February 12, 2013

Mr. Cliff Guffey President American Postal Workers

Union, AFL-CIO 1300 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-4128

Dear Cliff:

Certified Mail Tracking Number: 7011 2000 0002 7192 0952

As information, enclosed is a copy of the second and final Post Implementation Review for the Gillette, WY Customer Service Mail Processing Center (CSMPC) Area Mail Processing (AMP).

If you have any questions, please contact Rickey Dean at extension 7412.

Sincerely,

Patrick M. Devine Manager Contract Administration (APWU)

Enclosure

(CA2013-142)

Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest Facility Name & Type: Gillette CSMPC

Street Address: 311 S Kendrick Ave City: Gillette

State: WY 50 Facility ZIP Code: 82716

District: Colorado/Wyoming Area: Western

Finance Number: 573800 Current 3D ZIP Code(s): 827

Miles to Gaining Facility: 140.6 EXFC office: Yes Postmaster: Ann M Schutt

Senior Plant Manager: Roland Fuentes District Manager: Selwyn Epperson

Facility Name & Type: Casper P&DF Street Address: 411 N Forest DR

City: Casper State: WY

50 Facility ZIP Code: 82609 District: Colorado/Wyoming

A rea: Western Finance Number: 571558

Current 3D ZIP Code(s): 826 EXFC office: Yes Postmaster: Steven O'Connor

Senior Plant Manager: Roland Fuentes District Manager: Selwyn Epperson

Approval Date: July 15,2011 Implementation Date: Oct-01-2011

PIR Type: Final PIR Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011:

Processing Days per Year: 310 Bargaining Unit Hours per Year: 1,742

EAS Hours per Year: 1,819

Sep-30-2012

May 7, 2010 Date of HQ memo, DAR Factors/Cost of Borrowing/

New Facility Start-up Costs Update ~--------------------------~

Date & Time this workbook was last saved:

Area Vice President: Vice President, Network Operations:

Area AMP Coordinator: NAI Contact:

Drew T. Aliperto David E. Williams Steven P. Murray Stephen E. Martin/Barbara Brewington

01-23-2013 10:49

PIR Data Entry Page

Approval Signatures

Losing FacUlty Nam• and Type: Gillette::...C=-S=M .... P-=C:...... _________________ _ Facility ZlP Code: Finance Number:

Cumnt SCF ZJP Code{&):

Type of Distribution Consolidated: -=O;.:.r;;..,ig~....:&=-· =-0=-e-st:...... ___ _ Gaining FacUlty Name and Type: ;:..:..P.;:::&::::D:.:..F __________________ _

Facmty ZIP Code: Finance Number:

current SCF ZJP Code(s):

Implementation Date: _1""'0/...;;.0...;;1/...;..1_1 ____ _

Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011

PlR Type: Final P!R

to S~·S0-2012 ~T~•"~~~:t!f'~~~~~a~:.~&'Mltlf?' .. ,~rz~YD'~ti&JF~~{£.'!~~,$ttm:w;t-ww:sm-•~%.~-~

ACKNOWlEDGEMENT OF ACCOUNT ABlU TY • t ackl\owledW~ that l am lltCOUnlltble fQt respeqing and supportln; !he integrity« all offiCial poslal J!llll,lrtlrlg systems, including ftnllndal report$ a110 ti'IQ$e relating IP oomplialice wl!ll conlr!lding, ~lem!lllt, or similar ttffom Involving the inVeslmenl and e11pendillJre of lunas, as won aa all s)'&lllmll to servlcfl to our o.l~.

LOSING EACIWY:

Postmaster:

Ann M Schutt

Senior Plant Manager:

Roland Fuentes

Dlstrict Manager:

Se~n Epperson Prin!(td Name

ljAfmtiG fACll.l[!;

Postmaster:

Steven O'Connor

Senior Plant Manager~

Rofand Fuentes

t!BE.tt OfFICE;

Area Vice President:

Vice President, Network Operations:

David E. Williams Printed Name

2

2

I! &!t..t (i] /d: UJA/1!.-1 .-Dale

t{ l~ I r1._ Oate

ll(tJ,/fz.

u/1/'-ot~ Dale

lt \9112..-::: Date

Dale

PIR Approval Signatures

Executive Summary Last Saved: January 31, 2013 Date Range of Data:

Losing Facility Name and Type: Street Address:

City:

State:

Current SCF ZIP Code(s):

Type of Distribution Consolidated:

Gaining Facility Name and Type: Street Address:

City:

Savings/Costs

Staffing

Function 1 Workhour Savings

Non-Processing Craft Workhour Savings (less Maintffrans)

PCES/EAS Workhour Savings

Transportation Savings

Maintenance Savings

Space Savings

Total Annual Savings

Total One-Time Costs

Total First Year Savings

Craft Position Loss

PCESIEAS Position Loss

First-Class Mail Service Performance (EXFC 0/N)

First-Class Mail Service Performance (EXFC 2 Day)

First-Class Mail Service Performance (EXFC 3 Day)

Customer Experience Measurement Overall Satisfaction Residential at PFC level

Customer Experience Measurement Overall Satisfaction Small Business at PFC level

3

Gillette CSMPC 311 S Kendrick Ave

Final PIR vs Pre AMP Final PIR vs Approved

($353,813) ($55, 105}

($1 ,543,437) ($1 ,328,461}

Losing Current Qtr Gaining Current Qtr

96.26%

94.84% 95.20%

93.67% 90.22%

81

PIR Type: Final PIR Oct-01-2011 • Sep-30·2012

from Workhour Costs- Combmed

from Other Curr vs Prop

from Other Curr vs Prop

fronr Transpol1atlon HCR and Transpol1ation PVS

from Maintenance

from Space Evaluatton and Other Costs

from Space Evaluation and Other Costs

from Staffing-GraN

from Stafflng-PCESIEAS

from SetVice Performance & CSM

from Service Performance & CSM

from Service Performance & C SM

from Service Performance & C SM

fcorr Service Performance & CSM

PIR Executive Summary

Calculati2D Befereoce& Combined Losing and Gaining Facility Data: PreAMP Proposed Final PIR

Function 1 Workhour Costs $4,334,794 $4,035,162 $4,347,710 Non-Processing Craft Workhour Costs $8,817,784 $8,817,784 $9,394,070 {less Maintenance & Transportation)

PCES/EAS Workhour Costs $1,081,693 $1,081,693 $1,214,712 Transportation Costs $291,227 $391,443 $662,674

Maintenance Costs $1,428,674 $1,544,357 $1,524,630 Space Savings $0 $0

Total Annual Cost $15,954,172 $15,870,439

Total One· Time Costs $0 $298,708 $353,813

Total First Year Costs $1 172 $16,169,147 $17,497,609

Staffing

Craft Position Total On-Rolls 171 173 168 PCES/EAS Position Total On-Rolls 9 10 10

Final PIR vs Proposed

Final PIR vs Pre·AMP (Approved) AMP Approved AMP

Function 1 Workhour Savings ($12,915) ($312,548) $299,632 Non-Processing Craft Workhour Savings ($576,287) ($576,287) $0 (less MaintfTrans)

PCESIEAS Workhour Savings ($133,018) ($133,018) $0 Transportation Savings ($371 ,447) ($271 ,231) ($100,216)

Maintenance Savings ($95,956) $19,728 ($115,684) Space Savings $0

Total Annual Savings $83,733

Total One·Time Costs ($353,813) ($55, 105) ($298,708)

Total First Year ($214,975)

Staffing Craft Position Loss 3 5 (2)

PCESiEAS Position Loss ( 1) 0 ( 1)

PIR Executive Summary 4

Summary Narrative Last Saved: January 31, 2013

Losing Facility Name and Type: Gillette CSMPC Current SCF ZIP Code(s): 827

Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest

Gaining Facility Name and Type: Casper P&DF Current SCF ZIP Code(s): 826

5

Background

The ColoradoNVyoming Performance Cluster, with the assistance from the Western Area Office, has completed an Area Mall Processing (AMP) Final1-year Post Implementation Review to measure the success of the consolidation of mail processing operations from Gillette WY Customer Service Mail Processing Center (CSMPC) to the Casper WY Processing & Distribution Facility (P&DF). The AMP was approved on July 15, 2011.

The approved AMP transferred the processing of all originating and destinating volumes for the 827 ZIP Code service areas to the Casper P&DF from the Gillette CSMPC. The transfer of the volumes was completed on Oct 1, 2011. The Gillette CSMPC is a USPS-owned facility located approximately 141 miles from the USPS-owned Casper P&DF.

Financial Summary

Financial savings identified during this first PIR study for this consolidation of originating and destinating operations are:

Total Annual Savings ($1 '189,623) Total First Year Savings ($1 '543,437)

Combined Losing and Gaining Facility Data: PreAMP FinaiPIR

F.n:otion 1 Wo!'<!10ur Costs $4,334,794 $4,035,162 $4,347,710 Non-Processing Craft Workhour Costs

$8,817,784 $8,817,784 $9,394,070 (ies~ MainWroance & Transp-ottallc'1)

PCESIEAS Wor1<!10urCosts $1,081,693 $1,081,693 $1,214,712 T ranspartatlon Costs $291,227 $391,443 $662,674

Maintenance Costs $1,428,674 $1,544,357 $1,524,630 Space Sa\irgs $0 $0

Total Annual Cost $15,954,172 $17,143,795

Total One-Time Costs $0 $298,708 $353,813

Total First Year Costs 172 $16,169,147

The Final PIR annualized cost (vs. Pre-AMP) identifies that this AMP is not meeting the expectations of the approved AMP. The Final period includes impacts that can be attributed to the following concurrent events that occurred after completion of the AMP package and whose impacts are not reflected in the Pre-AMP Base periods for the gaining site Casper:

• AMP of Riverton WY OlD volumes implemented October 1, 2011, with an annual increase to Casper operating costs of $132,792 from the approved AMP;

• AMP of Sheridan WY 0/D volumes implemented October 1, 2011, with an annual increase to Casper operating costs of $242,751 from the approved AMP; AMP of Worland WY 0/D volumes implemented October 1, 2011, with an annual increase to Casper operating costs of $142,812 from the approved AMP;

• Casper Customer Services Operations (F-2, 4 & 8) that were not impacted by the AMPs increased by $443,100 over the base period in the approved AMP; Gillette Customer Services Operations (F-2, 4 & 8) that were not impacted by the AMPs increased by $220,560 over the base period in the approved AMP; Adjustments made to HCR 82014 increased costs by $99,541 over Pre-AMP even with an annual decrease of 31,933 miles when negotiated due to additional staff required by the contractor to meet DOT regulations due to the layover required.

Adjusting for the above impacting both the losing and gaining sites, the projected first year cost for the Gillette AMP is $261,880, less than the first year expected savings of $214,975.

PIR Summary Narrative

6

Customer Service Considerations

There were ten OND service pair upgrades and one downgrade with the implementation of the AMP. National Distribution and Labeling List changes were submitted as appropriate for lists L002, L005, and L201 and published in PB 22321 on October 6, 2011.

There have been no changes to local mail collection box pick-up times due to AMP. Additionally, there been no changes to retail or BMEU operations as a result of the AMP implementation and Mailers are able to deposit their mail through the Gillette Main Office BMEU as done before the AMP was implemented. A local Gillette WY postmark is still available from the office.

The Gillette CSMPC EXFC First Class Mail Service performance from TTMS for the AMP impacted ZIP Codes are:

The Casper EXFC First Class Service performance from TTMS for the AMP impacted ZIP Codes are:

Staffing Impacts

The approved Gillette AMP proposal identified a net increase of two craft positions with Gillette reducing five distribution positions and Casper adding six distribution and one maintenance positions from the consolidation of originating and destinating operations. The additional maintenance position was necessary to provide the required support for the redeployed AFCS to Casper. Additionally, the AMP proposed an increase of one EAS position in Casper that was to be the result of filling the vacant but authorized SDO positions at the time of the study.

The Final PIR data reflects a net craft complement reduction of three positions with Gillette decreasing by five distribution and two maintenance position and increasing by four in Other non-impacted functions. Casper has had net no change in total complement from the Pre-AMP base- adding five distribution and decreasing by four maintenance position and one in Other functions. This increase of distribution complement includes workload identified in the other approved AMP initiatives identified in the Financial Summary section.

PIR Summary Narrative

7

Gillette EAS staffing shows no change to the Pre-AMP base period and Casper increasing by one EAS position as proposed in the approved AMP.

1 Craft" FTR+PTR+PTF+Casuals

The staffing impacts on management-to-craft ratios are summarized in the tables below:

1 Craft" FTR+PTR+PTF+Casuals 2 Craft" F1 + F4 at Losing; F1 only at Gaining

All affected employees that were reassigned to other Postal facilities were subject to processes outlined in the National Labor Agreements. Pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), the USPS is complying with the National Labor Agreements in reassigning employees.

Transportation Changes

All transportation supporting both Gillette and Casper is exclusively HCR with no PVS service. The approved Gillette AMP projected an annual transportation cost of $100,216 with the Final PIR data identifying an annualized cost of $371,447. This increase above what had been projected in the AMP are due to transportation reviews prior to, and post AMP implementation.

Specific changes to HCR transportation identified in the original AMP are: • HCR 82014 was not able to be decreased as much as projected due to need to protect Express

Mail service. Additionally due the layover required, the contractor was required to add drivers to meet DOT requirements due to the layover required in the new schedule. The negotiated new contract actually increased annual cost to $99,541 over the original annual cost even with a reduction of 31,933 miles annually. The New Casper HCR (82681) cost was greater than projected after solicitation.

PIR Summary Narrative

8

These additional changes were necessary to ensure operating plan performance for timely processing of all originating and destinating volumes. The Denver Cluster and WA Distribution Networks Office will review alternative routing and adjustments that can be made to meet service commitments to bring HCR 82014 costs to at or below Pre-AMP levels.

Equipment Relocation and Maintenance Impacts

The projected savings reflect the consolidation of mail processing operations to Casper and the redeployment of 1- AFCS and 1-DBCS from excess USPS inventory to support the additional volumes. The second DBCS was relocated to Casper WY to support the approved Worland AMP and the second AFCSNFS unit was relocated to Casper from excess Denver inventory to provide redundancy due to facil~y location and with the concurrence of the Western Area.

The approved AMP proposal included one-time costs of $298,708 consisting of $83,708 for MPE relocation and $215,000 for the relocation, modification and upgrade of a Loose Mail System along with associated site prep work. Casper expenditures are $353,813 to support these AMP activities.

The AMP proposed a net annual maintenance cost of $115,684 due to the additional staffing, utilities and BDS consumable cost required with the deployment of the AFCSNFS system to Casper. The Final PIR identifies an annualized cost of $95,956.

Summary:

The full AMP of originating and destinating mail volumes from the Gillette WY CSMPC to the Casper WY P&DF was fully implemented on October 1, 2011.

The Final PIR identified an Annual Cost of $1,189,623 as compared to the pre-AMP period. This AMP is not meeting the expected projections due to the cost impacts to Casper from the concurrent AMP initiatives, increases in Customer Services Operations identified in the Financial Summary section, and transportation impact to route 82014.

Adjusting for the above impacting both the losing and gaining sites, the projected first year cost for the Gillette AMP is $261,880, less than the first year expected savings of $214,975.

PIR Summary Narrative

Service Performance and Customer Satisfaction Measurement Last Saved: January 31, 2013

PIR Type: Final PIR Implementation Date: 10/01/11

Losing Facility: -::G;;.;_i;.:.;lle;.,:tt:;.::e...,.C::.,S:;.;M.;;.,;...P..;;.C-:----------­District: Colorado/Wyoming

Gaining Facility: ....,c;.:a=s.~:..pe=r..,.:P__,&:.:;D;;..F:.._..,..---------­District: Colorado/Wyoming

9

(15) Notes: _____________________ _

Satisfaction Measurement (CSM) became Customer F•c•<>rio·nr.P Measurement 0. Data reftects mast recently completed quarter available In

Satisfaction (Ovenall Experience)

Satlsfac~ianwlth Receiving (Experience with receiving)

Satisfac~ianwlth Sending (Experience with sending)

Satisfac~ionwith mast frequently visited PO (Experience wtth mast frequently visited PO)

~·~~··~--~-~cl~~~~L.~l~£:~!~!~.--~Satisfactionwith mast recent contact witn USPS (Experience with mast recent contact witt

l..--......::::..:..:: __ _;__..;;:..:.:.::.;...:..::..._.;__:...:..;..:..::..;.::._----1:-······ to recommend the USPS

PIR Service Performance and Customer Satisfaction Measurement

Combined Facilities

Type of Distribution Consolidated: ____ ;=Oo:ril!.g _,&c.:De:.::.::si;_ __ ~

Workhour Costs • Combined Facilities Last Sav~:od: January 22,2013

P!R Wotkhour Costs- Combined Facilities

PlR Wori<;t,ourCosts- Combir1e<i Facilities

PIR Work.nour Costs ~Combined Facilities

(2nNOTES:==============================================================================================================================================================

13

P!R Workhour Costs Combined Facilities

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC

Type of Distribution Consolidated: ____ O""r},g & Dest

Work hour Costs • Losing Facility Last Savt"C; January Z3, 2013

Date Range of Data: Oct-(11-2011 to Sep-30-201.2

P!R Workhour Costs - Losing

15 PIR Workhour Costs- Losing

Type of Distribution Consolidated: ___ _____Qj9.§ D,_e:.:sc:_t ___ ~

Workhour Costs Gaining Facility Last Saved_ January 23, 2013

Dale Range of Data: Oct..Q1--Z011 to

P!R Workhour Costs • Gaining

PIR Workhour Costs ~ Gaining

18 PlR Workhour Costs- Gaining

Other Workhour Move Analysis

PIR Other Worl<hour Costs

20

PlR Other Work hour Costs

PIR Other Workhaur Costs

22

PIR Other Wori<hour Costs

23

24 I'"~ \1 .,,,. V.\o·Uo:.o.; Co.>o:>o

Staffing - Craft Last Saved: January 31, 2013

PIR Type: Final PIR Data Extraction Date: 10/22/12

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC

Craft Positions

~--·-----~--~------------~ I (23) I (24) I

! Final PIR vs Pre AMP ! Final PIR vs Proposed ! Total Craft Position Loss:L _____ :_ _____ j ______ : _____ J

(Above numbers are carried forward to the Executive Summary)

25 PIR Staffing- Craft

Staffing - PCES/EAS Last Saved: January 31, 2013

PIR Type: ........ __

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC Finance# _5_7J_a_oo ____ _ Data Extraction Date: 1012212012

PCES/EAS Positions {2) (7)

Position Title

26

PIR Staffing- PCES/EAS

Gaining Facility:..;C:.:a:::s:.cp..:;e7r :.,P,::&=:D"::F-:::--------------Oata Extraction Date: 1012212012

Finance# .::5::..7.:.;15:.:5:.:8:..._ ___ _

PCES/EAS Positions

r~---~-~-·-~-~-~-~....,.--.,.-~-~~-~-..,-~-1-""'-*-'"':"""':-"'-"'-·,

I Total PCES/EAS' (s?, ' 1381

'

27

I Position Lossj -1 j 0 j ~6---6------------~--------------J-------------~ (Above numbers are carried forward to the Executive Summary)

PIR Staffing - PCES/EAS

Transportation - PVS Last Saved: January 31, 2013

Date Range of Data:

(3) (4) (5) Variance Variance

Final PIR Final PIR vs Final PIR vs

PIR Type: Final PIR ------~~----------

Oct-01-2011 ------------------------

--to

(8)

PIR

Se p-30-20 12

(9} (10) Variance Variance

Final PIR vs Final PIR vs

(11) Total Final PIR vs Pre AMP Transportation-PVS Savings:-:----:---:::---'-$-'-0:---:::---­(This number added to the Executive Summary

(12) Total Final PIR vs Proposed Transportation-PVS Savings: $0 (This number added to the Executive Summary)

(13)Noms=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28 PlR Transportation PVS

Transportation - HCR Last Saved: January 23,2013

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC ---------------------------------------------------------Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest

29

Data of HCR Data File: 1 0/01/12

(4)

Final PIR

PIR Type: Final PIR

CT for Outbound Dock: 19:45

(10)

Final PIR

PIR Transportation HCR - Losing

Variances Total Annual Costs

(11) (12) Change Analysis

30 PIR Transportation HCR - Losing

Transportation - HCR Last Saved: January 23, 2013

Gaining Facility: Casper P&DF -~----------------------------------------------------

Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest CET for Inbound Dock:

Date of HCR Data File: 10/01/12 CET for Cancellations: 22:30

(1)

Route#

PIR Type: Orig & Dest

CET for OGP: 0:00 ---------CT for Outbound Dock: 0:30

(1 0)

Final PIR Annual Cost/Mile

PIR Transportation HCR- Gaining

32

Summary HCR Losing & Gaining

(13) (14) Final PIR vs Pre

AMP Losing $371447 Gaining $0

(13) Total Final PIR vs Pre AMP Transportation-HeR Savings: (from losing and gaining facilities)

$371,447

(14) Total Final PIR vs Proposed Transportation-HeR Savings: (from losing and gaining facilities)

HCR PVS

(15) Total Final PIR vs Pre AMP Transportation (PVS & HeR): (This number carried forward to the Executive Summary)

(16) Total Final PIR vs Proposed Transportation (PVS & HeR): (This number carried forward to the Executive Summary)

$271,231

Final PIR vs Proposed

$271 231 $0

$271,231

PIR Transportation HCR- Gaining

MPE Inventory Last Saved: January 31, 2013

Data Extraction Date: 05/14/12 PIR Type: _ ___;F...:.in;.;.;a::..:.I..:..P..:.;.IR..;,.__ Date Range of Data: _ ___:O:;..:ct::..:.-...;:0...:.1...;:-2:.::0...:.1..;.1 __ - to -- ___ S_e_.p_-_30_-_2_01_2 __ _

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC ----------------------------

(10) Notes: Equipment set at Casper shows impacts of multiple AMP projects. One AFCS was approved in Gillette package, second AFCS moved as per approval of Western Area. One DBCS moved as per Gillette package with costs in PIR, second DBCS moved as per Worland package with costs reflected in the Worland PIR

33

$0

Carried to Space Evaluation and

PIR MPE Inventory

$0

34

Maintenance Last Saved: January 31.2013

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC -----------------------------------------------

(13)

(3) (4) (5) Variance Variance

Final PIR Final PIR to Final PIR to Costs PreAMP Proposed

60,386 9.236 $

37 {173) $

13.270 $ (72,451)

0 0 $

0 0 $ 0

$ 73,693 $ (12,237)

(11) Final PIR vs Pre AMP- Maintenance Savings:

(12) Final PIR vs Proposed- Maintenance Savings:

LDC 39

Date Range of Data:

Gaining Facility: Casper P&DF --~----------------------------------~

(7) (8) (9) Variance

Propos!ld Final PIR Final PIR to Costs Costs Pre AMP

706,084 213,345 $

68,200 (133,377) $

{10,SS1) $

(9,167) $

(These numbers canied forward to the Execuuve Summary)

(These numbers canied forward to the Executive Summary)

*Data in PlR columns is annuaff:zed ft»' Flrst P!R.

(10) Variance

Final PIR to Pre Proposed

124.3.53

(133,377)

{1D,S5i)

(9,1€7)

35,716

6,563

{12,512)

PIR Maintenance

(1)

Distribution Changes Last Saved: January 31, 2013

Losing Facility : _G_il_le_tt_e_C_S_M_P_C __________ _ PIR Type: _..:_F.::..:in=-ai:....:.P_:..I R:....:..__ Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest ----"<------ Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011 -- to -- Sep-30-2012

Place a "X" next to the DMM labeling list(s) revised as result of the approved AMP.

DMM L001 DMM L011

X DMM L002 X DMM L201

DMM L003 DMM L601

DMM L004 DMM L602

X DMM L005 DMM L603

DMM L006 DMM L604

DMM L007 DMM L605

DMM L008 DMM L606

DMM L009 DMM L607

DMM L010 DMM LB01

Identify the date of the Postal Bulletin that contained DMM labeling list revisions.

<2> Postal Bulletin 22321 (10-6-11)

Was the Service Standard Directory updated for the approved AMP?

(3)

~~-----------------------

(4) Drop Shipments for Destination Entry Discounts

FAST Appointment Summary Report NASS

Facility Name Total No-Show te Arrival 0 en Closed Unschd Month Losing I Gaining Facilitv Code Schd Count % Count % Count % Count 'Yo Count

Aug '12 Losing Facility 827 GILLETIE 0

Sept '12 Losing Facility 827 GILLETIE 0

Aug '12 Gainina Facility 826 CASPER 115 15 13.04% 6 5.22% 0

0.00% I 99 ~

Sept '12 Gaining Facility 826 CASPER 98 18 18.37% 2 2.04% 0 78 79.59% 0

35 PIR Distribution Changes

Customer Service Issues Last Saved: January 31, 2013

1. Collection Points Number picked up before 1 p.m.

Number picked up between 1-5 p.m.

Number picked up after 5 p.m.

Total Number of Collection Points

2. How many collection boxes are currently designated for "local delivery"? 0

3. How many "local delivery" boKes were removed as a result of AMP?

4. Delivery Performance Report

% Carriers returning before 5 p.m.

5. Retail Unit Inside Losing Facility (Window Service Times) 6. Business (Bulk) Mail Acceptance Hours

7. Can customers obtain a local postmark In accordance with applicable policies in the Postal Operations Manual? Yes

8. Notes:

9. What postmark is printed on collection mail?

:t L

36 PIR Customer Service Issues

Space Evaluation and Other Costs last Saved: January 31, 2013

Losing Date: ________ _

1, Affected Facility

2. One-Time Costs

$68,657 shown below under One-Time Costs section.)

3. Savings Information

Space Savings ($): _....,;.,.$:.;0;._ __ $0 $0 (These numbers carried forward to the Execuffve Summary)

4. Did you utilize the acquired space as planned? Explain,

5. Notes: MHE AFCSNFSILoose Mall System $209,265.94 (Lamm); WFSO Stte Prep $74,571.50 (Downes)

Employee Relocation Costs

Mail Processing Equipment Relocation Costs (from MPE Inventory)

Facility Costs (from above)

Total One-Time Costs

37

Losing Facility: Gillette CSMPC

Pre-AMP: FY 2011

$1J3,708

$215,000 $283,857

$298,708 $353,813 $55,105 PlR costs carried forward to E:xecutive Summary)

Gaining Facility:...:C:..:a:.::s.~:.p.=.er'-P'-&=D:...F _______ _

Range of Report PIR: FY 2012

PIR Space Evaluation and Other Costs