 allotted positions for the AMPs 
we reviewed. In estimating potential costs and savings, USPS assessed 
work hour savings from staffing changes, savings associated with 
transportation and maintenance, as well as savings associated with 
space and leasing facilities. USPS also examined one-time costs 
associated with relocating staff, moving mail processing equipment, 
and changing facilities. If overall estimated cost savings were not 
identified, then the AMP proposal would not proceed. For example, 
while cost savings were identified in the AMP proposal to consolidate 
operations at Hattiesburg Customer Service Mail Processing Center with 
Gulfport P&DF in Mississippi, the proposal was not approved because 
one-time costs associated with moving mail processing equipment were 
not identified, and thus, the estimated total annual savings were 
insufficient. USPS estimated a total annualized cost savings of about 
$98.5 million for the 29 approved and implemented AMP proposals we 
reviewed.[Footnote 14] 

USPS Implementation of 2005 Recommendation: 

In 2005, we reported that because USPS did not have criteria to 
consider, or a process to follow, when making mail processing 
consolidation decisions, it was not clear whether the decisions would 
be made in a manner that is fair to all stakeholders or that is 
efficient and effective.[Footnote 15] As such, we recommended that 
USPS establish a set of criteria for evaluating consolidation 
decisions, develop a process for implementing these decisions that 
includes evaluating and measuring the results, and develop a mechanism 
for informing stakeholders as decisions are made. In 2008, we reported 
that USPS had made progress on implementing our prior recommendations: 
USPS established criteria for evaluating consolidation decisions, 
developed a process for evaluating and measuring the results of its 
AMP decisions, modified its AMP Communication Plan to improve public 
notification, engagement, and transparency, and clarified its process 
for addressing public comments.[Footnote 16] As stated earlier, we 
found that USPS followed its AMP process and consistently applied its 
criteria for evaluating AMP proposals that we reviewed. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to USPS for official review and 
comment. In response, USPS provided technical comments that we 
incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Postmaster General, 
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. 
The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Signed by: 

Phillip R. Herr: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Area Mail Processing Proposals: 

Table 2 below lists Area Mail Processing (AMP) proposals under review 
by USPS, while Table 3 lists AMP proposals that we reviewed. 

Table 2: Facilities Involved in AMP Proposals Under Review by USPS as 
of March 2010: 

Location of AMP proposal: California; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Industry P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Santa Ana P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: California; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Mojave P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Bakersfield P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Florida; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Daytona Beach P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Mid-Florida P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Florida; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Panama City P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Pensacola P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Georgia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Atlanta P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: North Metro P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Georgia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Columbus CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: Macon P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Illinois; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Fox Valley P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: South Suburban P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Indiana; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Lafayette P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Indianapolis P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Kentucky; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: London P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Lexington P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Kentucky/Tennessee; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Bowling Green P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Nashville P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Maryland; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Easton P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Baltimore P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Michigan; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Kalamazoo P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Grand Rapids P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Michigan; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Saginaw P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Lansing P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Mississippi; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Grenada CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: Jackson P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Mississippi/Tennessee; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Tupelo CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: Memphis P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: New Jersey; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Kilmer P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Dominick V. Daniels P&DC/Trenton P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: New Jersey; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: West Jersey P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Northern Metro P&DC/Kilmer P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Ohio; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Lima P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Toledo P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Pennsylvania; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Southeastern P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Philadelphia P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Tennessee; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Jackson CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: Memphis P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Virginia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Dulles P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Merrifield P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Virginia/Tennessee; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Bristol P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Johnson City P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: West Virginia/Pennsylvania; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Wheeling P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Pittsburgh P&DC. 

Location of AMP proposal: Wisconsin; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Green Bay P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Oshkosh P&DC. 

Source: USPS. 

[A] The types of facilities involved include: Customer Service Mail 
Processing Center (CSMPC); Mail Processing Annex (MPA); Post Office 
(PO); Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC); Processing and 
Distribution Facility (P&DF); Sectional Center Facility (SCF). 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Facilities Involved in AMP Proposals USPS Approved from 
October 2008 through March 2010: 

AMP proposal location: California; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Long Beach P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Santa Ana P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $3.2 million. 

AMP proposal location: California; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Marysville P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Sacramento P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $5.1 million. 

AMP proposal location: California; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Oxnard P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Santa Clarita (Van Nuys) P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.8 million. 

AMP proposal location: Florida; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Lakeland P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Tampa P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.5 million. 

AMP proposal location: Florida; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Manasota P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Tampa P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $3.2 million. 

AMP proposal location: Florida; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: South Florida P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Fort Lauderdale P&DC/Miami P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $2.8 million. 

AMP proposal location: Georgia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Athens CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: North Metro P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $2.4 million. 

AMP proposal location: Illinois; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Palatine P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Carol Stream P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $9.5 million. 

AMP proposal location: Indiana; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Bloomington MPA; 
Facility gaining operations: Indianapolis P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.1 million. 

AMP proposal location: Kansas/Missouri; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Kansas City P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Kansas City P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $9.3 million. 

AMP proposal location: Maryland; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Frederick P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Suburban P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.1 million. 

AMP proposal location: Massachusetts; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Cape Cod P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Brockton P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.9 million. 

AMP proposal location: Michigan; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Detroit P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: MI MetroPlex P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $4.4 million. 

AMP proposal location: Michigan; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Flint P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: MI MetroPlex P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.4 million. 

AMP proposal location: Mississippi; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Hattiesburg CSMPC; 
Facility gaining operations: Gulfport P&DF; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: Data not 
applicable[B]. 

AMP proposal location: New Hampshire; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Portsmouth P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Manchester P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.2 million. 

AMP proposal location: New Jersey; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Newark P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Dominick V. Daniels P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $3.5 million. 

AMP proposal location: New York; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Binghamton P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Syracuse P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.2 million. 

AMP proposal location: New York; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Queens P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Brooklyn P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $6.6 million. 

AMP proposal location: New York; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Staten Island P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Brooklyn P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.9 million. 

AMP proposal location: New York; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Watertown PO; 
Facility gaining operations: Syracuse P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $2.7 million. 

AMP proposal location: New York; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Western Nassau P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: Mid-Island P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $2.9 million. 

AMP proposal location: North Carolina; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Hickory P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Greensboro P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.3 million. 

AMP proposal location: North Carolina; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Kinston P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Fayetteville P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.1 million. 

AMP proposal location: Ohio; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Canton P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Akron P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $2.2 million. 

AMP proposal location: Ohio; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Mansfield P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Akron P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: Data not 
applicable[B]. 

AMP proposal location: Ohio; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Zanesville PO; 
Facility gaining operations: Columbus P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: Data not 
applicable[B]. 

AMP proposal location: Pennsylvania; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: New Castle P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Pittsburgh P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.5 million. 

AMP proposal location: Pennsylvania; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Wilkes-Barre P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Lehigh Valley P&DC/Scranton P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $6.1 million. 

AMP proposal location: Texas; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Dallas P&DC; 
Facility gaining operations: North Texas P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $9.4 million. 

AMP proposal location: Virginia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Charlottesville P&DF; 
Facility gaining operations: Richmond P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $6.5 million. 

AMP proposal location: Virginia; 
Facility downsizing operations[A]: Winchester SCF; 
Facility gaining operations: Dulles P&DC; 
Estimated annual savings as a result of consolidation: $1.6 million. 

Total estimated annual savings: $98.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of USPS data. 

[A] The types of facilities involved include: P&DC, P&DF, PO, CSMPC, 
SCF, and MPA. 

[B] Although we reviewed 32 AMP proposals, 3 of them were not approved 
and, therefore, we did not include the estimated cost savings in our 
analysis. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Phil Herr, (202) 512-2834, or herrp@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant 
Director; Colin Fallon; Brandon Haller; Jennifer Kim; Jaclyn Nelson; 
and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning 
Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and 
Accountability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-261] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2005) and GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Mail 
Processing Realignment Efforts Under Way Need Better Integration and 
Explanation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-717] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2007). 

[2] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Progress Made Toward Implementing GAO's 
Recommendations to Strengthen Network Realignment Planning and 
Accountability and Improve Communication, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1134R] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 
2008). 

[3] Office of Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service, Status Report on 
the Postal Service's Network Rationalization Initiatives (Report 
Number EN-AR-10-001) (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2010). 

[4] The USPS manages its mail processing operations in eight areas 
(Capital Metro, Eastern, Great Lakes, Northeast, Pacific, Southwest, 
Southeast, and Western) with local district offices nationwide. This 
report refers to USPS's eight areas as regional management and local 
district offices as local management. 

[5] USPS process three basic mail shapes--letters (includes 
postcards), flats (includes large envelopes, magazines, and catalogs) 
and parcels (or packages)--through six classes of mail--Express Mail®, 
Priority Mail®, First-Class Mail®, Standard Mail®, Periodicals, and 
Package Services. 

[6] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1134R]. 

[7] Originating mail refers to outgoing and local mail that enters the 
point of origin for mail processing. Local mail remains within the 
facility and is combined with destinating mail from other origin 
facilities. Destinating mail refers to mail arriving at point of entry 
for distribution and dispatch to a post office for delivery. 

[8] At the STCs, USPS consolidates containers from multiple facilities 
to maximize the use of transportation. 

[9] We did not include 5 of the 32 AMP proposals (Canton, OH; Flint, 
MI; Kansas City, KS; Detroit, MI; and Zanesville, OH) in our analysis 
of the processing time because the AMP feasibility study began prior 
to the USPS's revision of its AMP guidance in March 2008. According to 
USPS officials, these proposals were delayed while the revisions to 
the AMP guidance were made and then evaluated again based on the 
revised guidance. 

[10] USPS fully implemented the consolidation of Kansas City P&DC in 
Kansas into the Kansas City P&DC in Missouri on July 1, 2009. USPS did 
not renew the lease of the Kansas City P&DC in Kansas, and it was 
closed in January 2010. 

[11] Office of Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service, Dallas 
Processing and Distribution Center Outgoing Mail Consolidation (Report 
Number NO-AR-10-003) (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2010) and New Castle 
Processing and Distribution Facility Outgoing Mail Consolidation 
(Report Number NO-AR-10-002) (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2010). 

[12] Service standards are USPS's goal that directs how many days it 
should take mail to reach its destination, depending on its origin and 
mail class. For instance, First-Class Mail® has service standards of 
overnight, 2 and 3 days depending on the distance it has to travel. 

[13] According to its Network Plan, USPS's first step in minimizing 
the impact of network initiatives on employees is to explore 
internally reassigning career employees affected by organizational 
change. 

[14] Although we reviewed 32 AMP proposals, 3 of them were not 
approved and, therefore, we did not include the estimated cost savings 
in our analysis. 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-261]. 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1134R]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: