September 26, 2013
Mr. Cliff Guffey President American Postal Workers
Union (APWU), AFL-CIO 1300 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-4128
Dear Cliff:
Certified Mail Tracking Number: 7013 1090 0002 4435 2784
As information, enclosed is a copy of the second and final Post Implementation Review for the Alexandria, Louisiana Customer Service Mail Processing Center (CSMPC) Area Mail Processing (AMP).
In accordance with the Non-Disclosure Agreement dated February 11, 2013, the Postal Service is providing both redacted and unredacted copies of the PIR.
If you have any questions, please contact Rickey Dean at extension 7412.
Sincerely,
Patrick M. Devine Manager Contract Administration (APWU)
Enclosures
(CA2013-850)
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest Facility Name & Type: Alexandria CSMPC
Street Address: 1715 Odom Street City: Alexandria
State: LA 50 Facility ZIP Code: 71301
District: Louisiana Area: Southwest
Finance Number: 210143 Current 30 ZIP Code(s): 713,714
Miles to Gaining Facility: 122 EXFC office: Yes
Plant Manager: Abel Garza Senior Plant Manager: Juan W. Gonzalez
District Manager: Bruno L. Tristan
Facility Name & Type: Shreveport P&DC Street Address: 2400 Texas Avenue
City: Shreveport State: LA
50 Facility ZIP Code: 71102 District: Louisiana
Area: Southwest Finance Number: 217957
Current 3D ZIP Code(s): 710-712 EXFC office: Yes
Plant Manager: Jonathan E Carver Senior Plant Manager: Juan W. Gonzalez
District Manager: Bruno L. Tristan
Approval Date: April 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 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: Jo Ann Feindt Vice President, Network Operations: David E. Williams
Area AMP Coordinator: Richard C. Enriquez I Steve Jackson NAI Contact: Doris Billingslea I Sarah Grover
REDACTED
Sep-30-2012
May 7, 2010
08-29-2013 11 :26
PIR Data Entry Page
Executive Summary Last Saved August 29, 2013
Losing Facility Name and Type: Street Address:
City:
State:
Current SCF ZIP Code(s):
Type of Distribution Consolidated: ..::O::..r:.:'ig~&:..=D.::e.::s:._t ----
Gaining Facility Name and Type: Street Address:
City:
State:
Savings/Costs
Staffing
Service
Function 1 Workhour Savings
Non-Processing Craft Workhour Savings (less Maint!Trans)
PCES/EAS Workhour Savings
Transportation Savings
Maintenance Savings
Space Savings
Total Annual Savings
Total One-Time Costs
Total First Year Savings
Craft Position Loss
PCES/EAS 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
Final PIR vs Pre AMP
Losing Current Qtr
95,75%
92.25%
92.64%
Date Range of Data
Final PIR vs Approved
Gaining Current Qtr
94.98%
93.99%
93.20%
PIR Type: Final PIR Oct-01-2011 Sep-30-2012
from Workhour Costs - Combined
from Other Curr vs Prop
from Other Curr vs Prop
from Transportation HCR and Transportation PVS
from Maintenance
from Space Evaluation and Other Costs
from Space Evaluation and Other Costs
from Staffing-Craft
from Stafflng-PCESIEAS
from Service Performance & CSM
from Service Performance & CSM
from Service Performance & CSM
from Se!Vice Performance & CSM
from Service Petformance & CSM
PIR Executive Summary
Calculation References Combined Losing and Gaining Facility Data: PreAMP Proposed Final PIR
Function 1 Workhour Costs 8,974,559 $18,524,110 $22,672,987 Non-Processing Craft Workhour Costs
$3,059,254 $3,028,682 $2,470,161 (less Maintenance & Transportation}
PCES/EAS Workhour Costs $2,634,198 $2,362,149 $2,424,424 Transportation Costs $3,287,298 $3,210,909 $2,336,620
Maintenance Costs $6,890,330 $6,236,135 $6,793,560 Space Savings $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Cost $34,845,639 $33,361,986 $36,697,752
Total One-Time Costs $0 $489,279 $26,972
Total First Year $34,845,639 $33,851 ,265 $36,724,724
Staffing
Craft Position Total On-Rolls 388 355 403 PCES/EAS Position Total On-Rolls 23 21 20
Final PIR vs Proposed
Final PIR vs Pre-AMP (Approved) AMP Approved AMP
Function 1 Workhour Savings ($4, 1 $450,449 Non-Processing Craft Work hour Savings $589,093 $558,522 $30,572 (less Maint!Trans)
PCES/EAS Workhour Savings $209,774 $272,049 Transportation Savings $950,677 $874,289 $76,389
Maintenance Savings $96,770 $654,195 Space Savings $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Savings ($1 ,852, 113) ($3,335, 766) $1,483,653
Total One-Time Costs ($26,972) $462,307 ($489,279)
Total First Year Savings $994,374
Staffing Craft Position Loss (15) (48) 33
PCES/EAS Position Loss 3 1 2
PIR Executive Summary
Summary Narrative Last Saved: August29, 2013
Losing Facility Name and Type: Alexandria CSMPC Current SCF ZIP Code(s): 713,714
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest
Gaining Facility Name and Type: Current SCF ZIP Code(s):
Background:
Shreveport P&DC 710-712
This is the Final Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the Alexandria CSMPC Originating and Destinating AMP into the Shreveport LA P&DC. The AMP study called for the consolidation of originating and destinating mail volumes due to the decline in mail volumes. The Alexandria CSMPC is approximately 122 miles from the Shreveport LA P&DC.
Financial Summary:
The Final PIR baseline data was from the period October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012.
The Final PIR Financial PIR Summary is as follows:
Total Annual Savings Total Final Year Savings
Final PIR vs. Pre AMP
$(1 .852, 1 13) $(1 ,879,085)
Final PIR vs. Approved
Two concurrent initiatives {the Texarkana TX CSMPC AMP (SCF 718 & 755), and the consolidation of the Monroe LA DDU (SCF 712)), have added work hours and costs to this Final PIR that were not accounted for in the original approved AMP work study.
Other Concurrent Initiatives and Timelines
Below is the time line of events that have affected this PIR:
July 2009- June 2010 January 2011 July 2011 August 2011
Original Work Study Data Period Monroe DDU move (SCF 712) Texarkana CSMPC consolidation Alexandria CSMPC consolidation
In January 2011, the Monroe DDU (SCF 712) was consolidated into Shreveport P&DC as part of a Louisiana District initiative that was not due to an approved AMP. There was no discussion of the Monroe move in the 2 AMP studies (Texarkana CSMPC & Alexandria CSMPC) nor were the work hours and costs associated included in either. In the Final PIR, the Monroe DDU consolidation accounts for approximately $1.34 Min additional Function 1 expenses to the bottom line at the Shreveport P&DC.
In July 2011, the Texarkana CSMPC was consolidated into Shreveport P&DC according to an approved AMP. The Texarkana move also caused added hours and costs to be associated with this Final PIR that were not in the AMP study while it was in the approval process. This negatively affected the total savings of the Alexandria Final PIR. In the Final PIR, the Texarkana CSMPC consolidation accounts for approximately $3.2 M in additional Function 1 expenses to the bottom line at the Shreveport P&DC.
The Monroe DDU & Texarkana CSMPC consolidation also added machinery to the Shreveport P&DC that was not in the Alexandria AMP. Approximately 19% of the LDC 36 cost at Shreveport can be accounted to the other consolidations, equating to approximately $618,605.
Taking into account the additional costs of the Texarkana CSMPC & Monroe DDU operations hours as outlined above, the Final PIR shows a total Final year savings of $3,312,532.
PIR Summary Narrative
Customer & Service Impacts:
There were no changes to the business hours of the Retail Unit or Business Mail Acceptance Unit at the Alexandria office. There were upgrades to service standards for Final-Class Mail by processing the originating Alexandria collection mail at the Shreveport P&DC.
Transportation:
The Final PIR shows an Annual Savings of $950,677. This was achieved by mileage adjustments and the terminations of Highway Contract Routes.
HCR routes 70510 and 38693 were eliminated due to the AMP. HCR routes 77613, 707L3 and 71268 had mileage reductions. 77613 had an Alexandria stop eliminated. 707L3 eliminated a trip from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. 71268 a trip was eliminated between Monroe and Alexandria.
Staffing Impacts:
The Mail Processing staffing impacts for the Final PIR resulted in 15 total craft position gained from the Pre AMP to the Final PIR numbers and 48 gained total craft position from the Final PIR versus the proposed numbers. EAS positions were reduced by 3 FTE from Pre AMP numbers.
As of this PIR, Alexandria CSMPC had 3 EAS On-Rolls with a total of 38 employees at this facility compared to the proposed 21. Tow of the three EAS employees reports to Customer service.
As of this PIR, the Shreveport P&DC added 31 additional craft positions in excess of the proposed level due to the Monroe DDU and Texarkana TX CSMPC consolidations.
1 Craft = Career + Non.career
1 Craft = Career + Non-career 2 Craft F1 + F4 at Loslng·, F1 only at Gaining
All affected employees that were reassigned to other Postal facilities were subject to processes outlined in the National Labor Agreements.
PIR Summary Narrative
Maintenance Impacts:
The overall Maintenance Savings for the approved AMP was $654,195. As of this PIR, the maintenance was a cost of $557K versus the proposed total. There are still 9 maintenance employees under Alexandria's finance number where the study called for 5 employees in Function 3B.
Also, the overlap of the Monroe and Texarkana consolidations for the entire PIR data period must be taken into account as detailed in the Financial Summary.
Mail Processing Equipment movement: The overall approved machine count for Shreveport (including all consolidations) called for the increase in the DBCS total by 8 and the DIOSS total by 1. In the proposed numbers, 4 DBCS and 1 DIOSS were to be moved to process the Texarkana TX mail and 3 DBCS for the Alexandria LA mail. During the Final PIR, the major MPE count increased from 30 proposed to 34 (Powered Industrial Vehicles not included)
One Time Cost:
In the Approved AMP Study, $489,279 was allocated for total One-Time Costs, including $414,000 for employee relocation costs, $31,920 for MPE relocation costs and $43,359 for Facility costs. During this Final PIR period, there was only $26,972 spent for MPE relocation costs.
Space Impacts:
There were no Space Savings associated with this AMP. Carriers from Southpark Station moved into the Alexandria facility November 2012, not affecting the data for this PIR.
PIR Summary Narrative
Service Performance and Customer Satisfaction Measurement Last Saved: August 29, 2013
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC District: Louisiana
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC District: Louisiana
After AMP
PIRType: Final PIR Implementation Date: 10/01/11
(15) Notes: _____________________ _
Satisfaction Measurement (CSM) became Customer Experience Measurement ( reflects most recently completed quarter available in GEM.
Overall Satisfaction (Overall Experience)
Satisfaction with Receiving (Experience with receiving)
Satisfaction wrth Sending (Experience with sending)
Satisfaction with most frequently visited PO (Experience with most frequently visited PO)
Satisfaction with most recent contact with USPS (Experience with most recent contact with
'----:::..:..::;_ __ .____;:.:..:_.:..;..;..:_ _ __;_.:...:..;:;.::._:.:;____.Likely to recommend the USPS
PIR Service Performance and Customer Satisfaction Measurement
I Combined Facilities I
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & oest
Workhour Costs - Combined Facilities last Saved August 29, 2013
Function 1
., ~~""I'"G~-WA~ 44 L$3519/G-N/A
LS41811G-NIA
47 4fl L$39_73/G-N/A
PIR Type*: :~:·:·,:~~~ ""~~~.~;;~~TP!R
Date Range of Data: ·- Oct..01~2t:l11 to Sep.J0-20~_2 __ _
PlR Workhour Costs~ Combined Facilities
PlR Workhour Costs- Combined Facilities
PIR Workhour Costs- Combined Facilities
(V)NOTES:================================================================================================================================================--==--==--=-=~==- ~1(1J~
PIR Workhour Costs ~ Combined F aci!ities
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Oest
Workhour Costs -Losing Facility Last Saved August 29, 2013
PIR Type": nna1 nr"\ ~'"'··•~ •~ r><r> nnlo, -~ ;_ --~,,-j, _ _..-1 fn, r;,~,
Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011 to Sep-3_0:::-2:::_01:_::2 __ _
PlR Workhour Costs- Losing
PIR Workhour Costs- Losing
PIR Workhour Costs Losing
P!R Workhour Costs Losing
PJ R Work hour Costs Losing
Workhour Costs - Gaining Facility Last Saved- August 29_ 2013
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
PIR Type•: :~~~:·.: ~·.~ ,,,, --,c •• , ..... ~ ... c ... ~ ... D
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Des! Date Range of Data: Oct..01-2011 to Sep-30~2012 ___ _
PIR Workhour Costs ~ Gaining
PIR Workhour Costs - Gaining
PlR Work.hour Costs- Gaining
P!R Workhour Cos1s Gaining
(27)NOTESo ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ·-----------------------------------------
P!R Workhour Costs Gaining
[ - Other Workhour Move Analysis I
PI R Other Work hour Costs
P!R Other Workhour Costs
PI R Other Work hour Costs
PI R Other Workhour Costs
PIR Other Workhour Costs
"Other Craft" Ops{less Ops gomg to 'Trans-PVS'
Transportation Ops (going to Trans-PVS
Maintenance Ops 9,921
1,575
8,143 -164
-16
7.92"
3 41° $62,275
424 02" $168,313 -007 $125,509
·007'X 125,50
PIR Other Workhour Costs
Staffing -Craft LastSaved:August29,2013
PIR Type: Final PIR Data Extraction Date: 10112112
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC
Craft Positions
Fnc 4 Clerks: 2 Mail Processing clerks, 3 Expeditors, 1 secrete!) Rest are Window & Sales
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
Craft Positions
r------;23)-----r-----(2;;)·----~
j Final PIR vs Pre AMP j Final PIR vs Proposed j Total Craft Position Loss: j (15) j (48) j
____________________ .. ___________________ A
(Above numbers are carried forward to the Executive Summary)
Finance#: 210143
PIR Staffing - Craft
Staffing - PCES/EAS Last Saved: August 29, 2013
PIR Type: Final PIR
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC Finance# .:2:,:.10::,:1:..:4.:.3 ____ _
Data Extraction Date· 10/12/2012
PCES/EAS Positions Authorized Staffing On-Rolls
(1) (2)
I p,~:P (4) (5)> (6) (7)
Lin Position Title Level I. •"
Final P!R Proposed Final PIR
1 POSTMASTER (F) EAS-24 1 ·. 0 0 0
2 MGR MAIL PROCESSING OPERATIONS EAS-19 · .. ;.A 0 () 1
3 MGR MAINTENANCE EAS-17 b 0 0 0
4 SUPV CUSTOMER SERVICES EAS-17 < 1 1 () 1
~UPV DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS EAS-17 ' 0 '.· 0 0
UPV MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS EAS-17 2 0 .•; 0 0
OSTMASTER EAS-22 '<< 1 1
8 i; 0 II 'i .... 0
9 '.• 0 II ·;·. ,· 0
10 0
t~ 0
11 · .... ,·· .. · .. 0 0
12 >'' 0 0
13 ' .·. 0 0
14 · ...... : 0 0
15 -, ' 0 :·: : 0
16 ., ,, ..
0 I : Y< 0
17 : ·.·• 0 (/ .: .. 0
18 ....... 0 ,·: ... ·;: 0
19 : ' 0 :,: ·.: 0
20 r:· 0 : : -- 0
21 0 •> ',' 0
22 •:, 0 •' 0 23 ... ·.·
' 0 - ; . '" : ~ 0
24 ·.; .·•. 0 0
25 0 T': 0
26 . : 0 ...... ·: 0 27 0 ' ,,: .. 0
28 :
0 ~
0
29 ' < 0 : ' 0
30 . ·:, < 0 .. ': .. 0
31 0 ·: 0
32 ,•, ' 0 ' 0
33 ' 0 0 34 .... 0
•
·.:·,:r 0 35 I :·:.:,· 0 ... ··:.:• .. · . 0 36 0 , ... :· 0 37 0 ···:· 0 38 0 .•' 0 39 ',' 0 '•. 0 40 0 I :.: 0 41 0 0 42 : 0
.,--0
43 0 .··:. 0 44 0 1." 0 45 0
::-··.:· 0
46 : 0 0 47 0 I 0 48 ' 0 : 0 49 0 ... 0 50 ..•.. / 0 'T 0 51 . ' 0 ... 0 52 1·· ... ·. ' 0 1', : 0 53 ' :'. 0 I : -·:
0 54 ····,.· 0 I•.
,, 0
55 ? .. ::• 0 0 56 0 .. ::·.;: 0
Totals 2 a 0 3
~><J Variances Total On-Rolls
(15) (16)
Change Final PIR vs Final P1R vs Analysis PreAMP Proposed
Positions 0 3 Percent 0.0% #OIV/01
PIR Staffing- PCES/EAS
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC Finance# -'-2"-17..;9..;.57 ____ _ Data Extraction Date: 10/12/2012
PCES/EAS Positions Authorized
On-Rolls Staffing
(19) (20)
- (21) . ••••••
(22) I p~zL (24) (25)
Line Position Title Level PI'<AMP ..•• Final P!R Proposed Final P!R
1 MGR PROCESSING/DISTRIBUTION EAS-25 1 1 I 1 1 1
2 MGR MAINTENANCE EAS-22 j ... 1 I 1 1 0
3 MGR IN-PLANT SUPPORT EAS-21 ... 1 1 I 1 1 1
4 MGR DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS EAS-20 2 2 1 1 1
5 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SPECIALIST EAS-17 .• 3 ·. 3 g 3 2
6 SUPV DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS EAS-17 9
·····
12 .9 10 7
7 SUPV MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS EAS-17 .. 4 4 .2 2 3
8 NETWORKS SPECIALIST EAS-16 l 1 1; .. 1 1 9 SECRETARY (FLO) EAS-12 0 1 1 0 10 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (FLD) EAS-12 ·. 1 · .. -.... 1
11 . . ·.· 0 0
12 . •i •
0 I! 0
13 •••• ; 0 ··. 0 14
••• 0
•••• 0
15 I 0 ··-.··
.... 0 16 . .;:: .
• •• 0 I'- ·\··· 0 17 . 0 I . 0 18 •• ; 0 I ; 0 19 . 0 . .... 0 20 I .•.-... 0 , .. .··.· 0 21 . ···· ... 0 0 22 0 . 0 23 . 0 I.
•• 0
24 0 0 25 0 .. 0 26 •••• ·.· .. 0 1.:·-· \ 0 27 0 0 28 .; 0 I•.• . 0 29 .. .· . 0 I• 0 30
••• 0 1•. . ... 0
31 0 0 32 0 0 33 0 I 0 34 .. . 0 0 35 0 .·. 0 36 0 ····.·· 0 37 •• 0 0 38 .. · .. 0 ... ········ 0 39 • . 0 .... ... 0 40 0 . ·.· 0 41 0
•• 0
42 . .... . 0 .... 0 43 0 ·.• 0 44 . 0 0 45 . 0 0 46 ..... 0
•••• ... 0
47 ; 0 ····-· ... 0 48 ... · .. 0 ... ·_· .. .• 0 49 0 ..... ·.· 0 50 0 0 51
•• 0 I. • 0 52 ...... 0
•• 0
53 • ·.·····_· .... 0 I• 0
54 ... ~ 0 ;•: 0
55
•...... <
0 •• 0 56 0 ... .. 0 57 0 . 0 58 < •. · ..•.• 0 "--·· ......... 0 59 . ·•·.· 0 ...... 0 60
• . 0 0
Iota Is za 26 7,U 7.1
~ Variances Total On~Rolls
(33) (34)
Change Final PIR vs Final PIR vs Analysis
PreAMP Proposed
Positions (3) (4) Percent -15.0% -19.0%
r~-------------·--~--------------~-~-----------, ! Total PCES/EAS, c37l , c3s) ,
! Position Loss! 3 ! 1 ! ... _________________ ..t.. _____________ ..~.. ____________ _,
(Above numbers are carried forward to the Executive Summary)
PIR Staffing - PCES/EAS
Transportation- PVS Last Saved: August 29, 2013
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC Finance Number: 210143
~~~------------
(1) (2)
PreAMP·•··. Proposed .. · .. ,·.·
PVS Owned Equipment . Seven Ton Trucks 0 0 Eleven Ton Trucks . 0 0 Single Axle Tractors .·.· 0 0 Tandem Axle Tractors 0 0 Spotters > 0 0
PVS Transportation . .. · ....... Number of Schedules > · .•.. q 0 Total Annual Mileage
···. 0 0
Total Mileage Costs .·· ··•··. $0
$0 ..
PVS Leases I' .· Total Vehicles Leased >'' 0 0
Total Lease Costs .· .. < .• $0 $0
.. ··•········· ..
PVS Workhour Costs ••.• · ..•••••••... >
LDC 31 (617, 679, 764) $0 $0 LDC 34 (765, 766) • $0 $0
Total Workhour Costs . > ••.• $0 $0
...._ .:.:.....
(3) (4) (5) Variance Variance
Final PIR Final PIR vs Final PIR vs PreAMP Proposed
$0 $0
0
$0 $0 $0
$0
$85 $85 $85
$85 $85 $85
(11) Total Final PIR vs Pre AMP Transportation-PVS Savings: ($4,930) (This number added to the Executive Summary
I
PIR Type: Final PIR
Date Range of Data Oct-01-2011 --to -- Sep-30-2012
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC Finance Number: ..::2;_1_7-'-95_7 ______ _
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Variance Variance
PreAMP Proposed PIR Final PIR vs Final PIR vs PreAMP Pro nosed
PVS Owned Equipment .··· ,·· ...
Seven Ton Trucks 0 .····· .. 0
Eleven Ton Trucks ·. 0 .•.. 0
Sinale Axle Tractors 0 0
Tandem Axle Tractors •.. ·.· 0 0
Spotters 0 0
PVS Transportation ·.· ·•
Number of Schedules 0 0
Total Annual Mileage . 0 0
Total Mileage Costs ..... / () $0 $0 $0
PVS Leases ... Total Vehicles Leased 0 0 0
Total Lease Costs ·>: < • $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
.•'
PVS Workhour Costs LDC 31 (617, 679, 764) $87,079 $87,079 $82,063 ($5,()16} {$5,016;
LDC 34 (765, 766) $0 $0 $0
Total Workhour Costs .... $87,Q79 $87,079 $82,063 ($5,015)j ($5,015)
(12) Total Final PIR vs Proposed Transportation-PVS Savings: ($4,930) (This number added to the Executive Summary)
(13) Notes=--------------------------------------------------
PIR Transportation- PVS
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest
Data of HCR Data File: 11/01/12
Transportation - HCR LastSaved:August29,2013
(7)
Final PIR Annual Cost
PIR Type: Final PIR
CT for Outbound Dock:
(10)
Final PIR
PIR Transportation HCR- Losing
Change Analysis Final PIR vs
PIR Transportation HCR- Losing
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
Type of Distribution Consolidated: Orig & Dest
Date of HCR Data File:
(3) (4)
Final PIR Annual
Transportation - HCR Last Saved: August 29, 2013
CET for Inbound Dock:
CET for Cancellations:
(6)
Proposed I Final PIR Annual Annual Cost Cost
PIR Type: Orig & Dest
CETforOGP:
CT for Outbound Dock: ------
(10)
Final PIR Annual Cost/Mile
PIR Transportation HCR- Gaining
Summary HCR Losing & Gaining
(13) 1 (14)
Losing
Gaining
(13) Total Final PIR vs Pre AMP Transportation-HeR Savings: (from losing and gaining facilities)
(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):
Total Transportation
(15)
Final PIR vs Pre AMP
(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)
Final PIR vs
(16)
Final PIR vs
PIR Transportation HCR -Gaining
MPE Inventory Last Saved: August29,2013
Data Extraction Date: ----- Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011 --to -- Sep-30-2012 PIR Type: Final PIR
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
(1} (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
PreAMP. Proposed Final PIR Equipment
Proposed Final PIR Variance in I PreAMP Proposed Final PIR Relocation Relocation
Costs Equipment .. .··. Costs Costs
AFCS 2 0 0 AFCS ._- .. 4 -· 4 4 $0 $0 $0
AFSM-ALL 0 .. ·.---.· 0 0 AFSM-ALL 2 2 2 $0 $0 so APPS .·- 0 0 0 APPS I ·-·· 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
ClOSS 0 ._ ... 0 0 ClOSS . < 1 .. · 1 1 $0 $0 $(1
CSBCS 0 0 0 CSBCS 0 0 0 $0 $0 so DBCS ···--·- 2 0 0 DBCS 12 14 21 $15,960 $16,120 $160
DBCS-OSS .1 0 0 DBCS-OSS 1'·-· 1 2 0 $7,980 $0 ($7,980)
DIOSS •. ·. . 1 . 0 0 DIOSS ·-. 2.-.-. 3 3 $7,980 $0 ($ 7,!)_80)
FSS --····
0 0 0 •
FSS 0 0 0 $0 $0 $.6 SBPS ·_ .•• - .0 .··- 0 0 SBPS ·.·_ 1 .·. ... 1 1 $0 $0 50
UFSM 1 0 0 UFSM 1 1 0 $0 $0 $0
FC I MICRO MARK 0 0 0 FC I MICRO MARK 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
ROBOT GANTRY I -.. -.-- 0 .. 0 0 ROBOT GANTRY 1 ···-.... _
1 0 $0 $0 $o HSTSIHSUS I 0
·-
0 0 •
HSTS I HSUS 0 0 0 $0 $0 -so LCTSI LCUS 0 0 0 LCTS I LCUS 1
__. 1 1 $0 $0 $0
LIPS 0 -.. · 0 0 •
LIPS · ... ·-• 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
MLOCR-ISS 0 0 0 MLOCR-ISS .-. 0 0 0 $0 $0 so MPBCS-OSS > 0 0 0 MPBCS-OSS 0 0 0 $0 $0 so
TABBER __ / 0 .... 0 0 TABBER 0 •• 0 0 $0 $0 $0
POWERED POWERED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL 0 $0 $0
VEHICLE . .··· VEHICLE · .
LCREM I >> -··· LCREM . 1
•. < .... •. <
. . __ ·.-.. I I ·- •• >
.• : -······-. ._ .•.•... 0 -_ / -. ·o Totals I- 26 30 > --·34 i $31,920 $16,120 ($15,8_()1)1
(10) Notes: ;:,. ..::::: "::::>.
Carried to I Space Evaluation and
-················- Other Costs
PIR MPE Inventory
LDC36
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC
Workhour Activity
Building Services $ (Custodial Cleanmg)
(1)
PreAMP Costs
643,282 $
$
170,734 $
(2)
Proposed Costs
0 $
324,121 $
170,734 $
(3)
Final PIR Costs
481,626 $ ---345,999 $
120,911 $ --
(4) Variance
Final PIR to PreAMP
---······-···········--········-
Maintenance Last Saved: August 29, 2013
(5) Variance
Final PIR to Proposed
LDC 36
LDC38
PIR Type*: _F-.in;.::a-..1 _PI-..R'------Date Range of Data: Oct-01-2011 : Sep-30-2012
Gaining Facility: P&DC ----~--------------------------------
Workhour Activity
Building Equipment $
(7)
Proposed Costs
(8)
Final PIR Costs
$ 2,259,238 $ 2,598,140 $
llOQ,4St $ 838,688 $ 731,164 $
Building Services $ 1;3os,277 $ 1,305.277 $ 1,106.425 $ (Custodial Cleanmg)
(9) Variance
Final PIR to PreAMP
453.977
(10) Variance
Final PIR to Pre
338.904
'"" $ 0 $ 12,516 $ 270,411 $ LDC 39 Maintenance Operations$ Support
270,411 $ 48,993 319,404 $ $
$ 0 $ 0 $
--494,855 961,053 $ $ 466,198
Parts and Supplies
0 $ 140,564 $ $ 140,564
- ---0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
--· Grand Total 494,855 $ 1,101,617 $ $ 606,762
--- ---(11) Final PIR vs Pre AMP- Maintenance Savings:
(12) Final PIR vs Proposed- Maintenance Savings:
(13)
Parts and Supplies
Grand Total
$557,425
$ 7,532 $ 86,480 $. 78,948
4,681,125 4,841,613 $ 313,778
1,060,155 850,330 $ 83,675
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
5,741,280 $ 5,691,943 $ 397,453 $
(These numbers carried forward to the Executive Summary)
(These numbers carried forward to the Executive Summary)
•Data m PIR columns IS annua!tt:ed fur First PIR
f~ 11812£108
160,488
0
PIR Maintenance
(1)
Distribution Changes Last Saved: August 29, 2013
Losing Facility : Alexandria CSMPC PIR Type: Final PIR
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. Identify the date of the Postal Bulletin that contained DMM labeling list revisions.
DMM L001
X DMM L002
DMM L003
DMM L004
X DMM L005
DMM L006
X DMM L007
DMM L008
X DMM L009
' DMM L010
-·····-
X
X
X
X
X
DMM L011
DMM L201
DMM L601
DMM L602
DMM L603
DMM L604
DMM L605
DMM L606
DMM L607
DMM L801
(2)
Was the Service Standard Directory updated for the approved AMP?
(3) Yes
(4) Drop Shipments for Destination Entry Discounts
FAST Appointment Summary Report NASS
Facility Name Total No-Show Late Arrival Open
Month Losing I Gaining Facility Code Schd Count % Count % Count %
Aug '12 Losing Facility N/A NO DATA AVAILABLE N/A
Sep '12 Losing Facility N/A NO DATA AVAILABLE N/A
Aug '12 Gaining Facility 710 SHREVEPORT 506 112 22.13% 87 17.19% 0 0.00%
Sep '12 Gaining Facility 710 SHREVEPORT 508 182 35.83% 80 15.75% 0 0.00% -
Count
394
326
Closed %
77.87%
64.17% '--
(5JNotes: ________________________________________________________________________ -========================
Unschd Count
9
14
PIR Distribution Changes
Customer Service Issues
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC 5-Digit ZIP Code: _7_13_0_1 ______ _
Data Extraction Date:---------
3-Digit ZIP Code: 713
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
,~ PreAMP
Mon.-fri. ··:· .. ··, Si¢
8 G4
1$2 35
7 0
.· 147. .,.' 99 ...
Mon. -Fri.
5
124
18
147
2. How many collection boxes are currently designated for "local delivery"?
3. How many "local delivery" boxes were removed as a result of AMP?
4. Delivery Performance Report
PIR
_,
PreAMP Final PIR
QuarteriFY. P~J'Cl>nl Quarter!FY
%Carriers returning before 5 p.m Qj 2011 &$.9% Q1 2012
Ql! 2011 &-7% Q2 2012
Q3 2011 56.3% Q3 2012
Q4 2011 4M% Q4 2012
Last Saved: August 29, 2013
3-Digit ZIP Code: 714
... , •. · PreAMP / PIR Sat. Mon .. - Frt: .. ,_:··~ Sal. Mon.-Fri.
59 14 91 8
33 139 2G 138
5 0 Q ·. ~,. 0
97 ' 153 ' . 117 146
Percent
44.5°/o
61.1%
69.3%
75.4%
3-Digit ZIP Code:
.···. PreAMP PIR Sat. ·Mon.-Fri. sat. Mon. -Fri. Sat. 85 )0 0
25 0 0
0 Q ·_.· .··· 0 . ·.··~ 110 0 •.. · ... ,) 0 - 0 0
5. Retail Unit Inside Losing Facility {Window Service Times) 6. Business {Bulk) Mail Acceptance Hours
-"- ···- Proposed FinaiPIR Start End Start End
N!A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A NIA N/A
NIA N/A N/A N/A
N!A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
,.·.·.·.-·.··preAMP
Start
y ~:00
y .· .. 9:00
Monda
Tuesda
Wednesda
Thursda·
Frida
Saturda
y 9:00
y 9:00
y 9:0tl
y 0:00
End • 16:30
16:30
.16:30 .·· .. 16:30 ·.
.16:30
0:()0
7. Can customers obtain a local postmark in accordance with applicable policies in the Postal Operations Manual? Yes
8. Notes:
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
9. What postmark is printed on collection mail?
SHREVEPORT LA 710
DATE/TIME
Proposed Final PIR Start End Start End
9:00 16:30 900 16:30
9:00 16:30 9:00 1630
9:00 16:30 9:00 1630
9:00 16:30 9:00 16:30
9:00 16:30 9:00 16:30
0:00 0:00 000 0:00
!I>V1/9/~
3-Digit ZIP Code:
PreAMP PIR Mon~--Fri~ $at. Mon. -Fri. Sat.
0 .. ' ~ . 0
> 0 ' 0 .• 0 ... •.. 0
'- ~· .o:. 0 ' 0 0
P!R Customer Service Issues
Space Evaluation and Other Costs Last Saved August 29, 2013
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC Date: ________ _
1, Affected Facility
2, One-Time Costs
Enter any one-time costs: _._;::$.;.43"''"'35;.;9'-- $10,852 ($32,507) (These numbers shown below under One~ Time Costs section.)
3, Savings lnfonmation
Space Savings{$): __ .;.s:;.;o __ _ $0 $0
(These numbers carried forward to the Executive Summary)
4, Did you utilize the acquired space as planned? Explain,
5, Notes: $10,852 in one-time costs were equipment moves managed by local maintenance, Facilities did not spend any funds on this AMP,
Employee Relocation Costs
Mail Processing Equipment Relocation Costs (from MPE Inventory)
Facility Costs (from above)
Total One-Time Costs
Losing Facility: Alexandria CSMPC
Pre-AMP FY 2011
$31,920 ($15,800)
$43,359
$489,279 $26,972 {$462,307) PIR costs carried foJWard to Executive Summary)
Range of Report
(6)
Product
Gaining Facility: Shreveport P&DC
PIR: FY 2012 YTD
(9)
Final PIR
(10)
Final PIR Cost per 1,000 Images
PIR Space Evaluation and Other Costs
Top Related