The U.S. Postal Service’s current fleet of more than 219,000 vehicles includes approximately 146,000 delivery vehicles, most of which are long-life vehicles (LLVs). The first LLVs were produced in 1987, and they average about 10 miles per gallon. The vehicles are right-hand drive to accommodate drivers delivering numerous mailpieces to curbside mailboxes. These iconic right-hand drive delivery trucks are nearing the end of a 24-year life cycle and are costly to maintain.
In a recent audit, we noted that it cost the Postal Service about $524 million to fix the LLVs in fiscal year 2009. More than 40,000 trucks required more than $3,500 each in maintenance and another 19,000 of these required an average of $5,600 in repairs consecutively in 2008 and 2009. At this rate, for the high maintenance segment of the fleet, repairs in the next eight years will cost $342 million more than it would to buy new trucks.
Considering the growing costs of maintaining this unique but aging fleet, what are your thoughts on a cost-effective, but practical replacement delivery vehicle fleet?
To read the full report go to http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/DA-AR-10-005.pdf.
The Office of Audit Engineering & Facilities team is hosting this topic.
40 Comments
Leave a Reply
why do we need to bring our own trucks the local service center for MINOR repairs. EX. fix wiper blades,fix a fuse, add windshield wash,anti-freeze,etc. When, if we had our uwn supply at each station, we,a manager, or someone, could do the repair. The cost would be NOTHING.WE can do it, and then ther carrier (hopefully)will know that the job was done RIGHT in the first palce.WE are throwing away money,letting the local service,and/or gas station do the repair.Yes, keep them for the major jobs,but the little ones we can do, and save big bucks, in the mean time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well George, we could buy the bulbs in packs of 10 for 60 cents each, but we couldn’t save any money. Why! YOU MIGHT STEAL THEM! So, you will have to do an off-catalog E-Buy, that will be approve 1st by somebody hundreds of miles away. They might approve it. But mor likely than not, one of the 4 people that have to approve it will shoot it down because you used the wrong code #. So you redo it as instructed. One of the other approvers doesn’t like that code#. So you do it again. The 1st guy refuses it because you used the “wrong” code#. So even if you do get them, have you filed an approved job safety analysis with step by step procedures for this task? I’m telling you now so when some guy with a cilpboard comes through a year from now you won’t hear what a bad employee you were.
Then, do you already have a spreadsheet to track the use of these $.60 bulbs. If one truck uses more bulbs than the other did you investigate how this could have possibly happened?
Anyway a year from now, somebody with a clipboard will come through and confiscate your bulbs as unauthorised. Six months later a different guy with a clipboard will come through and demand to count them. He won’t believe your “story” about somebody confiscating them. Make you all kinds of gung-ho to help this place save money doesn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
George, your idea and and willingness to take personal responsibility for your vehicle is commendable. The reality, however, is that USPS negotiated away the authority to hold letter carriers to this level of responsibility. Under their CBA and Postal policy, they cannot even be required to check the oil on their vehicles, let alone add a quart or replace a wiper blade! All postal vehicle operators are required to perform a safety check of their vehicles before driving, but it is primarily a visual inspection. The only action required of the driver is to report defects to management. And if a carrier or manager DOES perform some minor repair, they are opening themselves up for a possible grievance over crossing craft.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
OK, I’ve given it some thought. You could probably do an on catalog E-Buy for a single light bulb, and it will probably come in in a week. Of course that means that you will have to do without your vehicle for that week. Or drive a week without functioning turn signals. Not an easy choice. But it makes the bulb counters happy, and how can you put a price on that.
Plan “B” would involve doing an E-Buy for 10 bulbs before you need them, Of course, then you would have to do it as a declining balance, and go in as you use each bulb. and “receive” them one at a time using the vehicle number. Of course, at the end of the fiscal year, you would probably have to return the unused bulbe to the vendor for a refund, Then order 10 more for the next fiscal year.
I’m waiting for someone to jump in and say “you don’t have to do all that for items less than $1. But I guarantee you. Some one just slightly above you will insist you do. Why? Because it “makes them feel better.”
How do you put a price on that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bertie, I myself have often been humbled by the mighty Postal bureaucracy, but in this instance it is not as bad as you say. Minor repairs like wiper blade and lamp replacement, anything up to $250, can be paid for with the vehicle’s Voyager card, at the discretion of the Postmaster or Manager where the vehicle is domiciled. The Voyager program requires no additional requisitions or approvals, though I suppose a DM or Area VP could issue local restrictions. Policy is that the VMF must be consulted for repairs over $250. Voyager cannot be used to purchase parts only, they must be in conjunction with a service or repair. (Oil, washer fluid, PS fluid, and other lubricants are OK though) But, parts like tires, starters, bulbs, flashers, etc. CAN be ordered through the VMF and kept on hand at post offices for installation by local shops. Unfortunately FTR carriers cannot add oil, change light bulbs, etc. without violating current collective bargaining agreements. At some offices, VOMAs, willing custodians, PTF carriers, or even supervisors or PMs do these minor repairs, though the latter risk generating a grievance from MV craft. I’d love to see that changed during the contract negotiations this fall. Both NALC and APWU would have to agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote from VMF Manager;
“though I suppose a DM or Area VP could issue local restrictions.”
That’s the point I’m trying to make. But it’s not a DM or VP that decides, it’s someone much lower. They set up their own procedures. And if you don’t do it their way, you don’t get what you need.
At one point, we were not even allowed to carry bulbs in our service truck. Drive out, see what you need, then come back and get the part. Forty mile round trip? “So what, you’re on the clock, Do what I say.”
I should point out that it was a modular trailer bulb, that cost $7 but would fit nothing except our trucks.
And lets be honest here. A big part of the problem is the level of scrutiny our people can expect from the Inspection sevice, and now the OIG. I personally have never had to deal with that. But it sure changes the people that did! They come through, ask some questions, then things start to go weird.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good morning,
I understand the LLV’s are having problems with the rear tail lamp plug (vehicle side) and the only fix has been to replace the complete harness. I offer the correct Packard plug (vehicle side) with 6” of 16 gauge wire. This eliminates the need to replace the complete wiring harness.
I have already provided a few to a Harrisburg VMF with great results.
Can anyone help me get the word out to other VMF’s to save a ton of money.
Email me at don@levineautoparts.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Before we go making another 500,00 or so more LLV’S(which I personally believe to be substandard to begin with), has anyone thought about a nationwide asking for improvements to the vehicle. I can think of a few. the problem is, the person with the power to give the go to have more of the present ones made has probably never been inside one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey Guy, remember,if your LLV’S are like the ones we have, we have 300 lbs of concrete block in the rear for that “added traction” in winter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Unfortunately, a 60 cent light bulb which a carrier could buy on his own will cost the government at least $6.00 each do to the fact they have to be made to government specks and can not be just purchased off the shelf. I used to take a minimum of 20 to 30 percent out of every potential government contract I auditted. Then the contracting officer would add back in at least half of what I had taken out if not all of it. Even after my 20 percent was taken out, everything was still way over priced.
Would they buy bulbs in quantities of 100 and keep them on hand and if not used by the end of the fiscal year, change out all those that had not recently been changed out and were going to go bad within the next couple of months, no. That makes too much sense.
Same way just paying less for the retirement plans makes more sense than arguing with congress about it until you are once again even and can pay the right amount into the retirement plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have a technology that could give the LLVs new life. We have attempted to get in touch with our postal center, the postmaster general as well as our senator to discuss this option – but have been referred to a variety of people that tell us it is the wrong avenue. It is low cost – reuses equipment and increases the fuel efficiency by over 30%. We are more than serious regarding this concept and would willingly & openly discuss it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK Mr. Ringler, 30% increase in efficiency.
I am intrigued. What do you got?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe the this Service should explore ways to reduce maintenance costs on aging LLV’s. How about contracting out the repairs has this option been explored?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote from Big Monster Trucks;
“How about contracting out the repairs has this option been explored?”
Explored is putting it mildly!
We have been using contractors extensively because with a reduced starting salary, we could not hire mechs for many years. In the time it would take to find 2 new mechs, you would lose 5. Often they were NOT retiring, but going to better jobs. Any time the job market changed, and mechs were looking to work for us, we’d have a “hiring freeze”.
As for the contractors, many are good, many are so-so, and some defy explanation. Even the best contractors are reluctant to do work that doesn’t pay well. So it falls back on the VMF. If you don’t have a VMF to check, it probably won’t get done. So something minor like a hard to reach coolant hose causes an engine failure. Contractor now replaces the hose, when he replaces the engine.
Are we saving money yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am dissapointed in the way the Delivery Vehicle Replacement Strategy audit was recently reported on the main web page. It still implies that VMFs and District management was responsible for excessive spending on vehicle repairs, when it has repeatedly been shown that Area and HQ personnel are the people who REQUIRED VMFs to make these repairs. The new VMB does make the Area VMPA more accountable than in the past, as he now has to explicitly sign and overrule local recommendations for disposal, whereas in the past it would just be sent back to the VMF with an email or phone call directing us to fix the vehicle instead.
Also, while I fully agree that USPS would be better off in many cases replacing vehicles rather than repairing, I have questions on the figures reported. 19257 vehicles times an average cost of $5600 plus, lets round it up to %5700, equals about $110 million. How then does that jump to the $342 million your home page article states the USPS could have saved by buying new vehicles?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The intent of the report was not to imply VMFs and District management was responsible for excess spending. The policy at that time only required the signature of the VMF manager and District Mangager/representitive. We understand,although unwritten at the time, Hqs was responsible for approving the disposal of a vehicle.
The monetary calculations were provided in the report along with the assumption, which included fuel consumption, increases in Maintenance costs…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Technology could give the LLVs new life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well the unions should take some concessions and peel back some of the fat surrounding the postal service. They need to figure out a way to save on costly Tires and repairs!! I would hate to lose the US post office to this decline
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The PO gets great value out of small owner operators seems like the they would want to expand on their small business success by turning over the 219,000 vehicles to those who bring great value, the star route contractors. What I have heard is they want all contractors to be big, the ones who bring little value to the P O. Why do away with the independants, they say do to much admin. I am not sure they understand value in D C
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The llv has served it’s purpose. Not perfect but good for what it was designed for. A twenty plus year old vehicle used like these are. Will definitely need repair. Cheaper to repair than new vehicles. Purchased. And think of the nightmare of trying to work on new technology in the. Under equipped. Vmfs of the postal service
Like or Dislike:
0 
0