U.S. Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability

In our April 2005 report, we assessed the U.S. Postal Service's strategy for realigning its infrastructure. The report found that the Service did not establish criteria to use when evaluating Area Mail Processing (AMP) proposals or making realignment decisions. As a result, it was unclear whether decisions were being made in a fair and efficient manner and how the Service's strategy would eliminate excess capacity. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service establish a set of criteria for evaluating realignment decisions. In its 2008 Network Plan, the Service included a set of criteria for evaluating proposals to conduct an AMP feasibility study, and in a recent interview postal officials told us that there are three primary criteria used for evaluating realignment decisions, which are cost, service, and capacity.

In our April 2005 report we assessed the U.S. Postal Service's strategy for realigning its infrastructure. The report found that the Service's limited communication with stakeholders made it difficult for customers to work with the Service to achieve a least-cost network for the entire mailing industry, for Service employees and communities to understand how they might be affected, and for Members of Congress to explain to their constituents what the Service was planning to do. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service develop a mechanism for informing stakeholders as realignment decisions are made. Since then, the Service has improved its communication practices by releasing its updated Area Mail Processing (AMP) Communications Plan in March 2008, which explains its public input process and contains timelines, templates of the notification letters, and news releases used for communicating AMP information.

In our April 2005 report, we assessed the U.S. Postal Service's strategy for realigning its infrastructure. The report found that it was unclear how the strategy would provide accountability for realignment decisions because there was no process for evaluating the results of implementing its realignment decisions and no stated policy for making managers accountable for decisions. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service develop a process for implementing these decisions that includes evaluating and measuring the results. Since then in March 2008, the Service has updated its Area Mail Processing (AMP) procedural guidelines to require semi-annual and annual post-implementation reviews (PIR) of AMP consolidations; these reviews assess whether planned savings, workhours, and levels of service are met and ensure management's accountability for implementing an AMP plan.