U.S. Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its	 
Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and	 
Accountability (08-APR-05, GAO-05-261). 			 
                                                                 
With declining mail volumes, increasing compensation costs, and a
more competitive marketplace, the need for the U.S. Postal	 
Service (Service) to increase efficiency and reduce expenses is a
matter of increasing importance and concern. According to the	 
Service, one area where it can become more efficient is in its	 
mail processing and distribution infrastructure. The objectives  
of this report are to (1) describe major business and demographic
changes and their effect on the Service's mail processing and	 
distribution infrastructure; (2) describe what actions the	 
Service is taking in response to these changes, and what	 
challenges exist; and (3) discuss the Service's strategy for	 
realigning its infrastructure.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-261 					        
    ACCNO:   A21138						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for	      
Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity,	 
Criteria, and Accountability					 
     DATE:   04/08/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Mail delivery problems				 
	     Mail transportation operations			 
	     Postal facilities					 
	     Postal service					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Population statistics				 
	     Agency missions					 
	     General management reviews 			 
	     Mail processing operations 			 
	     Stakeholder consultations				 
	     Transparency					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-261

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2005

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

 The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks
                     Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability

                                       a

GAO-05-261

[IMG]

April 2005

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks
Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability

                                 What GAO Found

Several major changes have affected mail processing and distribution
operations including marketplace changes, such as declines in First-Class
Mail and increased competition; increased automation and mail processing
by mailers; and shifts in population demographics. Effects of these
changes include excess capacity in the mail processing and distribution
infrastructure and variations in productivity among plants.

Total Pieces Handled per Person per Hour in Processing Plants for Fiscal
Year 2004

The Service is exploring ways to realign its infrastructure by closing
annexes, consolidating operations, and employing tools to model its
infrastructure needs, while at the same time attempting to increase
efficiencies in its current operations by expanding automation, improving
material handling operations, creating a comprehensive transportation
network, and introducing standardization programs. Also, as the graph
above illustrates, there is a large range in productivity among plants.
Reducing this range is difficult due to the complexity of operations and
differences in plant layout. In addition, the Service faces challenges in
eliminating excess capacity, while maintaining service standards, due to
workforce rules and resistance to plant closings.

Questions remain about how the Service intends to realign its processing
and distribution infrastructure and workforce. The Service's strategy for
realigning has not been clear because the Service has outlined several
seemingly different strategies over the past 3 years. None of these
strategies include criteria and processes for eliminating excess capacity,
which may prolong inefficiencies. Also, the strategy lacks sufficient
transparency and accountability, excludes stakeholder input, and lacks
performance measures for results.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Major Changes Have Impacted the Service's Mail Processing and

Distribution Infrastructure The Service Is Pursuing Several Initiatives in
Response to Changes but Challenges Remain The Service's Strategy for
Realigning Its Mail Processing

Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability Conclusion
Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 2 5

14

35

53 59 59 60

Appendixes

              Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams
Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report
Comments from the U.S. Postal Service
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments

63

65

74

82

84 84 84

Tables	Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Common Types of Mail Preparation Service 6
Common Types of Mailers 6
2004 Major Processing and Distribution Plant Types 7
Change in Average Rate and Volume for Priority Mail 24
Factors Contributing to Productivity (Total Pieces
Processed per Hour) in FY 2004 29
Average Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per
Hour) of Plants By Number of Employees for Fiscal Year
2004 31
Average Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per
Hour) for Selected Operations by Area for Fiscal Year
2004 34
Number of Plants and Annexes Owned and Leased by the
Service as of September 30, 2004 37
Comparison of FY 2004 Productivity for Flat Sorting
Operations 39

                                    Contents

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6: Figure 7:

Figure 8: Figure 9:

Mail Flow through National Infrastructure 10
Location of Service Processing and Distribution Plants 12
First-Class Mail and Standard Mail Volume, Fiscal Years
1971 -2004 16
Annual Percentage Change in Priority Mail and Express
Mail Volumes, Fiscal Years 1994 to 2004 17
Growth in Mail Volume for Workshared and
Nonworkshared Mail, Fiscal Years 1972-2002 18
Evolution of Mail Processing 20
Number of Service Processing and Distribution Plants by
Age 21
Bedloaded Truck and Cardboard Containers 23
U.S. Household Growth by State from 2000 to 2003 and
Service Processing and Distribution Plants 26

Figure 10: Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour) at
Small, Medium, and Large P&DCs for FY 2004 30 Figure 11: Processing of a
Letter at a Multistory and a Single Floor Processing and Distribution
Plant 32 Figure 12: Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour)
at

Multistory Plants in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2004 33 Figure 13:
Photographs of Empty and Full Flat Mail Cart 40 Figure 14: Automated
Package Processing Machine 42 Figure 15: Low Cost Tray Sorter 43 Figure
16: Service Bulk Mail Center and Hub and Spoke Program

Locations 46

Figure 17: Correlation Between BPI Productivity (Total Pieces Processed
per Hour) and Activity Based Costing Unit Letter Processing Costs for
Fiscal Year 2004 49

Figure 18: Letter Mail Processing 67 Figure 19: Flat Mail Processing 70
Figure 20: Parcel Processing 73

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. However, 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.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

April 8, 2004

The Honorable John M. McHugh The Honorable Danny K. Davis House of
Representatives

The United States Postal Service (Service) has developed a highly complex
infrastructure that includes about 450 plants that process and distribute
an average of 660 million pieces of mail per day. To meet its universal
service obligation, which requires it to provide mail delivery services to
all people residing in the United States, the Service delivered mail to
over 142 million addresses in fiscal year 2004. This represented an
increase in addresses over fiscal year 2003 of 1.8 million. Mail
processing costs amount to about $20 billion annually, while annual
transportation costs are about $5 billion. The Service is subject to a
mandate to break even that requires that postal rates and fees shall
provide sufficient revenues so that the Service's total estimated income
and appropriations will equal as nearly as practicable its total estimated
costs. For the first time in its history, the Service experienced
declining First-Class Mail volumes for 3 years in a row. This trend is
expected to continue and raises specific concerns, since traditionally
First-Class Mail provided high revenue-per-piece, which helps cover the
Service's institutional expenses.1 Another challenge is that compensation
costs, which account for over 79 percent of the Service's total costs,
grew 3 percent from fiscal year 2003 to 2004 while the number of full-time
employees decreased. This increase in compensation costs is due in part to
healthcare benefits that increased 7 percent over the same period. With
major changes that affect its mail processing operations, including
declining mail volumes, increasing compensation costs, and a more
competitive marketplace, the need for the Service to increase efficiency
and reduce expenses has become more urgent.

In April 2002, in response to a GAO recommendation, the Service issued a
Transformation Plan that outlined the steps it planned to take to address
the challenges it faced. One key goal cited in the Transformation Plan was
for the Service to become more efficient by standardizing operations and
reducing excess capacity in its mail processing and distribution
infrastructure. Mailer interest groups and a report by the Presidential
Commission on the Postal Service also supported the goal of "rightsizing"
the nation's postal infrastructure; that is, establishing a least-cost
network

1Institutional costs are costs that cannot be attributed to any specific
class of mail.

for the Postal Service and the entire mailing industry while improving
overall efficiency and service.

To assist Congress in monitoring the Service's progress in implementing
the realignment of its mail processing and distribution infrastructure,
this report addresses three key objectives. First, it describes major
business and demographic changes and the effect of these changes on the
Service's mail processing and distribution infrastructure. Second, it
describes the actions the Service is taking to achieve a more efficient
and flexible network in response to these changes, and the challenges
associated with implementing these actions. Finally, it discusses the
Service's strategy for realigning its infrastructure.

To address these objectives, we interviewed mailing industry associations,
postal officials at Service headquarters, and employee union
representatives about their views of the major changes affecting mail
processing and distribution operations and infrastructure, as well as the
Service's plans, strategy, and progress to realign its infrastructure. We
also visited several Service mail processing plants to observe operations
and interviewed plant managers in the Pacific, Southeastern, Eastern, and
Capital Metro areas about their efforts to improve efficiency. We analyzed
Service productivity data and documentation related to its productivity
and efficiency improvement efforts, including plans and implementation
schedules. We also reviewed Service documents related to its
infrastructure realignment and discussed the direction and progress of its
realignment efforts with the Service's Chief Operating Officer, the area
vice presidents, and other senior management officials involved in this
effort. We assessed the reliability of the Service's data used in our
assessment of productivity and efficiency and found it reasonable for our
purposes. We conducted our review at Service headquarters and field
locations between April 2004 and January 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our
objectives, scope, and methodology is included in appendix I. We requested
comments on a draft of this report from the Service and its comments are
discussed later in this report and reproduced in appendix IV.

Results in Brief	Several major changes, such as changes in the
marketplace, the evolution of the Service's processing infrastructure,
increased automation and mail processing by mailers, and changes in
demographics have affected the Service's mail processing and distribution
operations. The effects of these

changes include productivity variations among plants and excess capacity
in the mail processing and distribution infrastructure. For example:

o 	Changes in the marketplace, such as electronic substitution for
First-Class Mail and increased competition, led to declines in mail volume
and changes in mail mix. From fiscal year 2000 to 2004 total mail volume
declined by about 1.8 billion pieces.

o 	The Service's processing and distribution infrastructure has developed
over time resulting in plants that differ markedly from one another and
exhibit wide variations in productivity. Also, some plants have evolved to
exclusively process certain types of mail, which has driven up the cost
per piece for those types of mail.

o 	Mail processing operations transitioned from manual to automated,
enabling plants to process mail in less time. At the same time, mailers
have performed more mail sorting in exchange for discounts, requiring less
processing once the mail reaches the plant.

o 	Shifts in demographics and transportation may mean that the Service's
processing plants are not ideally located. For example, U.S. household
growth is greatest in the Western and Southern parts of the country, while
the majority of mail processing plants are located in the East.

To achieve a more efficient and flexible infrastructure, the Service is
exploring ways to realign its infrastructure by closing annexes,
consolidating operations, and employing tools to model its infrastructure
needs. At the same time, the Service is attempting to increase
efficiencies in its current operations by expanding automation, improving
material handling operations, creating a comprehensive transportation
network, and introducing standardization programs. The Service has
recently reported notable improvements in productivity and efficiency. For
example, over the past 4 years, the Service has reduced workhours by more
than 170 million, and reduced career staffing by over 80,000 employees.
Nevertheless, the Service faces challenges in reducing productivity
variances among plants and eliminating excess capacity. For example,
efforts to reduce productivity variances among plants are challenged by
the complexity of operations and differences in plant layout. In addition,
workforce rules related to moving employees among plants and resistance to
plant closings make it difficult for the Service to reduce excess
capacity. Consequently, it is not clear that reducing variations among
plants, removing excess capacity, or improving efficiency, can be achieved

consistently throughout the current mail processing and distribution
infrastructure.

The Service's strategy for realigning its mail processing and distribution
infrastructure has not been clear because the Service has outlined several
seemingly different strategies over the past 3 years. While the Service
has announced various plans and strategies, including a modeling effort
and an attempt to get more uniformity in its infrastructure, it recently
announced that it is pursuing an evolutionary strategy-that will respond
to opportunities as they arise-and has provided little information about
any of these efforts. This evolutionary strategy and the lack of detailed
information about it raise many issues, including what the strategy is and
whether it will enable the Service to meet the challenge of removing
excess capacity in its infrastructure by closing unnecessary facilities.
Specific issues related to the Service's infrastructure realignment
strategy include: (1) the Service's strategy does not include specific
criteria and processes for eliminating excess capacity, including the
removal of unnecessary facilities and (2) the Service's strategy is not
sufficiently transparent and accountable, excludes stakeholder input, and
lacks performance measures for results of decisions. The Service's limited
communication makes it difficult for customers to work with the Service to
achieve a least-cost network for the entire mailing industry, for Service
employees to understand how they may be affected, for communities to
understand how they will be affected, and for Members of Congress to
explain to their constituents what the Service is planning to do.

To enhance the Service's transparency of its decisions related to
realigning its infrastructure, the Postmaster General should establish a
set of criteria for evaluating realignment decisions and a mechanism for
informing stakeholders as decisions are made. To enhance accountability
for these decisions, the Postmaster General should develop a process for
implementing these decisions that includes evaluating and measuring the
results.

In commenting on a draft of this report the Service concurred with our
description of its mail processing and distribution infrastructure and the
major business and demographic changes that have affected the Service's
operations, but did not respond directly to our conclusions or
recommendations.

Background	The Service's mail processing and distribution infrastructure,
whereby mail is prepared for sorting on automation equipment by applying a
barcode, sorted through various processing equipment, and transported
between plants, consists of interdependent networks where operations in
one part affect operations throughout. For example, if mail processing is
delayed in one plant and misses the cut-off time for being loaded onto
trucks for distribution, transportation will not be fully used because the
trucks will leave without that mail. Subsequent processing will also be
affected at plants that will receive this mail. In addition, the Service's
infrastructure is part of a larger economic sector commonly referred to as
the mailing industry. According to research conducted by the Mailing
Industry Task Force, the Service, and the Direct Marketing Association,
the core mailing industry is a $976 billion industry comprised of the
Service, its competitors, direct and indirect mailers, and mail intensive
business segments such as mail order, publishing, and printing houses.2
This industry accounts for 9 million domestic jobs in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia. Mailers generally use one of the four major
classes of mail:

o 	First-Class Mail consists mainly of bills, bill payments,
correspondence, and advertising and also includes the expedited product,
Priority Mail;

o  Periodicals Mail encompasses mainly magazines and local newspapers;

o 	Standard Mail is primarily bulk advertising and direct mail
solicitations; and

o 	Package Services Mail includes parcels, merchandise, catalogs, media,
and books.

Tables 1 and 2 describe the major types of businesses that make up the
mailing industry and how they generally interact with the Postal Service.

2Envelope Manufacturing Association Foundation for Paper-Based
Communications, Postal Reform and Jobs, April 2, 2004, pg. 5.

Table 1: Common Types of Mail Preparation Service

Mail preparation services Description Where mail enters network

Lettershop	Prepares mailings for other organizations and provides services
Generally take mail to local processing such as personalizing, labeling,
sorting, stuffing, and addressing plant. envelopes.

Presorter/Consolidator	Accepts mailings from multiple sources,
consolidates them, and Generally take mail to local processing presorts to
the finest level that can be achieved. Often plant. consolidates mail from
multiple sources to achieve quantity-based discounts.

Fulfillment House	Receives, packages, and ships customer orders, generally
for Generally take mail to processing plant retail sales companies. close
to final destination.

                                  Source: GAO.

                        Table 2: Common Types of Mailers

Mailers Description Type of mail

Financial Institutions	Primarily banks that use the mail to send financial
statements or Primarily First-Class Mail advertisements. Depending on
mailer's size, it may use lettershops, presorters, or consolidators to
prepare mailings.

Government	Federal, state, and local governments. Depending on mailer's
size, Primarily First-Class Mail it may use lettershops, presorters, or
consolidators to prepare mailings.

Catalog Companies Companies that sell merchandise through catalogs.
Primarily Package Services

Newspapers/Magazines	Organizations that produce publications issued at
frequent intervals Primarily Periodicals or Standard Mail containing news,
editorials, advertisements, and other articles of current interest.

Commercial Industries	Industries that provide services or products.
Depending on mailer's Primarily Standard Mail size, it may use
lettershops, presorters, or consolidators to prepare mailings.

Nonprofit Organizations	Organizations that conduct not-for-profit
business. Depending on Primarily Standard Mail (Nonprofit mailer's size,
it may use lettershops, presorters or consolidators to rate) prepare
mailings.

Source: GAO.

The Service processes mail through its nationwide infrastructure according
to shape and class of mail. There are three basic mail shapes (1) letters,
which are small rectangular pieces no thicker than 1/4 inch; (2) flats,
which are rectangular pieces no thicker than 3/4 inch; and (3) parcels,
which are three-dimensional pieces weighing up to 70 pounds.

The Service established national service standards over 30 years ago that
direct how many days it should take mail to reach its destination,

depending on its origin and mail class. For example, First-Class Mail has
service standards of overnight, 2 and 3 days depending on the distance it
has to travel. In addition, the Service developed class-specific
processing networks to process specific types of mail including:

o 	a Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) network that primarily
processes First-Class Mail, Periodicals, and some parcels, as well as some
Standard Mail;

o 	a Priority Mail Processing Center (PMPC) network that processes
Priority Mail; and

o 	a Bulk Mail Center (BMC) network that processes bulk Standard Mail and
parcels.

Each of these networks uses separate processing and distribution plants as
described in table 3.

          Table 3: 2004 Major Processing and Distribution Plant Types

           Plant type                        Description               Number 
Processing and Distribution Processes and dispatches incoming and   
             Centers           outgoing mail for a designated          
             (P&DC)                         service area               
     Air Mail Centers (AMC)    Mail plant at an airport that processes 
                                       mail transported by air         
                               Processes and distributes bulk Standard 
     Bulk Mail Centers (BMC)              Mail and parcels             

Priority Mail Processing Centers (PMPC) Processes Priority Mail

Hub and Spoke Program (HASP)	Central point where mail from a group of
plants is unloaded, combined, and sent on to destination

Destination Delivery Units (DDU)	Facility where carriers pick up mail for
final delivery and some limited processing for destination may occur
37,159

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

Note: DDUs are generally post offices and are not considered processing
plants for the purposes of this report.

First-Class Mail is collected from mailboxes, houses, or post offices and
transported to a P&DC or deposited directly at the P&DC by the mailer.
Depending on where the mail originates from (origination) and where it is
being delivered to (destination), this mail can be processed in multiple
plants. It may be transported (1) directly between P&DCs, (2) through a
hub and spoke plant, (3) through an air mail center, or (4) through a
combination of these. Once the mail has reached the destination P&DC, the

mail is transported to a delivery unit for carrier delivery. For example,
a birthday card mailed from Washington, D.C., to Sacramento, CA, would be
mailed as First-Class Mail and might follow these steps:

1. picked up from mailbox by carrier and brought to local post office;

2.	transported to Suburban Maryland P&DC where the postage stamp is
cancelled and a barcode reflecting the proper destination is applied to
the mailpiece so it can be sorted according to destination;

3. transported to airport;

4. flown to San Francisco, CA;

5.	transported to San Francisco Air Mail Center where it is sorted to the
proper destination plant;

6.	transported to West Sacramento P&DC where it is sorted into delivery
order; and

7.	transported to local post office to be picked up by carrier and
delivered to addressee.

Priority Mail can either be processed in the Priority Mail network or in
the P&DC network similar to First-Class Mail. For example, legal documents
sent Priority Mail from Rochester, NY, to Sacramento, CA, might follow
these steps:

1.	transported from local post office to Rochester Priority Mail
Processing Center where it is separated from local Priority Mail and
sorted according to destination;

2.	transported to Rochester Air Mail Center where it is assigned to a
specific flight;

3. flown to San Francisco, CA;

4.	transported to San Francisco Air Mail Center where it is sorted to
proper destination plant; and

5.	transported to West Sacramento P&DC where it is sorted into delivery
order; and

6.	transported to local post office to be picked up by carrier and
delivered to addressee.

Discount mailings (Standard Mail, bulk parcels, etc.) can enter the bulk
mail network by being weighed and paid for at the mailer's plant through a
detached mail unit, or at a postal plant through a Business Mail Entry
Unit. A mailing is initially processed at the bulk mail center where it
was entered, and then pieces are transported to the bulk mail center in
the area where it will be delivered. To receive additional discounts or
achieve faster delivery time, the mailer can enter mail closer to its
destination. This is called dropshipping. For example, a Standard Mail
advertisement dropshipped from Washington, D.C., to Sacramento, CA, might
follow this path:

1.	accepted into mailstream through detached mail unit at a mailer's plant
in Washington, D.C.;

2.	transported by mailer to the West Sacramento P&DC and sorted into
delivery order; and

3.	transported to local post office to be picked up by carrier and
delivered to addressee.

Figure 1 depicts how mail flows through these networks, while figure 2
maps the location of the Service's processing and distribution plants.

                     [This page left blank intentionally.]

Major Changes Have Impacted the Service's Mail Processing and Distribution
Infrastructure

Since the U.S. Post Office Department was reorganized into the U.S. Postal
Service by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, there have been several
major changes, the effects of which include excess capacity in the mail
processing and distribution infrastructure, as well as productivity
differences among plants. These changes include:

o 	changes in the marketplace and the role of industry that have resulted
in declines in mail volume and changes in mail mix;

o 	the evolution of the Service's processing and distribution
infrastructure, and the advent of processing automation, that has led to
an infrastructure consisting of processing and distribution plants that
differ markedly from one another; and

o 	changes in demographics and modes of transportation that affect the
optimal location of the Service's plants.

Changing Marketplace Has Led to Changes in Mail Volume and Mail Mix

Electronic Diversion Has Led to Decreases in First-Class Mail Volume

Changes in the marketplace, including the substitution of electronic
communication for First-Class Mail, shifts in how customers use the mail,
increased competition in overnight mail and package services, and the
changing role of mailers, have led to changes in mail volume and mix.
These changes have intensified the Service's future financial challenges.
Historically, the Service's business model depended on revenues from
increasing mail volumes to cover its expanding infrastructure. This model
has proven more difficult to sustain because of the decreasing mail
volumes, particularly in First-Class Mail. As the Service's Chief
Financial Officer stated, "this shift in mail mix to lower
revenue-per-piece mail classes will result in shrinking margins, which are
used to maintain universal service."3

First-Class Mail volume, the class that contributes the majority of
revenue to institutional costs, declined 5 percent from fiscal year 2000
to 2004 and this downward trend is expected to continue. The Service has
attributed the declining First-Class Mail volume to the impact of
electronic diversion as businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments,
and households

3Richard Strasser's presentation to the Service's Board of Governors
year-end meeting on December 7, 2004. Universal service is not defined in
law, but is understood to include affordable rates, 6-days per week
delivery, and access to postal retail services.

increasingly automate their financial transactions and divert
correspondence to the Internet. For example, electronic bill payment
allows users to pay bills using the Internet rather than sending checks
through the mail. In 2003, the majority of noncash payments were made
electronically; just 3 years earlier the majority had been made by check.
Recent Federal Reserve studies found that the number of checks paid in the
United States has continued to decline since it peaked in the mid-1990s.
There were nearly 50 billion checks paid in 1995. By 2000, that number had
declined to 41.9 billion and by 2003 that number had dropped to 36.7
billion. Between 2000 and 2003, electronic payments increased from 30.6
billion to 44.5 billion, an increase of over 45 percent.4 Further, recent
legislation that became effective October 28, 2004, is intended to improve
the efficiency of check processing and may reduce reliance on the physical
movement of checks through the mail.5 It is likely that this change will
accelerate the decline in First-Class Mail volume.

Shift in Mail Usage Has Led to As a result of declining First-Class Mail
volumes and the lower revenue per

Challenges in Revenue piece provided by Standard advertising mail volumes,
the Service will be

Generation	challenged to generate sufficient revenue to cover
institutional costs. From 1970 to 2000, First-Class Mail accounted for the
majority of mail volume. However, as seen in figure 3, Standard Mail
volume is on the verge of overtaking First-Class Mail volume. According to
postal officials, Standard Mail volume is projected to be greater than
First-Class Mail volume by fiscal year 2005.

4The 2004 Federal Reserve Payment Study: Analysis of Noncash Payments
Trends in the United States 2000-2003, Federal Reserve System, 2004.

5The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21) was signed into
law on October 28, 2003, and became effective on October 28, 2004.

 Figure 3: First-Class Mail and Standard Mail Volume, Fiscal Years 1971 - 2004

Pieces (in billions) 197119721973

    1974197519761977197819791980 198119821983 1984198519861987 198819891990
           19911992199319941995199619971998199920002001 2002 20032004

                                First-Class Mail

                                 Standard Mail

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

In fiscal year 2003, combined First-Class Mail and Standard Mail accounted
for almost 94 percent of the Service's total mail volume. It takes
approximately 2.5 pieces of Standard Mail to make up for the lost
contribution from 1 piece of First-Class Mail. During fiscal year 2003,
First-Class Mail declined by 3.3 billion pieces, resulting in a loss in
revenue to be contributed toward institutional costs (contribution) of
$675 million, while Standard Mail increased by 3.1 billion pieces for a
gain in contribution of $256 million. The net loss in contribution from
these two classes in fiscal year 2003 was $419 million.

Increased Competition in Competition in the overnight and package business
is increasing. In 1971,

Packages and Overnight Mail the Service and United Parcel Service each had
roughly a 50 percent share

Have Hurt Mail Volume	of the national parcel market. FedEx entered the
parcel ground delivery market with the acquisition of Caliber in 1998 and,
by 2001, the Service's share of the parcel ground market had slipped to
less than 10 percent. In addition, the Service's market share of overnight
and 2 and 3 day air package services decreased between fiscal years 2000
and 2003. As seen in

figure 4, volume for the Service's products in this category, Priority
Mail and Express Mail has declined precipitously in recent years.

Figure 4: Annual Percentage Change in Priority Mail and Express Mail
Volumes, Fiscal Years 1994 to 2004

Percentage change 20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Priority Express

             Source: GAO analysis of the U.S. Postal Service data.

Changes in the Role of Mailers 	Over the past 30 years, the role of
mailers has changed, leading to further shifts in the mail mix. This
change is due in large part to the advent of the Service's worksharing
discounts. Postal worksharing activities generally involve mailers
preparing, barcoding, sorting, or transporting mail to qualify for reduced
postage rates. Key worksharing activities include (1) barcoding and
preparing mail so the Service can sort it on automated equipment; (2)
presorting mail, such as by ZIP Code or specific delivery location; and
(3) entering mail closer to destination, commonly referred to as
dropshipping. The first of many presort and automation worksharing
discounts was introduced in 1976, followed by dropship discounts for
periodicals in 1985, and Standard Mail in 1991. Presorting and barcoding
by mailers allows the Service to avoid primary sorting activities, while
dropshipping allows it to avoid transporting mail as well. For example,

prior to dropshipping, mail entered the infrastructure at the point of
origin. Dropshipping allows the mailer a discount for bypassing the
origination plant and transporting the mail closer to its destination
point.

Presort discounts spawned the mail consolidation business, whereby
consolidators gather mail from many different mailers, sort it, and convey
it to the Service for final delivery. The dropship discounts were the
catalyst for major growth within the consolidation business. As seen in
figure 5, virtually all of the growth in volume since 1972 is in
workshared mail. Worksharing contributes to excess capacity because mail
volume bypasses operations that occur early in the processing and, in some
cases, as with dropshipping, mail volumes bypass entire plants.

Figure 5: Growth in Mail Volume for Workshared and Nonworkshared Mail,
Fiscal Years 1972-2002

Mail volume (billions) 250

200

150

100

50

0 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
2000 2002 Fiscal year

               Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

Evolution of the Service's Processing and Distribution Infrastructure Has
Resulted in Markedly Different Plants

Plants Have Had to Accommodate Equipment in Buildings That Were Not
Designed to House the Technology

The Service's mail processing and distribution infrastructure has
developed over time resulting in an infrastructure comprised of plants
that are markedly different from one another. This evolution has resulted
in some plants' inability to accommodate processing equipment because the
floor space requirements differ for manual and automated processing; and
the plants were not originally designed to house the advanced technology.
Also, some plants exclusively process certain types of mail, which has
driven up the cost per piece for those types of mail. Today, the Service's
mail processing and distribution infrastructure includes plants that range
in age from 2 to 72 years old, range in square footage from 455 square
feet to 1,538,494 square feet, have different layouts, serve different
processing functions, and do not share the same amount and type of
processing equipment.6

Originally, the Service developed mail processing and distribution plants
to manually sort mail using pigeonhole cases. The Service took major steps
toward mechanizing plants in the mid-1950s with the introduction of the
letter sorting machine. The letter sorting machine required an operator to
read the address on an envelope and key the information into a console. A
conveyor belt system then directed the piece to the appropriate receptacle
for the address. In the early 1980s, the Service began replacing the
mechanized letter sorters with automated systems that used optical
character readers rather than manual keying of addresses. The concept of
mechanized sorting was expanded to include flats in the 1980s. The Service
recently deployed automated flat sorters and has begun deploying automated
parcel sorting equipment. Figure 6 depicts the evolution of mail
processing operations.

6Post Offices/DDUs are not included.

Figure 6: Evolution of Mail Processing

Manual Mechanized 1956 Bulk Mail Centers 1976

Automated letter 1982	Automated flat 2000 Automated parcel 2000 Source:
GAO.

The floor space required to accommodate automation equipment is different
than that needed to accommodate manual or mechanized sorting equipment,
and not all plants have room for new equipment that could increase
efficiency. As seen in figure 7, many of the Service's plants were built
prior to the advent of automation. Therefore, some plants may not have
enough floor space to accommodate the newer equipment.

Figure 7: Number of Service Processing and Distribution Plants by Age

Advent of the Service's Automation Program

Source: GAO analysis of the U.S. Postal Service data.

Note: Figure includes all processing and distribution plants, including
P&DCs, BMCs, AMCs, PMPCs, Annexes, and miscellaneous plants, but excludes
DDUs.

Dedicated Mail Processing Some plants are part of dedicated networks that
exclusively process

Networks Have Driven Up Costs	certain types of mail and have resulted in
higher costs. The Service developed dedicated mail processing networks
within its infrastructure to process certain classes of mail, including a
bulk mail network and a Priority Mail network. In general, by law, each
postal product must cover the costs attributable to provision of that
product plus a reasonable amount of institutional costs. Consequently,
when a network is dedicated to only one type of mail, that type of mail
must bear the costs of the dedicated network. In addition, with a
dedicated network, transportation capacity utilization is limited to the
amount of mail that is traveling through the dedicated network and
redundancies can occur. For example, Priority and Standard Mail may be
traveling through the same area and may even use the same roads; however,
because they are processed in separate networks, they do not travel on the
same truck. Therefore, two trucks that are 50 percent full might make the
trip rather than one truck that is 100 percent full.

In the 1970s, the Service developed a bulk mail network to maintain its
share of the parcel market against United Parcel Service, and built 21

                     Age   Number of      Percentage of total 
                           plants         
                     >69               11                  2% 
                   60 - 69              4                  1% 
                   50 - 59              1                  0% 
                   40 - 49             24                  5% 
                   30 - 39             90                 20% 
                   20 - 29             76                 17% 
                   10 - 19            151                 33% 
                     <10               99                 22% 

plants to process and distribute parcels. These plants also process sacks
of bulk Standard Mail. As operations have evolved over 30 years, the BMCs
have encountered a number of difficulties in trying to process the mail
efficiently. Furthermore, bulk Standard Mail is increasingly bypassing the
BMC network through dropshipping.

Bulk letter mail, which first enters the bulk mail network in sacks or
trays, can be processed more efficiently through automated letter sorters
when it reaches the processing and distribution plants if it is presented
in trays rather than sacks. Consequently, the Service made a concerted
effort to move mail out of sacks and into trays. However, this move caused
problems for the BMCs, which used sack-sorting machines. During our visits
to postal plants, managers told us that sack-sorting machines were not
designed to process rectangular trays. Sorting trays on the sack sorters
often resulted in trays, which carry an average of 500 pieces of mail,
breaking open and spilling mail over the conveyor belt. Consequently, the
sack sorter had to be turned off while the individual mail pieces were
collected and either sent to a P&DC for processing or processed on
equipment that had been brought into the BMC specifically to deal with
this problem. The BMCs were told by headquarters to remove all trays from
automated equipment beginning in October 2004, and some BMCs are now
processing the trays manually, which results in an increase in workhours.

In addition, changes in the way trucks are loaded and unloaded have
affected dock space at the BMCs. For example, when trucks were loaded at
processing plants by manually stacking packages inside the truck
(bedloaded), it took 8 hours to unload a truck filled to capacity. Today,
the Service uses automated loading machines that fill containers with
packages, which are then loaded by forklift into the trucks. Trucks are
unloaded by forklift, and automated equipment dumps the containers
directly onto the conveyor belts that lead to the sorting equipment. Using
this procedure it only takes 30 minutes to unload the same amount of mail.
Figure 8 depicts the difference between bedloaded and container-stacked
truckloads. While this has been a great improvement in workhour savings,
BMCs now have problems storing all the mail because of limited dock space.
We also observed and were told that some of the equipment in the BMCs is
so old that it cannot run at full capacity and in some cases was not being
used. For example, in one BMC the tow-line-used for transporting mail
throughout the building-was shut down 18 years ago because it needed
constant repairs. Consequently, mail is moved between operations either
manually or using forklifts and tow trucks.

Figure 8: Bedloaded Truck and Cardboard Containers

Source: GAO.

The Service also has a dedicated network for its expedited product,
Priority Mail, which has driven up the cost of Priority Mail and led to
declines in volume. In 1997, the Service awarded a 5-year contract to
Emery to develop a PMPC network on the east coast to improve Priority
Mail's service performance. The Service also contracted with Emery to
provide a

dedicated transportation network for Priority Mail. Because the network
only processed Priority Mail, all of the costs were borne by Priority Mail
users. Large rate increases in 1999, 2001, and 2002 for Priority Mail,
coupled with service problems, contributed to a 31 percent decline in
Priority Mail volume from fiscal year 2000 to 2004. Table 4 shows rate
increases and mail volumes. Consequently, the Service cancelled its
processing and transportation contract with Emery in 2001, absorbed the
processing back into its infrastructure, and contracted with FedEx for
transportation services. While the Service is still processing Priority
Mail in PMPCs, it is moving Priority Mail operations into other processing
plants. It has also begun converting some PMPCs to Logistics and
Distribution Centers (L&DC), which process multiple types of mail, and
according to Service officials, it is the Service's intent to eventually
convert all PMPCs to L&DCs.

Table 4: Change in Average Rate and Volume for Priority Mail

                    Date   Percent rate increase       Percent volume decline 
            January 1999                      7.2%                         6% 
               July 2001                     17.2%                        11% 
               June 2002                     13.5%                        15% 

Source: GAO analyses from Postal Rate Commission and U.S. Postal Service
Data.

Note: Volume declines are between fiscal years 1999 and 2001, 2001 and
2002, and 2002 and 2004. July 2001 is the implementation date of the
Recommended Decision in the R2000-1 rate case, which was modified by the
Service's Board of Governors.

Postal Service Plants May Not Be Optimally Located Due to Changes in
Demographics and Transportation

Due to population shifts, household growth, and the changing
transportation landscape in the United States, Service plants may not be
optimally located. The Service stated in September 2003 that, "population
shifts, changes in mail processing technology, and external events that
occurred during the last two years, have required dramatic shifts in
operating conditions resulting in rising costs to maintain the existing
network."

Most Service processing plants are located in eastern states-states that
historically have had the highest populations. During the 1990s, U.S.
household growth trends began moving west and south, with Nevada and
Arizona ranking as the two fastest growing states in the nation. As seen
in figure 9, the majority of the Service's processing plants are located
in states whose household growth is not as rapid as others. The Service
has said that

the operational challenge it faces in 2004 and beyond is to locate
processing plants and employees within efficient reach of most of the
population, while at the same time providing universal service to the rest
of the nation at reasonable cost.

domestic mail was moved by rail on over 10,000 trains nationwide. In 1965,
only 190 passenger trains carried mail, and by 1970, virtually no
First-Class Mail was carried by rail. In September 2004, Amtrak announced
that it would discontinue transporting mail for the Service. Changes have
also taken place in the Service's use of air transportation. As a result
of the September 11, 2001, attacks, new federal aviation security
restrictions prohibited the transportation of mail weighing more than 16
ounces on commercial flights. As a result, the majority of the mail
previously transported by commercial air has shifted to surface
transportation or is flown by FedEx. Ongoing shifts in transportation have
created an environment where most mail is now moved by highway and air,
and some processing plants would be better located so that major highways
and airports are easily accessible.

Changes Have Contributed The changing marketplace, evolution of mail
processing, and shifts in

to Variations in Productivity demographics have contributed to variations
in productivity across plants

Among Processing Plants 	and excess capacity. The growth in infrastructure
over time has resulted in differences in processing plants and contributed
to variations in

and Excess Capacity 	productivity and cost among plants. The decline in
mail volume and the evolution of mail processing have contributed to
excess capacity.

Productivity Varies among Plants	Average productivity-total pieces
processed per hour-varies among the Service's mail processing and
distribution plants, which indicates that some plants are not processing
mail as efficiently as others. Service officials have attributed this
variation to several factors, including size of plant as measured by
workload, number of employees, layout of plants, and the use of
nonstandardized processes. An analysis of productivity data for processing
and distribution plants for fiscal year 2004 indicates that none of these
factors, in isolation, can explain the variations; rather, as seen in
table 5, it seems that plants with low productivity exhibit a number of
contributing factors. For example, according to a Western Area Postal
Service official, the processing plant in Spokane, WA, is one of the most
productive plants because the plant is new, all operations are performed
on one floor, and it has an automated system to transport mail among the
different operations. The processing plant in Des Moines, IA, on the other
hand, has very low productivity. This plant is 50 years old, has multiple
floors where processing occurs, does not have enough dock space, and does
not have adequate floor space for new processing equipment.

Table 5: Factors Contributing to Productivity (Total Pieces Processed per
Hour) in FY 2004

        Least Productive Plants       A         B         C       D         E 
                   Productivity     519       727       819     852       873 
                       Workload 721,178 3,525,133 2,909,649 660,421 2,468,013 
                      Employees   1,144     4,336     2,883     850     2,319 
           Workroom Square Feet 273,600   984,290  490,125  116,888   626,918 
                            Age      19        72         9      70 
                     Multistory      No       Yes       Yes     Yes       Yes 
         Most Productive Plants       F         G         H       I         J 
                   Productivity   2,641     2,651     2,678   2,763     2,854 
                       Workload 287,661  855,680   324,030  500,396   197,942 
                      Employees      85       275       110     144       120 
           Workroom Square Feet  35,322  43,007    56,775    37,222    27,816 
                            Age       7        39        13       8 
                     Multistory      No        No        No      No        No 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

According to Service managers, a plant's annual workload impacts its
productivity. The Service classifies its plants based on the number of
workhours that should be required to process the plant's annual workload
(earned hours).7 The classifications are small-295,000 or less earned
workhours, medium-between 295,001 and 680,000 earned workhours, and
large-more than 680,000 earned workhours. According to the managers, small
plants are more efficient then larger plants because operations at small
plants are not as complex as operations at larger plants and large plants
often have additional responsibilities. For example, one plant manager
told us that the plant he had previously managed had a large contingency
of mail carriers that operated out of it in addition to the plant's
processing duties, which lead to space constraints. Larger plants often
consolidate and sort mail from smaller plants, which makes sorting schemes
more complicated and requires additional workhours to accommodate the
increased complexity. However, as seen in figure 10, there are also large
gaps in productivity among the plants within each size

7The Service determines how many earned workhours a plant should need by
dividing that plant's workload by the average productivity of the 25
percent most productive plants.

classification. Therefore, it appears size, as measured by workload, is
only one contributing factor to the variation in productivity among
plants.

Figure 10: Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour) at
Small, Medium, and Large P&DCs for FY 2004

Productivity

3,000

2,854

                                  2,544 2,572

2,500

2,000 1,970

1,700

1,500 1,495

1,013

1,000

                                      727

519

500

0 Small Medium Large

Plant size

High

Average Low Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

Service officials also told us that the size of the workforce employed at
a plant impacts the plant's productivity. According to these officials,
plants with large numbers of employees have lower productivity than plants
with fewer employees because with fewer employees, management has better
visibility and therefore better control over its operations. Plants with
fewer employees also have fewer layers of management and more direct
manager to employee contact. One manager, who had managed both large and
small plants, told us that productivity increases can be attributed to
making sure employees are doing what they are suppose to be doing and that
this is easier to manage with a smaller number of employees. Table 6 shows
the average productivity for plants broken down by number of employees.

Table 6: Average Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour) of
Plants By Number of Employees for Fiscal Year 2004

                    Number of employees Average productivity

                                   <500 1,960

                                 500-999 1,614

                               1,000-1,499 1,463

                               1,500-1,999 1,443

                                  >2000 1,148

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

Another factor, according to Service officials, is the physical layout of
plants, particularly when plants are multistoried, because more time is
spent moving mail between floors and among operations. For example, one
multi-story plant that we visited has a number of difficulties in
processing mail. Currently, the plant receives mail on the first floor,
transports the mail to the third floor where it is cancelled, then sends
the mail to the second floor for processing, and then back to the first
floor for outgoing trucks. Due to cost constraints, the plant does not
have an automated system to transport mail among the different floors and
all mail must be moved among the floors by elevator. Unfortunately, many
of the elevators are continually out of service. According to the manager
at the plant, there are 13 elevators in the building and on a good day, 8
elevators are working. Consequently, according to the manager, more
workhours are used to move mail around and prepare it for operations then
would be used in a singlefloor plant. This lowers productivity and
increases the plant's processing costs. Figure 11 depicts the processing
of a letter at a multistory plant versus a single-floor plant.

Figure 12: Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour) at
Multistory Plants in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2004

Productivity

2,500

2,251 2,134

2,000 1,995 1,963

1,500

1,381

1,130 1,165

1,000

727 600 577 655

500

0

2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Highest productivity

Average productivity Lowest productivity Source: GAO analysis of the U.S.
Postal Service data.

Another factor in the productivity variation between plants is that the
Service does not have standardized processes across plants. Consequently,
one plant may be using a very efficient method to sort mail while another
plant may be using a less efficient method. For example, table 7 shows the
productivity of common automated mail processing operations varies by area
(the Service has divided its national network into nine geographic areas).

Table 7: Average Productivity (Total Pieces of Mail Processed per Hour)
for Selected Operations by Area for Fiscal Year 2004

                                         Prepare                        Small 
                                 collection mail  Letter               parcel 
                                     for sorting sorting Flat sorting sorting 
                            Area          (AFCS) (DBCS)  (AFSM 100)    (SPBS) 
                   Capital Metro          15,768   6,667        1,944 
                         Eastern          15,226   7,809        1,992 
                     Great Lakes          17,547   8,003        1,999 
                        New York          15,251   8,202        2,095 
                       Northeast          16,452   7,868        1,912 
                         Pacific          18,982   9,123        2,039 
                       Southeast          17,007   8,231        2,063 
                       Southwest          15,178   8,066        2,060 
                         Western          16,132   8,545        1,976 
         Difference between Most                                      
            and Least Productive                                  183 
                            Area           3,804   2,456              

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

The Service Has Excess Capacity	According to Service officials, declining
mail volume, worksharing, and the evolution of mail processing operations
from manual to automation equipment have led to excess capacity. There are
different types of excess capacity including:

o 	excess workhours, which occur when more workhours are used than are
necessary for processing the mail;

o 	excess physical infrastructure, which occurs when more square footage
is available for processing mail than is necessary (this may include
entire plants);

o 	excess transportation capacity, which occurs when trucks are run at
less than full capacity; and

o  excess machine hours, which occur when machines sit idle.

Declines in mail volume have led to excess equipment capacity because less
mail is being processed on the same amount of equipment. As stated
earlier, worksharing contributes to all types of excess capacity because
more mail volume is bypassing Service operations that occur early in the

process, such as cancellation and initial sorting. In the case of
dropshipping, volumes of mail bypass entire plants. With automation, mail
can be sorted faster than with manual processing. This has led to earlier
processing completion times and higher productivities. On average, 525
pieces of letter mail can be sorted in 1 hour using manual processing
operations, while 8,171 letters can be sorted in 1 hour using automated
processes. Consequently, mail no longer needs to be processed on all plant
shifts and equipment is being used fewer hours a day. Advancements in
technology have also lessened the need for certain types of plants, such
as air mail centers and remote encoding centers-which are separate plants
established to perform address barcoding on letters that could not be read
by the automated equipment in the mail processing plants.

The Service Is Pursuing Several Initiatives in Response to Changes but
Challenges Remain

To achieve a more efficient and flexible infrastructure in response to
changes in the marketplace, the evolution of the mail processing
infrastructure, and shifts in demographics, the Service is exploring broad
infrastructure realignment, while at the same time pursuing several
initiatives to address inefficiencies in its current infrastructure. In
its 2002 Transformation Plan, the Service outlined its network
optimization effort, the goal of which was to create a flexible logistics
network that reduces mailing industry costs, increases overall operational
efficiency, and improves service. The Service has also taken some concrete
steps to realign its infrastructure by closing some processing annexes,
approving construction on plants in certain locations, and consolidating
operations in various plants. In addition, the Service is pursuing several
initiatives to improve efficiency in its current infrastructure. It is
expanding automation, improving material handling operations, creating a
comprehensive transportation network, and introducing standardization
programs in an effort to reduce workhours and increase productivity. The
Service faces challenges in reducing variations in productivity across
plants in part because standardization efforts are hindered by the
complexity in operations and the physical differences in plants. The
Service also faces challenges in reducing excess capacity while
maintaining service standards, including workforce rules, and stakeholder
resistance to plant closings.

The Service Is Working Toward Realigning Its Infrastructure to Address
Changes

To assess its overall infrastructure in relation to changes that have
occurred, in November 2001, the Service began developing a modeling tool
designed to identify the least-cost network, given current service
standards, under several network scenarios. According to the Service, the
model will "help the Service determine which plants remain viable and
necessary within the future infrastructure, and what distribution and
transportation roles [would] be performed by plants that remain as parts
of an optimal, fully integrated network." According to the Service's
Transformation Plan, a plan to implement the results of this modeling tool
was to be completed by December 2002. By November 2003, the Service had
collected detailed operational and volume data and had developed
data-based models. In January 2004, the Service reported that the models
were being tested and validated. Since then, there has been little public
information on the results of these models or the Service's implementation
plans.

The Service has also begun closing annexes-temporary plants used for mail
operations when space is limited- and consolidating mail processing
operations in order to address the issue of excess capacity. While new
construction is also taking place, some of these projects have been in the
planning stages for years. Consequently, it is unclear whether the Service
is incorporating its future infrastructure needs into its current
projects.

Between fiscal year 2002 and 2004, the Service closed 50 annexes.
According to Postal Service officials, decisions to close annexes are
based on volume and do not take future network configuration into
consideration. Because annexes are usually staffed by temporary employees,
for whom the Service does not have the same notification and reassignment
requirements as it does for permanent employees, they are easier to close
than other plants and the closing can be done relatively quickly and with
little controversy. Also, while most processing plants are owned by the
Service, most annexes are leased and therefore can be closed without
having to dispose of the asset. Table 8 shows the number of plants and
annexes owned and leased by the Service.

Table 8: Number of Plants and Annexes Owned and Leased by the Service as
of September 30, 2004

                            Type Owned Leased Total

                               Plants 330 60 390

Annexes 20 45

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

However, according to Service officials, closing annexes is a short-term
solution. In some cases, the Service is planning on eliminating certain
types of plants altogether. For example, the Service's Chief Operating
Officer told us that there is no longer a need for processing mail at air
mail centers because, due to technological advances, mail can be assigned
to specific flights right at the mail processing and distribution plants.
The leases for air mail centers are typically very expensive; and in many
areas of the country, the Service is considering closing down the plants
as the leases expire. Another example is the reduction and eventual
elimination of the separate address barcoding centers, remote encoding
centers. Enhancements in the ability of automation equipment to read
addresses have now significantly reduced the need for remote encoding
centers. Initially, the Service had 55 of these centers and is now down to
17.

In several areas, rather than closing entire plants, the Service has
consolidated sorting operations at several plants into one plant. For
example, in the Pacific Area, Saturday mail processing has been
consolidated from 23 plants to 11 plants. An area official told us that
the consolidation effort began a few years ago in response to volume
declines. The official pointed out that consolidation of Saturday mail
processing reduces processing costs, but may increase transportation costs
because the mail has to be rerouted to the plant that is processing the
consolidated volumes. The Service is able to consolidate Saturday
processing because there is no delivery on Sunday. Therefore, the Service
can reroute the mail and still meet its service standards. Officials in
other areas told us that they are also consolidating Saturday processing.
While efforts to close plants and consolidate operations have taken place,
the Service has not provided any public information on its future closings
and consolidations, nor does it have a standard procedure in place for
closing plants, and instead operates on a case-by-case basis.

The Service has begun constructing, or has approved funding for the
construction of new plants because, as stated earlier, some plants cannot

accommodate necessary equipment, do not have room for current operations,
or are not optimally located. For example, in Philadelphia, the Service is
building a new processing and distribution center to replace the current
one, which was built in 1935 and consists of two four-story buildings
connected by a bridge. Mail at this plant is processed on separate floors
and is moved between operations using elevators. The new plant will be two
stories but will have a tray management system that will assist in moving
the trays between the floors. It will also be able to accommodate
mail-processing equipment that will not fit in the current plant and will
have more dock space. According to the manager at the Philadelphia plant,
moving to the new building should increase productivity and decrease the
workhours currently needed to move mail between operations. The Postal
Service Board of Governors has also approved funding for new plants in
Maine and Michigan.

The Service Is Increasing Its Automated Operations to Improve Productivity
and Efficiency

Letter Processing Automation

The Service is completing the automation of letter mail processing and
focusing efforts on automating flats and parcels to increase productivity
and reduce costs in response to changes that have occurred in the mailing
industry. The Service is automating the processing of
undeliverable-asaddressed mail, deploying automated flat sorting equipment
and deploying a promising new parcel-sorting machine. However, increased
automation contributes to excess capacity and it is not clear how the
Service intends to reduce this excess capacity as its operations become
more automated.

The Service is continuing its automation of letter mail by focusing on
controlling the cost of undeliverable-as-addressed mail, which includes
mail that is improperly addressed and change of address mail. Annually, an
average 4.3 billion letters are undeliverable-as-addressed and require
additional processing steps to verify and sort the mail to the correct
address. This mail costs the Service approximately $1.8 billion a year.
Currently, undeliverable-as-addressed mail is processed to the delivery
unit where the carrier identifies the piece as undeliverable. The mail is
then transported to a Computerized Forwarding System site, where the
undeliverable-as-addressed mail is manually keyed and redirected for
processing to the correct location. This means that each piece is
essentially processed twice, resulting in increased costs. To address this
expenditure, the Service is deploying software technology called the
Postal Automated Redirection System. By scanning each piece of mail and
comparing it with a computerized database of change of address forms, the
software identifies undeliverable-as-addressed letter mail at the first
automation handling and redirects the mail to the current address, thus,
reducing the

handling and transportation of undeliverable-as-addressed mail. The
Service expects to save approximately 5 million workhours annually upon
completion of the program. However, upon completion, the Postal Automated
Redirection System will only redirect undeliverable-asaddressed letter
mail. Flat undeliverable-as-addressed mail will continue to be processed
through the Computerized Forwarding System.

Flat Processing Automation	The Service has recently deployed automation
equipment for flat mail that is intended to improve productivity and
reduce handling costs of over 50 billion flat pieces processed each year.
In 1982, the Service began moving flats out of manual processing by
introducing mechanized sorting machines. However, the Service experienced
problems with the mechanized machines, including frequent jams and high
maintenance costs. Many of these problems were due to mail pieces that
were wrapped in plastic, or too flimsy to be processed on the equipment,
and resulted in an increase in the unit mail processing cost for flat
mail, particularly periodicals. In fiscal year 1996, the Service began
replacing the older machines with a flat sorting machine (FSM 1000) that,
although still not automated, was designed to handle pieces wrapped in
plastic and less rigid pieces. In 2000, the Service also introduced an
automated flat sorting machine (AFSM 100) that contains an automated flat
feeder and optical recognition technology to read addresses. In plants
that do not have enough flat volume to justify deployment of the AFSM 100,
the Service is modifying the existing FSM 1000 to include scanning
capabilities that replace the need for manual keying. The AFSM 100 has a
throughput rate of 17,000 or more flat pieces of mail per hour, which is
more then twice as fast as the FSM 1000. As seen in table 9, the higher
throughput results in higher productivity than manual or mechanized
operations.

Table 9: Comparison of FY 2004 Productivity for Flat Sorting Operations

Flat sorting operation Productivity Pieces Handled per Hour

Manual Flats 427

FSM 1000 433

AFSM 100 2,011

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

While the AFSM 100 has a faster throughput for processing flat mail than
its predecessor, when it was first deployed, mailers experienced problems
with the feeder system ripping the covers, which generally contain

addresses, off of magazines. Consequently, subscribers were not receiving
their magazines or were receiving just the cover. The Service is currently
working to enhance the feeders with upgrades designed to significantly
decrease the amount of damage. In addition, the equipment requires many
workhours to prepare the mail to be fed through the machine. Therefore,
some of the benefit of the increased productivity may be lost. For
example, most mail that will be processed on the AFSM 100, must first be
stacked into a flat mail cart, which takes 40 minutes for one employee to
fill. Due to the speed at which the AFSM 100 can process flats, six carts
have to be manually prepared for each hour the AFSM 100 is run, resulting
in a significant amount of workhours needed to prepare the flat mail and
square footage needed to store the prepared mail waiting to be processed
on the equipment. The Service has said that it is exploring ways to
automate and standardize the mail preparation process to reduce workhours.
Figure 13 shows empty flat mail carts and the space needed to store them
and the volume of flat mail in a flat mail cart when it is full.

Figure 13: Photographs of Empty and Full Flat Mail Cart

Source: GAO.

Unlike letter mail that is sorted on automated sorting machines into the
order the mail will be delivered on the carrier route (delivery point
sequence), flat mail must be sorted manually by the carrier into delivery
order. The Service is exploring automation that would sort flat mail into

delivery sequence order to reduce the need for the carrier to sort flats
in the office and technology that would package flat and letter mail
together for delivery operations to eliminate carrier sorting. While this
technology is still in the research and development stage, it could
eventually have a significant effect on the Service's infrastructure and
on operations and mail processing across the entire postal network
including how mailers prepare and present their mail to the Service. This
has raised concerns among mailers.

Parcel Processing Automation	To increase efficiencies in parcel
processing, the Service has developed automation to reduce manual handling
and increase processing capacity. The Service has deployed the Singulator
Scan Induction Unit (SSIU), which has improved productivity and sort
accuracy for processing packages at the BMC by reducing the need to
manually key in parcel addresses. The SSIU is capable of scanning over
5,000 parcels per hour, and eliminates 80 percent of all clerk keying
operations at 19 of the 21 BMCs. The equipment cannot be installed in the
remaining 2 BMCs due to the unique design of the equipment and the layout
of the plants.

The Service is also in the process of deploying the next generation of
parcel sorting equipment at the processing and distribution plants called
Automated Package Processing Systems (APPS), which will process small
parcels and bundles of mail. The APPS machine is expected to replace the
small parcel and bundle sorters in larger plants and does not require
manual keying of each piece, reducing workhours significantly for the
Service. The automated package processing machine is expected to increase
processing capacity, productivity, and sorting accuracy of parcels and
bundles of mail. However, as seen in figure 14, the APPS machine is very
large and many plants do not have the floor space to accommodate it. There
are several standard configurations for the APPS machine that require
between 12,100 sq. ft. and 32,100 sq. ft. Some Service officials expressed
concern because they do not have enough room for the new machine in
processing plants, and there are only a few plants that will be able to
accommodate the equipment.

Figure 14: Automated Package Processing Machine

The Service Is Improving Its Material Handling Operations

The Service is working to expand mechanization and improve productivity in
order to reduce workhours in the methods employed to move mail between
operations, prepare mail for processing, and load and unload mail from
trucks, known as material handling. However, cost concerns limit the
effectiveness of these initiatives. The Service has deployed various
systems to move trays of mail throughout its processing plants, including
the low cost tray sorter, the tray management system, and a prototype of
the universal transport system. Between fiscal year 2000 and 2003, the
Service reduced its material handling workhours in 244 processing plants
by 11 million or 11 percent. However, the Service recently announced that
it was curtailing the deployment of the universal transport system because
of low return on investment.

To reduce material handling workhours and limit the amount of manual labor
needed to move mail between operations, the Service has deployed Low Cost
Tray Sorters (LCTS), which are essentially conveyor belts used to

move trays of mail between various operations. LCTS will replace the
current method of loading mail into handcarts, manually moving the
handcarts between operations, and unloading the handcarts. According to
the Service, LCTSs are configured to the unique needs of each particular
processing plant and are only justified and deployed on a site-specific
basis. To date, the Service has deployed the LCTS in 160 plants; however,
the Service has stated that additional site-by-site justifications are
possible resulting in additional LCTS deployments. Figure 15 shows one
version of the LCTS.

Figure 15: Low Cost Tray Sorter

Source: GAO.

The Service has also installed the Tray Management Systems in a number of
postal plants. The Tray Management Systems is an automated system that
manages and controls mail transport, staging, and retrieval of letter and
flat mail trays throughout a plant on a conveyor belt system by scanning
barcodes and directing the trays to mail processing equipment. The Service

initially planned on deploying 42 systems but temporarily suspended
deployment because of capacity and reliability problems. In 1998, the
number of systems to be deployed was reduced to 23 sites costing $497.3
million. Only three multistory plants have the Tray Management System.

The Service recently abandoned an effort to automate material handling due
to low return on investment of its experimental Universal Transport
System. This system was designed to expand the processing of product lines
beyond that of traditional Tray Management Systems, which only process
letter and flat trays. Instead, the Universal Transport System is a system
that transports trays, bundles, packages, and sacks throughout a plant to
enhance work processes and improve information flow. The Service spent
$27.3 million developing this system in a processing plant in Fort Myers,
FL, over the past 5 years. However, the Service stated that it has no
plans for deploying the system to other processing plants.

The Service Has Made Changes to Its Transportation and Distribution
Network to Address Demographic and Transportation Changes

The Service Has Developed a Tool to Improve Information Used to Optimize
Truckload Capacity

To improve efficiency in its transportation and distribution network, the
Service is implementing programs designed to increase utilization of
truckload capacity, increase flexibility in transportation contracting,
and reduce redundancies.

The Service has developed a Transportation Visibility Strategy designed to
help management increase utilization of truckload capacity. According to
Service officials, currently, 35 to 40 percent of truckload capacity is
not being used, and without accurate and complete data on mail volume per
truck, the Service has been unable to optimize load capacity. One way in
which the Transportation Visibility Strategy is intended to increase
efficiency is by using actual volume data in network planning and
optimization. Instead of relying on estimates to determine truckload
volume, the new strategy will incorporate scanning technology and data
management software to determine the origin and destination of mail, and
to assign it to a specific route. Having more accurate data on how much
mail is coming from or going to any given destination will enable the
Service to analyze mail density on travel routes, and consolidate mail
traveling to the same location, resulting in fuller trucks. The Service
has stated that this strategy will be employed at about 130 plants by fall
2005, which will afford it the ability to capture data on 78 percent of
the Service's

The Service Is Working to Increase Flexibility in Its Transportation
Planning

The Service Intends to Reduce Redundancies in Transportation and
Distribution Systems by Expanding Its Hub and Spoke Program

originating highway volume and automate 70 percent of the data collection
activities that are currently performed manually.

The Service has implemented a new contract management system to support
the solicitation, award, and administration of its highway contract routes
and improve flexibility in the transportation network. Traditionally, the
Service has entered into 4-year contracts with its transportation
suppliers. According to Service officials, at times, these contracts do
not support efforts to create a flexible transportation network. This is
because 4-year contracts commit the Service to agreements that may not
reflect changing needs such as mail volume fluctuations and changes in
processing operations. Also, the Service may not be able to easily add or
remove needed trips. Service officials have stated that the use of the new
contract management system, in addition to the mail volume data provided
through the Transportation Visibility Strategy, will allow the Service to
enter into 1 or 2 year transportation contracts that allow it to more
accurately plan transportation and routing of mail. The Service is also
planning to implement a Transportation Optimization Planning and
Scheduling tool that is intended to allow it to conduct long- term
planning and dynamic scheduling of its mail transportation. The Service
manages over 17,000 highway contract routes and as contracts are renewed,
these new systems will allow the Service to assess costs and service
performance associated with these contracts.

The Service plans on expanding its hub and spoke program (HASP), and
modifying its Bulk Mail Center (BMC) networks to address redundancies in
its transportation and distribution network. Currently, the Service
transports First-Class Mail through its HASP network and Standard Mail
through its BMC network, which may create redundancies on routes serviced
by both networks. Figure 16 shows the current locations of HASPs and BMCs.
By eliminating redundancies across these networks, the Service believes
that it will be able to cut its transportation costs and improve its
efficiency. HASP creates a consolidation hub within an area, thus
eliminating some inter-plant truck trips between different processing
centers, and their associated costs. Currently, the Service has 13 HASPs
located in 8 of its 9 regional areas. The Western Area, which is the
largest of the Service's 9 geographic areas, covering 1.7 million square
miles, does not have HASP. The Service is considering developing two HASPs
in this area, attaching them to the Kansas City, MO, and Denver, CO,
processing and distribution centers. Another method the Service is
considering to reduce redundancies in its transportation network is to
modify its BMC network

Breakthrough Productivity Initiative and Standardization

Activity Based Costing

The Service has developed a Breakthrough Productivity Initiative that
measures each plant's processing performance against nationally
established targets to increase processing productivity and decrease
variations in productivity between plants. This initiative includes a
recognition program that provides plant managers with financial incentives
to perform at their target productivity. The Service establishes target
groups and productivity targets for each of these groups. Plants are
placed in a group and are compared with the other plants in the same
group. Postal officials explained that incentives to increase productivity
are given in the form of bonuses for managers and reduced budget
allocations for plants.8 As part of this initiative, the Service has
established a Standardization Program. This program identifies "proven
practices" in mail processing that have resulted in high productivity for
processing plants and communicates these practices, and the subsequent
increases in productivity that result from them, to other processing
plants.

The goal of standardization is eventually for all plants to certify that
they are reaching set performance targets. Because there may be more than
one way to reach a productivity target, a plant does not have to use the
proven practice; it only has to meet its productivity target and is
provided with a proven way to meet the goal. In addition, targets are
reviewed to determine if they need to be adjusted based on demonstrated
performance. The first operation to be certified under this program is the
Automated Flat Sorting Machine (AFSM 100). The AFSM 100 operations have
been standardized, and all plants that use this machine must be certified
in them, that is, the operations must all be as productive as their given
target. Certification of this operation has resulted in the Service
achieving a 6.8 percent increase in performance in fiscal year 2003 with
44 percent of its sites certified. Further, as of August 2004, with 100
percent of its sites certified, the Service achieved record productivity
performance of 2,015 pieces per hour being processed, for a 17.7 percent
increase in productivity over fiscal year 2003.

The Service has begun using an Activity Based Costing program to determine
differences in unit operating costs among plants and to identify
opportunities for savings in plants. For example, a plant's mail volume,

8Each area and plant is given a baseline budget, and its budget allocation
is subtracted from this baseline. The budget allocation is determined by
the amount of unused opportunities for efficiency that an area or plant
has. The more unused opportunity it has, the less operating money it gets.

maintenance needs, or workforce size may affect the plant's operating
costs. The Activity Based Costing program assigns costs to plants for
specific activities and products and provides managers with the ability to
identify potential areas where high costs can be reduced. To date, the
program is not used in BMCs, but will be piloted in three BMCs in fiscal
year 2005.

Using Activity Based Costing in conjunction with BPI would allow plant
managers to view the costs associated with different levels of
productivity. Managers have an incentive to increase BPI productivity but
the costs associated with this productivity may be high. As seen in figure
17, there is a strong correlation between BPI productivity and the cost of
processing letter mail. However, not all plants with high productivity
have low processing costs. For example, two plants with very similar
productivities in fiscal year 2004-2,251 and 2,250 total pieces per
hour-had average letter processing unit costs that were about 2 cents
apart, with one being about 4.8 cents, and the other about 2.8 cents.
Service officials have said that there are plans to expand the Activity
Based Costing program. Activity Based Costing was made available to
managers in 2003, and officials stated that they are continuously
receiving requests from interested employees for training.

of the model is only as good as the data collected and how it is used. For
example, a headquarters' official told us that data can be manipulated to
show a desired outcome. During our plant visits, some managers told us
that they were unable to use the Labor Scheduler because its outputs were
unrealistic and could not be implemented.

The OIG also found that there was ineffective communication between the
Labor Scheduler program office and plant management. Management was
unclear on how to use the model and how to use and communicate the model's
results. For example, the OIG found that managers were unsure how to
manage multiple employee shift start times. This concern was also raised
during our site visits, when a plant manager told us that the model's
output recommended the plant shifts should start at 12-14 different times.
The plant manager said that it would have been hard for managers and
employees to keep track of the schedules.

The Service Faces Challenges in Addressing Productivity Variations among
Plants and Excess Capacity

Difficulties in Reducing Variations in Productivity among Plants

Despite the recent progress the Service has made in improving efficiency
and cutting costs, it faces challenges in reducing productivity variances
among plants and eliminating excess capacity.

The Service has had difficulty reducing variations in productivity across
plants, in part, because standardization efforts are hindered by the
complexity in operations and the physical differences in plants. In fiscal
year 2001, the average productivity at small plants was 446 pieces per
hour higher than the average productivity in large plants. This difference
shrunk to 405 pieces in fiscal year 2002, then rose again in fiscal year
2003 to 436 pieces per hour, and 474 pieces in fiscal year 2004. According
to postal officials, a key effort directed toward reducing this variation
in productivity is its standardization program. These officials said that
it is difficult to standardize some operations, such as material handling
and collection, because these operations are affected by so many
variables, such as how many trucks need unloading on any given day and how
the mail is prepared on the truck. Thus, it has been difficult to
establish a measurement on which to evaluate them. Standardization is also
hampered because there are so many different buildings in the Service's
infrastructure that it cannot develop one uniform layout. For example, the
automated parcel-sorting machine has standard operating procedures to
maximize its output, but it comes in different physical designs to
complement different plant layouts.

Service officials told us that engineers have been studying processing
plant layouts for years, and have ideas as to what the most efficient
layouts are, but have not been able to generalize plant layouts because
not all plants have the same equipment in them. Another difficulty in
achieving standardization, according to these officials, is that because
the workforce is primarily decreased through attrition, standardization
processes occur incrementally, in tandem with changes in the workforce.

Reducing or Eliminating Excess The Service faces challenges in eliminating
excess capacity while

Capacity Is Difficult	maintaining service standards, which drive dispatch
times at processing plants. For example, one way to reduce excess capacity
in the form of workhours and transportation capacity is to consolidate
mail-processing operations from many plants into one plant. If some of the
plants are then closed and equipment disposed of, then excess physical
infrastructure and machine capacity is also reduced. However, according to
a Service official, service standards impede consolidation of mail
processing because consolidation requires re-routing mail from plants that
are closer to collection or delivery points to plants that are farther
away. This official said that relaxing service standards could greatly
increase the amount of consolidation that could be achieved. The challenge
is to reduce excess capacity while maintaining service standards.

The Service and its unions have negotiated workforce rules, which are
important in documenting how work in the plant will be performed and in
protecting workers' rights. According to Service managers, contractual
workforce rules reduce management's flexibility to reduce excess capacity
because these rules govern reassignments and terminating positions that
are no longer needed. For example, several Service managers told us that
it is difficult for them to move excess employees to positions where they
are needed because of these workforce rules. These workforce rules include
steps to be followed when eliminating positions, and rules regarding
transferring employees between positions, such as clerks, mailhandlers,
and carriers.9 When transferring between positions, employees will often
lose their seniority so they elect not to transfer. Therefore, if a plant
has too many clerks and not enough mailhandlers, it cannot simply move
some clerks to mailhandler positions. In addition, moving employees
between plants requires the Service to follow specific steps that often
limit managers' flexibility. One area vice president told us that it is
very

9Mail processing clerks perform a variety of duties related to processing
mail; mail handlers move mail between operations; and carriers deliver the
mail.

challenging to move employees from one plant to another. For example, this
vice president had worked out an agreement between the regional unions to
allow employees to move from a plant that had too many employees to a
plant with too few. However, local union representatives wanted part-time
employees in their district to be converted to full-time employees and
given positions in the plant with openings rather than have current
full-time employees from the over-staffed plant move. Therefore, they
halted the agreement at the last minute. The workforce contracts also
include "no layoff" clauses and procedures that must be followed when
plants are closed or tours consolidated, including a formal agreement that
requires 60-days notice whenever the Service is going to close a plant.

Another obstacle to eliminating excess capacity is the resistance the
Service has historically encountered when it tries to close plants. In
each of the three cases we reviewed, the Service encountered resistance to
its plans to close plants. For example:

o 	When the Service wanted to move operations from the Pendleton, OR,
plant to nearby Pasco, WA, because of equipment limitations in Pendleton,
many people protested. Local congressional representatives made a formal
request to the Service not to close the plant. In response, the Service
modified the equipment to fit into the existing plant.

o 	When the Service considered moving the business mail entry unit from
St. Paul, MN, to Minneapolis, MN, because of security concerns and cramped
plant space, local union members and representatives got involved and
urged the Service to reconsider. Although none of the 30 employees at the
St. Paul plant would have lost their jobs, their schedules and commutes
would have changed. The Service agreed to delay the closing pending
further review.

o 	At the Marina Del Rey, CA, processing and distribution plant, local
managers began moving some operations out of the plant and consolidating
them with operations at the Los Angeles, CA, plant. Before any decisions
were announced at the headquarters level, word got out that the plant was
being considered for closing. Local unions contacted local government
representatives, and union members picketed the plant. Some of this
resistance was due to the Service's failure to communicate with its
employees and unions regarding the Marina Del Rey plant. National union
representatives told us that the Service never contacted them about the
possible closing, and they only heard about it after the possible closing
was discussed in a newspaper article.

The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing Infrastructure
Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and Accountability

We developed criteria for evaluating the Service's strategy, including how
effective it would be in eliminating excess capacity and whether the
strategy was transparent and accountable. The Service's strategy raises
several issues. First, the Service's strategy for realigning its mail
processing and distribution infrastructure is unclear. Second, it does not
include specific criteria and processes for eliminating excess capacity,
including the removal of unnecessary facilities. Third, the Service's
strategy excludes stakeholder input, is not sufficiently transparent and
accountable, and lacks performance measures for results of decisions.

The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail Processing and Distribution
Infrastructure Is Not Clear

The Service's strategy for realigning its mail processing and distribution
infrastructure has not been clear because the Service has outlined several
seemingly different strategies over the past 3 years. In 2002, the Service
announced a strategy for realigning its infrastructure that outlined an
ambitious effort to "initiate sweeping logistics changes." According to
the Service, a modeling tool referred to as Network Integration and
Alignment (NIA) was to be used to determine what specific changes would be
made. These changes were to include consolidation of plants, redefined
roles for plants, reduced transportation costs, and a streamlined network.
An implementation plan for this strategy was to be developed by December
2002. However, to date the Service has not developed an implementation
plan. Following a recommendation we made, in November 2003, the chairman
of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and a senator asked the
Service to provide a plan on how it intended to optimize its
infrastructure and workforce that described the criteria, process, and
data the Service was using to make decisions, as well as the strategies,
timing, and funding necessary.10 In December 2003, the chairmen, and
ranking minority members, of the House Committee on Government Reform and
the Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight also asked the Postal
Service to submit a plan on how it intended to fund capital investments
needed to ensure the long-term viability of the Postal Service, including
how the Service intended to rationalize its infrastructure and workforce.
In response, in January 2004, the Service submitted to the House Committee
on Government Reform, a report entitled, Infrastructure and Workforce
Rationalization: Funding Key Capital Investments. This report, which

10U.S. Government Accountability Office, Postal Pension Funding Reform:
Issues Related to the Postal Service's Proposed Use of Pension Savings,
GAO-04-238 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2003).

was not made public by the Postal Service, described a "promising
alternative" being considered that the Service called a consolidation hub
concept. Under this concept there would be two basic types of facilities,
origination and destination facilities, which would be the initial
recipients of collection mail and the final plant before delivery, and
consolidation hubs where the mail would be consolidated and distributed.
According to the report, "the major difference between this concept and
the current mail processing environment is that it envisions a single
uniform network."

Since issuance of this report, Postal Service officials told us that
nothing is planned across the entire network but rather opportunities will
be reviewed as they arise. In a speech before the 2004 National Postal
Forum11 the Postmaster General called this strategy the Evolutionary
Network Development (END) and explained it in the following manner:

"A couple of years ago there was a lot of fanfare and misunderstanding
about a concept known as "NIA" -Network Integration and Alignment. Many
saw it as the ultimate plan to consolidate and close facilities. Well,
it's not.

"Why? Because nobody can predict 5, 10, or 15 years from now what mail
volume will be, or what type of mail processing equipment we will be using
to sort the mail. So we have decided, instead, to do what we've done for
decades. That is, take the next step in evolving our networks, and that's
our E-N-D game -- short for Evolutionary Network Development.

"It's an END game that never ends, because rationalizing and optimizing
security, plants, processing systems, transportation, and staffing is
something we have to continue to do to keep our networks efficient and our
systems affordable."

Neither the Service's report, the strategy outlined in meetings with
Postal Service officials, or the Postmaster General's speech sets criteria
for making realignment decisions, nor do they include a process for making
these decisions. In addition, no details about the Service's vision of how
its planned changes will remove excess capacity in the network, minimize
productivity variances, maximize overall efficiency, or how much the
Service will save in costs has been provided. The Service has procedures
that it uses when making decisions to consolidate operations in its mail
processing plants, which are outlined in appendix N of the Transformation
Plan. These procedures include a feasibility study, preparation of
proposal documentation, an approval process, and implementation steps.
However, in discussions with Service officials, we were given vague and
confusing

11PMG Jack Potter's speech at the 2004 National Postal Forum.

information on the Service's procedures for closing plants. Consequently,
it is not clear how these procedures relate to the Service's realignment
strategy, whether these procedures are used when closing plants, are
applicable to all plants, or if these procedures are used consistently. In
addition, the procedures outlined in appendix N lack specificity regarding

o  who is responsible for initiating proposals,

o  who conducts feasibility studies and how,

o  what criteria are used to evaluate proposals,

o  who is responsible for approving these proposals,

o  how these proposals are implemented, and

o  who is held accountable for these decisions.

It is also unclear how stakeholders are notified, when they are notified,
and by whom.

In Attempting to Evaluate the Service's Strategy We Developed Criteria

In evaluating the Postal Service's strategy, we established criteria based
on the Service's stated goals for realignment, our previous work, the
Committee on Government Reform report that accompanied House postal reform
legislation (House Report), the Committee on Governmental Affairs report
that accompanied Senate postal reform legislation (Senate Report), and the
President's Commission on the United States Postal Service (Commission)
report.12 In its Transformation Plan the Service stated, "the mail
processing network infrastructure will be redesigned to meet volume
forecasts, customer requirements, and competitive pressures. Streamlining
and simplifying the distribution network will permit consolidation of
sorting facilities and elimination of excess resources." In our previous
work, we emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability

12House Report Part 1 -Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 29-006,
Report 108672, 108th Congress (Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2004).
Report of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate,
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act Report 108-318, 108th Congress
(Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2004). President's Commission on the United
States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: Making the Tough Choices to
Preserve Universal Mail Service (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003).

for government institutions such as the Postal Service.13 Both the House
and the Senate Reports also state the importance of transparency to the
Service achieving its realignment goals. In previous testimony, we stated
that in order to be successful in its realignment the Service will need
the input and support of its major stakeholders, such as mailers,
employees, communities, and government representatives.14 The Commission
has stated that it is important for the Service to ensure that an
appropriate process for soliciting and dealing with stakeholder concerns
is implemented. The Service identified one of the benefits of realignment
as reduced total costs for the Service and mailers. Accordingly, in
evaluating the Service's strategy for realigning its infrastructure, we
used the following criteria:

1.	Will the Service's strategy result in a network that is efficient and
flexible, and will it lead to the elimination of excess capacity?

2.	Does the Service's strategy include stakeholder input, and is it
transparent and accountable under the following guiding principles;

o  It is based on a clear, transparent, and consistently applied process.

o 	It ensures that when decisions are made they are conducted as fairly,
effectively, and efficiently as possible.

o  It provides for accountability in connection with decisions.

The Service's Strategy May Not Reduce Excess Capacity and Is Not
Transparent and Accountable

It is unclear how the Service's strategy will result in elimination of
excess capacity because it does not include criteria for making
realignment decisions that include considering the effect on excess
capacity, nor does it include performance measures related to eliminating
excess capacity. In addition, the Service's strategy excludes stakeholder
input and is not sufficiently transparent or accountable. The strategy
does not include criteria for making decisions or processes for
implementing decisions,

13U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service:
Transformation Challenges Present Significant Risks, GAO-01-598T
(Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2001). U.S. Government Accountability Office,
U.S. Postal Service: Bold Action Needed to Continue Progress on Postal
Transformation, GAO-04-108T (Washington, D.C.: November 5, 2003).

14GAO-04-108T.

which would help ensure fairness and effectiveness, nor does it include
performance measures for evaluating decisions.

The Service's Strategy May Not In discussions with Service officials, we
were told that the closing of the

Result in Elimination of Excess Marina Del Rey processing plant was a good
example of the Service's

Capacity 	strategy. The Service will close the Marina Del Rey plant and
move operations into its South Los Angeles plant. The Marina Del Rey plant
had productivity in fiscal year 2004 of 1,598 pieces per hour, while the
Los Angeles plant had productivity of 1,139 pieces per hour. According to
Service officials, none of the 900 employees at the Marina Del Rey plant
will lose their jobs. Instead they will be relocated. The Service has also
stated that it has no immediate plans for the building once the operations
are moved out of it. It is not clear how closing this plant will increase
efficiency or reduce excess capacity. Criteria for making realignment
decisions would help clarify the Service's decisions.

As stated earlier, the Service has also been consolidating shifts across
its infrastructure. These consolidations have contributed to the Service's
impressive reduction in workhours over the past 3 years. However,
consolidating shifts may lead to excess capacity in other areas. For
example, if mail is no longer processed on certain shifts this means that
the processing equipment sits idle during that shift. In addition, if
several plants in a particular area have eliminated processing shifts it
may be feasible to consolidate these plants and dispose of excess physical
infrastructure. Due to the Service's lack of transparency about the
results of its network modeling activities, however, it is difficult to
assess the extent of opportunities for eliminating unnecessary plants. The
Service's strategy of taking advantage of opportunities as they arise may
not result in consolidations or closings in the areas with the most excess
capacity. Having realignment criteria that outlines at what point an area
should begin closing plants may result in better alignment of resources
with mail volumes.

In addition, the Service's approach of taking advantage of opportunities
as they arise may prolong inefficiencies and may not address the most
pressing needs. For example, the Service has been deploying automation
equipment throughout its network although some of the plants that are
receiving equipment may ultimately be closed, which would necessitate
moving or disposing of the equipment. Similarly, equipment and
transportation costs will be higher than necessary if the network is not
as streamlined and simplified as it could be. Furthermore, maintaining an
infrastructure that is larger than necessary requires the Service to spend

resources that it could employ elsewhere. In addition, the Service may be
forgoing revenue from the sale of excess properties.

The Service's Strategy Excludes The Service strategy excludes stakeholder
input and is not sufficiently

Stakeholder Input and Is Not transparent or accountable because it is not
based on a clear, transparent

Sufficiently Transparent or and consistently applied process; it is not
clear that when realignment

Accountable	decisions are made they are conducted as fairly, effectively,
and efficiently as possible; and it does not have performance measures for
results to provide accountability in connection with realignment
decisions. To achieve its realignment goals of an efficient and flexible
network, the Postal Service will have to have a strategy that is both
transparent and accountable. According to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs report that accompanied the Senate postal reform legislation in
2004, "it is vitally important that the Postal Service go about its
facilities realignment in the most transparent manner possible.
Transparency will [sic] make it possible for those affected by the Postal
Service's actions to see the connection between those actions and the need
to preserve the vital services the Postal Service provides."15

The Service's lack of external communication excludes stakeholder input
that could prove valuable in developing a least-cost network for the
entire mailing industry. Some stakeholders have complained that the
Service does not consult with them during planning, but only communicates
when it has already made its decisions. Mailers explained that this
approach often leads to uncertainty and lower investment in the mailing
industry. For example, one representative of a large mailing company told
us that uncertainty about what the Service is planning to do about new
discounts, and new processing operations, stifles this mailer's investment
in its own infrastructure. Union representatives also expressed concerns
about limited information related to the Service's realignment plans and
how these plans might affect postal employees.

The Service has stated that it is reluctant to publicly disclose
information on its realignment strategy because it believes that it will
meet with resistance from employees, communities, and government
representatives if it tells them what it is planning on doing too far in
advance. While employees and communities may resist changes that affect
them, congressional staff members have told us that Members of Congress
would be better prepared to respond to constituent concerns that arise
when the

15Senate Report 108-318, p. 25.

Service considers making changes to its infrastructure if the Service
provided better information, such as the Service's criteria for its
decisions.

To better inform stakeholders on its infrastructure realignment decisions,
the Service needs to make public its decisions and the criteria used to
make these decisions. There are various avenues the Service could use to
inform the public of changes and limit the burden of disclosure. For
example, the Service could include a list of the changes that were made to
the Service's infrastructure during that year and changes that are planned
for the coming year in one of its existing reports, such as the Service's
annual Comprehensive Statement.

Conclusion	The Service faces future financial challenges due to its
declining First-Class Mail volume and has excess capacity in its current
infrastructure that impedes efficiency gains. The Service has stated that
one way to increase efficiency is to realign its processing and
distribution infrastructure. However, important questions remain about how
the Service intends to realign its infrastructure to meet its future needs
because the Service has not provided clear public information about its
planned direction for realigning its infrastructure and workforce. The
Service's currently stated strategy is an evolutionary approach that
prolongs inefficiencies related to excess capacity and productivity
differences among plants, resulting in higher costs. The Service's lack of
communication often leads to confusion among stakeholders and communities
about what the Service is doing and why and excludes input that could
prove valuable to developing a least-cost network across the entire
mailing industry. Because the Service does not have criteria to be
considered, or a process to be followed, when making realignment
decisions, it is not clear that these decisions will be made in a manner
that is fair to all stakeholders or that is efficient and effective. It is
also not clear that the Service's strategy provides accountability for
realignment decisions, because there is no process for evaluating results,
no criteria for measuring results, and no stated policy for making
managers accountable for decisions.

Recommendations for 	To enhance the Service's transparency of its
decisions related to realigning its infrastructure and ensure that these
decisions advance the Service's

Executive Action	realignment goals, we recommend that the Postmaster
General take the following three actions:

o  establish a set of criteria for evaluating realignment decisions;

o 	develop a mechanism for informing stakeholders as decisions are made;
and

o 	develop a process for implementing these decisions that includes
evaluating and measuring the results, as well as the actual costs and
savings resulting from the decisions.

In taking these actions, the Service should reconcile any planned
infrastructure realignment changes with the criteria used to make the
decisions.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

The U.S. Postal Service provided comments on a draft of this report in a
letter from the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President dated
March 18, 2005. These comments are summarized below and included as
appendix IV. The Service concurred with our description of its mail
processing and distribution infrastructure and the major business and
demographic changes that have effected the Service's operations. The
Service did not comment on our conclusions or recommendations.

With respect to the Service's statement that one of the key strategies of
its Transformation Plan is an initiative called Evolutionary Network
Development (END), this initiative was not discussed in the Service's
Transformation Plan. Instead, the Transformation Plan discussed an
initiative referred to as Network Integration and Alignment (NIA), which
called for analyzing and redesigning the existing network with the goal of
creating a flexible logistics network and reducing overall costs for both
the Service and the mailing industry as a whole. In addition, NIA was to
determine which facilities would be necessary within the future
infrastructure. In its January 2004 report to Congress on its
infrastructure and workforce rationalization, the Service further
discussed the status of NIA and said that it planned to pilot network
alternatives in 2005 and if the results of the pilots were favorable, it
could have a completely optimized network in place by the end of 2009. The
NIA initiative appears to be more comprehensive and integrated in scope
than the evolutionary approach referred to as END, which was described to
us as a strategy that takes advantage of opportunities as they arise. As
stated in the body of this report, the Service's strategy remains unclear
because the Service has outlined seemingly different approaches to
realigning its processing and distribution infrastructure.

Regarding the Service's statement that Area Mail Processing (AMP) is one
of the tools it uses to implement the goals of END, we remain concerned
that these goals may not be realized because it is not clear whether AMP
includes criteria for making realignment decisions, and if so, what these
criteria are, and that therefore the processes associated with AMP are not
responsive to the recommendations we made. Furthermore, the AMP guidelines
do not include determining the disposal of facilities or the reduction of
excess capacity. Consequently, it is not clear how AMP directly relates to
reducing excess capacity, furthers the overall redesign of the mail
processing and distribution infrastructure, or relates to the Service's
vision of its future infrastructure.

The Service also stated that the decisions it makes will be made with
stakeholder input. However, it is not clear how stakeholder input will be
incorporated into realignment decisions. As previously mentioned,
congressional staff told us that Members of Congress would be better
prepared to respond to constituent concerns if the Service were more
transparent regarding its infrastructure decisions. Hence, we continue to
believe that a formal mechanism for notifying stakeholders of realignment
decisions, as we recommended, is vital.

The Service stated that because it cannot accurately predict future
changes in the hard copy communications and package delivery industry, the
changes it seeks to make must be incremental. However, the President's
Commission pointed out in its report that regardless of the economic
climate, the nation is due the most cost-effective, efficient,
high-quality Postal Service that can be provided. To this end the
Commission recommended that the Service accelerate its efforts to redesign
the postal network. Furthermore, the Service itself stated in its
Transformation Plan that this is "the ideal time to initiate sweeping
logistics changes."16 We believe that without clarity, criteria, and
accountability in its realignment strategy, the Service risks falling
short of achieving the major productivity gains that will be needed to
offset rising costs and maintain high-quality, universal postal service at
affordable rates.

As agreed, unless you announce the contents of this report earlier, we
plan no further distribution until 30 days after the issue date. At that
time, we

16U.S. Postal Service Transformation Plan, p. 30.

will send copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the House Committee on Government Reform; the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Senator Thomas R. Carper, the Postmaster General,
and other interested parties. We will also provide copies to others on
request. This report will also be available on our Web site at no charge
at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
[email protected] or by telephone at (202) 512-2834. GAO contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Katherine Siggerud Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To describe the impact of major changes on the Service's mail processing
and distribution infrastructure, we discussed with Postal Service
officials, mailing associations, mailers, and union representatives their
views on changes that have occurred in the mailing industry and the
impacts these changes have had on the Postal Service. Through our initial
discussions we narrowed the focus of our objective to three major changes,
(1) changes in the marketplace, (2) the evolution of mail processing and
its related infrastructure, and (3) shifts in demographics and
transportation modes. To gain more insight into the first change, we
analyzed mail volume trends over the past 30 years and reviewed literature
related to these trends, including special reports prepared for the
President's Commission on the United States Postal Service, a special
report prepared by Pitney Bowes for the 12th Conference on Postal Delivery
and Economics, Postal Service presentations, and articles and studies
prepared by mailers and mailing groups. In addition, we discussed the
cause and effect of mail volume declines with Service officials. We also
reviewed, analyzed, and discussed with Service officials, mailers, mailer
associations, and union representatives, articles related to competition
in the mailing industry and changes in the role of mailers. To further our
understanding of the evolution of mail processing, we reviewed, analyzed,
and discussed with Service officials, data related to the age, location,
size, ownership, and equipment complement of the Service's processing and
distribution infrastructure. We also reviewed literature on the history of
mail processing and changes that have occurred in mail processing
operations over the past century. In addition, we conducted site visits to
mail processing plants in the Capital Metro, the Eastern, the
Southeastern, and the Pacific areas, and discussed mail processing changes
with management at these plants. We also discussed related changes with
eight area vice presidents and the Manager of Capital Metro Area
Operations, as well as Service officials, mailers, mailer associations,
and union representatives. To assess the impact of demographic shifts, we
reviewed, analyzed, and mapped geo-spatial data from the Postal Service
and Census Bureau. We also reviewed related articles and Service
documents. To analyze the impact of these changes, we reviewed, analyzed,
and discussed with Service officials, data related to productivity and
cost variances, as well as excess capacity in the Service's processing and
distribution infrastructure.

To describe the actions the Service is taking to achieve a more efficient
and flexible network in response to these changes, and the challenges
associated with implementing these actions, we reviewed, analyzed, and
discussed with Service officials the Service's Transformation Plan and
related updates. We also reviewed Postal Service documents related to

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

operations, including Annual Reports, Comprehensive Statements, Capital
Investment Plans, Investment Highlights, Five-Year Strategic Plans,
Corporate Automation Plans, Integrated Plan for Operations, and
documentation related to specific programs. We conducted site visits to
plants in the Capital Metro, the Eastern, the Southeastern, and the
Pacific areas, and discussed initiatives and programs with management at
these plants. We also discussed these initiatives and programs and the
challenges associated with them with eight area vice presidents and the
Manager of Capital Metro Area Operations, as well as Service officials,
mailers, mailer associations, and union representatives.

To discuss the issues related to the Service's strategy for realigning its
infrastructure, we discussed with Service officials, including the
Service's Chief Operating Officer, how the Service intended to approach
realignment. We also reviewed Postal Service documents, including the
Transformation Plan, Infrastructure and Workforce Realignment: Funding Key
Capital Investments, and documents related to realignment. In addition, we
reviewed postal reform documents, including the Committee on Government
Reform report that accompanied House postal reform legislation (House
Report), the Committee on Governmental Affairs report that accompanied
Senate postal reform legislation (Senate Report), and the President's
Commission on the United States Postal Service (Commission) report. In
addition, we discussed the Service's realignment efforts with mailers,
mailing organizations, and union representatives.

We used productivity and cost data provided by the Postal Service to
assess the impact of changes on the mailing industry. We did some testing
of the data by performing basic logic tests, reviewing all related
documentation, and discussing with agency officials any apparent
inconsistencies or inaccuracies we found with the data. On the basis of
those discussions, we adjusted the data to ensure that the inconsistencies
or inaccuracies we found were corrected or clearly explained. Based on our
testing, we determined that the required data elements are sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this engagement.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the United
States Postal Service. The comments we received are discussed near the end
of the letter and the written comments are included in appendix IV. We
conducted our review at Service headquarters and field locations between
April 2004 and January 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

Letter Mail Processing	There are a number of different processing
operations that letter mail must undergo before arriving at its final
destination. Containers of loose mail are collected from collection boxes
and transported to plants that handle collection mail through a dual pass
rough cull machine that separates machinable letter mail from other mail.
The other mail consists of flat mail, bundles, and nonmachinable pieces
that go to different mail streams for processing. Once the mail is
separated, machinable letter mail is transported to an advanced facer
canceller system (AFCS). The AFCS prepares letter mail for down stream
automated processing by facing the mail in the proper position, canceling
the postage, and separating letters into three categories. Currently,
these categories include (1) handwritten address letters, (2) machine
printed address letters with no barcode, and (3) machine printed address
letters with a barcode. AFCS enhancements in 2005 will provide greater
readability that will enable a more defined separation of the mail.

Machine printed address letters without a barcode are transported to the
multiline optical character reader (MLOCR) machine where a barcode is
applied to the letter piece. If the address is not readable by the MLOCR,
the mailpiece is scanned and an image sent to an off-site remote encoding
center (REC). There, human operators view a scanned image of the envelope,
key-in the correct address information, and transmit the results back to
the mail processing plant where a correct barcode is applied to the
physical mailpiece on a delivery barcode sorter-output subsystem
(DBCS-OSS) for continued automated processing. Handwritten mail from the
AFCS is sent directly to a DBCS-OSS and images of these pieces are
electronically transferred to the REC. Results from keyed information are
returned to the DBCS-OSS where a barcode is applied to the letter piece
and sorted to its appropriate destination. Machine printed address letters
with a barcode are also sent directly to a DBCS-OSS for processing.

Once the letters have barcodes, the mail is then sorted by ZIP Code on a
DBCS-OSS or a delivery barcode sorter (DBCS). Letter pieces destinating in
a different location are sorted to the first 3 digits of the ZIP Code.
These pieces are then ready for transport to other postal plants for
further processing. Letter pieces that are destinating in the same area
are sorted multiple times-this includes mail already presorted from other
processing plants. These letter pieces are sorted to 5, 9, or 11 digit ZIP
Code levels.

During letter processing, pieces that are nonmachinable or have
nonreadable addresses will be rejected from the automated equipment and
must be manually processed. Depending on where in the process the piece

Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

is rejected, employees will try to reintroduce the mail back into
automation. If the mail cannot be reintroduced into the automation
process, employees will sort the mail by hand to the 3, 5, 9, or 11 digit
ZIP Code level.

Besides collection mail, the mailing industry also delivers discount mail
or "bulk mail" to plants for processing. To claim the lower postage rates,
the mailer must have a minimum quantity and do some additional work that
makes it easier for the Postal Service to handle the mail. Based on how
efficiently they can be processed, mailings are classified by the way they
are prepared, including machinable, nonmachinable, and automation. A
single mailing usually includes multiple levels of ZIP Code sortation.
Discounted letter mail will be inducted into the mail stream at the
appropriate level of distribution based on mail class, preparation, and
sort level. Figure 18 shows how letter mail is processed.

          Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

Flat Mail Processing	There are a number of different operations that flat
mail undergoes before arriving at its final destination. Collection mail
is loaded into a dual pass rough cull machine that separates flat mail
from other mail. The other mail consists of letter mail, bundles, and
nonmachinable pieces that go to different mail streams for processing.
Once the mail is separated, employees will manually ensure that correct
postage is applied and render the postage unusable-cancel-on each flat
piece of mail.

Once canceled, the flat pieces are prepped to be placed on a machine for
sorting. Currently, there are three different types of flat sorting
machines: automated flat sorting machine (AFSM 100), upgraded flat sorting
machine (UFSM 1000), and flat sorting machine (FSM 1000). Flat pieces
destinating in a different location from where it originates are sorted on
one of the three flat sorting machines to the first 3 digits of the ZIP
Code. These pieces are then ready for transport to other postal plants for
further processing. Flat pieces that are destinating in the same area will
be sorted again to the 5 digit ZIP Code on one of the three flat sorting
machines-this includes mail already presorted from other processing
plants. The AFSM 100 and the UFSM 1000 are also used to sort flat mail to
the carrier route level-9 digit ZIP Code. If the address is not readable
by the AFSM 100 or the UFSM 1000, then the flat piece is scanned and an
image is sent to an off-site remote encoding center (REC). There, human
operators view a scanned image of the flat, key-in the correct address
information, and transmit the results back to the mail processing plant
where a correct barcode is applied to the flat.

Throughout flat processing, there will be mail that is rejected by the
flat sorting machines or due to physical characteristics is unable to be
processed on flat sorting equipment. Employees will try to reintroduce the
flats that were rejected back into the machine for reprocessing. If the
mail cannot be processed on the machines, employees will manually sort the
mail by hand to 3, 5, or 9 digit ZIP Code levels.

Besides collection mail, the mailing industry also delivers discount mail
or "bulk mail" to plants for processing. In order to claim the lower
postage rates, the mailer must have a minimum quantity and do some
additional work that makes it easier for the Postal Service to handle the
mail. Based on how efficiently they can be processed, mailings are
classified by the way they are prepared, including machinable,
nonmachinable, and automation. A single mailing usually includes multiple
levels of ZIP Code sortation. Discounted flat mail will be inducted into
the mail stream at the

Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

appropriate level of distribution based on mail class, preparation, and
sort level. Figure 19 shows how flat mail is processed.

Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

                        Figure 19: Flat Mail Processing

          Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

Parcel Processing	Parcels can be processed a number of different ways
depending on the mail class and size. The equipment used and the type of
sortation will depend on the origin and destination of the parcel.
Automation and mechanization are only available at selected postal plants.

Parcels	Any class of parcels can be sorted on a small parcel and bundle
sorter (SPBS) machine. If a parcel is destinating in a different location,
then a human operator at the SPBS machine manually keys in the first 3
digits of the ZIP Code, which directs the piece to the correct destinating
bin. At dispatch time, the parcels are ready for transport to the
destinating postal plant for further processing. If the parcel is
destinating in the same area, then the human operator at the SPBS machine
manually keys in the last 3 digits of the ZIP Code, which directs the
piece to the correct destinating bin. At dispatch time, the parcels are
ready for transport to a local office for manual sortation to the delivery
address.

The Service is also in the process of deploying the next generation of
parcel sorting equipment at postal plants called the Automated Package
Processing System (APPS), which will replace the SPBS machine in some
larger plants. The APPS machine will not require human operators to
manually key ZIP Code information for each parcel. APPS automates package
processing by providing high-speed throughput, automated package
induction, singulation, and optical character reader (OCR)/barcode reader
(BCR) address recognition. If the OCR/BCR technology is unsuccessful, an
image of the parcel will be transmitted to an off-site remote encoding
center (REC), where address information will be keyed in the same matter
as letter mail. APPS deployment will continue through FY 2006.

Package Services	Package Services and presorted Standard Mail parcels from
mailers are processed on a primary and secondary parcel sorter machine
(PSM). A human operator will look at each parcel to locate a barcode
indicating the piece's ZIP Code destination. If a parcel has a barcode,
the piece will be sent on a conveyor belt through the package bar code
scanner (PBCS), which will scan the barcode and directs the piece to the
correct destinating location. If the parcel is destinating outside the
area, then the mail will be sorted to the first 3 digits of the ZIP Code.
If the parcel does not have a barcode, ZIP Code information is read by a
human operator who will

          Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

manually key in the destination ZIP Code location. The PBCS will then
affix a barcode to the parcel and directs it to the correct destinating
location.

All parcels that are barcoded and destinating in the area can be sent
through a singulate scan induction unit (SSIU) for sorting. Parcels are
sent one at a time through a weigh-in-motion scale and then through a
scanning tunnel that will read the 5 digit ZIP Code and direct the piece
to the correct destinating bin. At dispatch time, the parcels are ready to
be transported to a local office for manual sortation to the delivery
address.

Nonmachinable Parcels	A nonmachinable outside (NMO) parcel cannot be
sorted by postal equipment because its size or weight exceeds machine
capacity or some other aspect requires the piece to be handled manually.
Examples of NMOs include tubes, tires, golf clubs, and plants. If a parcel
is destinating in a different location, then the piece will be sorted to
the first 3 digits of the ZIP Code. The piece is then ready for transport
to other postal plants for further processing. If the piece is destinating
in the same area, then it will be sorted to the 3 or 5 digit ZIP Code and
transported to a local office for manual sortation to the delivery
address.

Throughout parcel processing, some pieces will be rejected - barcodes are
unreadable, no barcode is applied, and packages break open. These parcels
will be reintroduced into the PSM for processing. If the mail cannot be
reintroduced into the PSM for processing, then employees will process the
mail manually to the appropriate delivery address. Figure 20 shows how
parcels are processed.

Appendix II Descriptions of Various Mail Flows with Diagrams

                          Figure 20: Parcel Processing

                                  Source: GAO.

Appendix III

                  Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Advanced Facer Canceller A machine that separates letter mail by address
type-script, barcode, and

System (AFCS)	machine imprinted-in support of the automation effort. AFCS
has image lifting capability needed to support the Remote Bar Coding
System.

Automated Flat Sorting A fully automated flats sorting machine designed to
streamline flats mail

Machine 100 (AFSM 100)	processing operations and at the same time
significantly reduce manual processing. The AFSM 100 receives mail via
automatic feeders, acquires images of script and typed mail for video
encoding, and processes mail using optical character recognition
technology.

Air Mail Center (AMC) 	A postal plant at an airport that receives,
distributes, and dispatches mail transported by air.

Automated Package The Service's next generation for sorting parcels and
bundles of mail. The

Processing System (APPS)	APPS will automate package processing by
providing greater processing capacity through automatic package induction,
singulation, and address recognition. It uses a carousel-type cross belt
sorter subsystem that provides high-speed throughput.

Breakthrough Productivity A program that identifies best processing,
retail, and delivery practices and Initiative (BPI) uses this information
to standardize operational processes.

Bulk Mail	Mail that is rated for postage partly by weight and partly by
the number of pieces in the mailing. The term is generally used to refer
to Standard Mail (A).

Bulk Mail Center (BMC)	A highly mechanized mail processing plant that
distributes Standard Mail in piece and bulk form.

Business Mail Entry Unit The area of a postal plant where mailers present
bulk, presorted, and

(BMEU) 	permit mail for acceptance. The BMEU includes dedicated platform
space, office space, and a staging area on the workroom floor.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Collection Mail	Mail deposited into a collection box or lobby drop, as
well as mail collected by letter carriers on their delivery rounds.

Computerized Forwarding A centralized, computerized address
label-generating operation that

System 	performs address correction and forwards or returns
undeliverable-asaddressed mail to customers.

Delivery 	The act of taking mail from the post office to the customer. The
mail is taken to the customer's business or residential delivery address
or picked up at a post office - whether post office box, window, or dock.

Delivery Bar Code Sorter This machine is used for processing letters that
are already barcoded.

(DBCS) 	DBCSs come in multiple configurations; most machines have between
190 and 220 sortation bins. The DBCS is used for outgoing processing,
incoming primary sortation, and Delivery Point Sequencing (DPS).

Delivery Point Sequencing 	The process of arranging mail in delivery order
for a particular carrier route.

Delivery Unit	A post office, post office station, or post office branch
that has mail delivery functions.

Destinating Mail Incoming mail arriving for its point of final delivery.

Destination Delivery Unit A customer service unit that processes mail for
one or multiple ZIP codes

(DDU) 	within its own associate office. The DDU may contain a limited
amount of automation equipment. The DDU generally provides mail delivery,
bulk mail acceptance, and performs actions related to all products and
services offered.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Detached Mail Unit	An area in a mailer's plant where postal employees
perform mail verification, acceptance, dispatch, and other postal
functions.

Dropshipping 	Typically the movement of a mailer's product on private
(nonpostal) transportation from the point of production to a postal plant
located closer to the destination of that product.

Dull Pass Rough Cull This machine separates machinable mail into different
mail streams.

Express Mail	A mail class that provides expedited delivery service for
mailable matter subject to certain standards. It is available in five
basic domestic service offerings (Same Day Airport Service, Custom
Designed Service, Next Day Service, Second Day Service, and Military
Service). Express Mail International Service is available between the
United States and most foreign countries. Express Mail is a Service
trademark.

First-Class Mail	A class of mail that includes all matter wholly or partly
in writing or typewriting, all actual and personal correspondence, all
bills and statements of account, and all matter sealed or otherwise closed
against inspection. First-Class Mail comprises three subclasses:
postcards, letters and sealed parcels, and Priority Mail. Any mailable
matter may be sent as First-Class Mail. First-Class Mail is a Postal
Service trademark.

Flat	A mailpiece that exceeds one of the dimensions for letter-size mail
(11-1/2 inches long, 6-1/8 inches high, 1/4 inch thick) but that does not
exceed the maximum dimension for the mail processing category (15 inches
long, 12 inches high, 3/4 inch thick). Dimensions are different for
automation rate flat-size mail eligibility. Flat-size mail may be
unwrapped, sleeved, wrapped, or enveloped.

Flat Sorting Machine (FSM) A machine that mechanically sorts flats by ZIP
Code.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Hub and Spoke Program For surface mail, primarily for 2-day committed
mail. HASP includes a

(HASP)	central point ("hub") where mail for a group of offices ("spokes")
can be unloaded from a series of incoming trips, massed according to their
intended destination, and then sent on to that destination on another
trip. Savings are realized because each trip does not have to drive to
each individual office or spoke to drop off just a portion of its total
load capacity.

Letter 	A mail processing category of mailpieces, including cards, that do
not exceed any of the dimensions for letter-size mail (that is, 11-1/2
inches long, 6-1/8 inches high, 1/4 inch thick).

Letter Sorting Machine	A large mechanized machine that can sort letters
into as many as 277 bins. Operators physically read the address and then
manually enter an extraction code, via keyboard, based on their memory of
the sort scheme loaded into the machine's computer software.

Low Cost Tray Sorter	A tray sorter used for inbound tray sorting
operations and outbound dispatch operations to reduce material handling
workhours.

Mailer	An entity that prepares and/or presents a mailing to the Postal
Service. In some cases, a mailer is the agent for the actual owner of the
mail.

Mailpiece A single addressed article of mail, usually a letter, flat,
card, or parcel.

Multiline Optical Character An optical character reader that reads and
interprets more than one line of Reader the delivery address on a
mailpiece.

Nonmachinable Outside	A parcel or mailpiece that, because of size, weight,
or other characteristic, cannot be sorted by mechanized mail processing
equipment and must be handled manually. The parcel is called an outside
because it cannot be placed in a sack or other mailing container.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Optical Character Reader An automated mail sorting machine that interprets
the address information

(OCR)	on a letter-size mailpiece and sprays the corresponding ZIP Code
information onto the piece as a barcode. The OCR consists of a mail feed
unit, transport unit, stacker modules, computer with a control system,
video monitor, and printer.

Originating Mail 	Outgoing mail and local mail that enter the
mailstream-that is, the point of origin-for mail processing and delivery.

Outgoing Mail	Mail sorted within a mail processing plant that is
dispatched to another plant for additional processing or delivery.

Package Services 	A class of mail that comprises four subclasses: Bound
Printed Matter, Library Mail, Parcel Post, and Media Mail. There is no
minimum weight limit for Package Services.

Parcel	Mail that does not meet the mail processing category of letter-size
mail or flat-size mail. It is usually enclosed in a mailing container such
as a carton.

Parcel Sorting Machine A large machine with an input station controlled by
a computer that sorts

(PSM)	and discharges parcels from transport trays to primary and secondary
positions.

Periodicals	A class of mail consisting of magazines, newspapers, or other
publications formed of printed sheets that are issued at least 4 times a
year at regular, specified intervals (frequency) from a known office of
publication. Periodicals mailers must generally have a legitimate list of
subscribers and requesters.

Postal Automated A system designed to intercept and process
undeliverable-as-addressed Redirection System mail using automated
techniques.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Presorted Mail	A form of mail preparation, required to bypass certain
postal operations, in which the mailer groups pieces in a mailing by ZIP
Code or by carrier route or carrier walk sequence - or other Postal
Service recommended separation.

Priority Mail	First-Class Mail that weighs more than 13 ounces and, at the
mailer's option, any other mail matter weighing 13 ounces or less.
Priority Mail provides expedited delivery. Any mailable matter may be sent
as Priority Mail. Priority Mail is a Postal Service trademark.

Priority Mail Processing The core function of a Priority Mail Processing
Center is to provide an

Center (PMPC)	operational foundation capable of delivering consistent and
reliable Priority Mail service.

Processing and Distribution A central mail plant that processes and
dispatches part or all of both

Center (P&DC)	incoming and outgoing mail for a designated service area. It
also provides instructions on the preparation of collection mail, dispatch
schedules, and sorting plan requirements to mailers. The plant is usually
a sectional center plant or a general mail plant, but it can also be a
dedicated mail processing plant without a station or branch.

Remote Encoding Center	A Postal Service unit that uses advanced technology
to assign barcodes to hand-addressed mailpieces physically located at a
general mail plant. After the mailpiece image is displayed on a computer
terminal, an operator, who is at the center, keys in the ZIP Code and the
street address in order to match this information with that in a database.
This allows for the imprinting of the barcode and automated mail
processing at the general mail plant.

Sack 	A container generally used to transport flat-size mail, parcels, and
loose pack mail. It is made of sewn fabric (usually nylon, polyester,
canvas, or plastic with an opening at one end) and is closed with a draw
cord and fastener.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Sack Sorting Machine (SSM)	A mechanized, operator-controlled machine
similar to a parcel sorting machine but of heavier construction, that
sorts sacks of mail.

Service Standards A stated goal for service achievement for each mail
class.

Small Parcel and Bundle A modular machine that sorts small parcels and
packages or bundles of Sorter letters and flats to 100 specific bins for
either delivery or processing.

Singulator Scan Induction Equipment that automates the entry of barcoded
parcels onto the

Unit (SSIU)	secondary parcel sorting machines at bulk mail centers.
Packages first enter a singulator area where they are aligned in single
file and spaced, and then sent through a dimensioning unit, which measures
external dimensions and weight. Next, parcels pass through an omni scan
tunnel where their barcodes are read. Finally, the parcel is inducted onto
the parcel sorting machine.

Standard Mail	A class of mail consisting of mailable matter that is not
required to be mailed as First-Class Mail or is not mailed as Periodicals.

Tray	A container used in postal plants to hold letters and First-Class
Mail flats. It is used as a basic unit of mail quantity for purposes of
preparing mail to qualify for discounted postage rates.

Tray Management System TMS uses tray identification, transport, storage,
and process control

(TMS)	technologies to automate the movement and staging of trayed letter
and flat mail between most mail sortation operations.

Walk Sequence	The order in which a carrier delivers mail for a route. This
order is required for most carrier route presort mail.

           Appendix III Glossary of Postal Terms Used in this Report

Undeliverable-As-Addressed Mail that the Postal Service cannot deliver as
addressed and must forward (UAA) to the addressee, return to the sender,
or send to a mail recovery center.

Universal Transport System 	A system that has the ability to process
letter trays, flat tubs, sacks, parcels, and bundles.

                                  Appendix IV

                     Comments from the U.S. Postal Service

Appendix IV
Comments from the U.S. Postal Service

Appendix V

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-6570

Staff 	In addition to the person named above, Teresa Anderson, Tida
Barakat, Margaret Cigno, Collin Fallon, Kerry Lipsitz, Kathy Gilhooly,
Brandon

Acknowledgments Haller, and Jason Kelly made key contributions to this
report.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***