0053E;:
&WVED
PRESIDING OFFICER'S
RULING NO. MC96-3/16
SEP
26 '4 38 PH'96
POSTAL mTE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001
Special
Services
Fees
and Classifications
Docket
No.
MC96-3
PRESIDING OFFICER'S
RULING GRANTING
IN PART OCA MOTION TO COMPEL
The Office
of
interrogatories
on August
these
interrogatories
1996,
the
most
reliability
Consumer
Advocate
i,ts
these
of
53(b)
motion
opposition
to
systems.
The OCA's
described
below.
Postal
Motion
3,
(c),
Service's
is
granted
L
and
ie),
filed
1996.l
On September
compel
seek
54(c)
Service
13,
part
to
6,
For
the
on the
statistical
in
_
The Postal
1996.3
information
and
objections
responses.2
on September
interrogatories
the
COCA) file:
and
on September
its
1996)
The Postal
1996.
22,
OCA filed
filed
part,
26,
OCA/USPS-48,
56(c)
Service
the
(September
cost
for
the
estimating
reasons
1
Objection
of the United States Postal Service
to Office
of the
Consumer Advocate Interrogatories
OCA/USPS-48, 53(b) and cc), 5,6(c),
and Partial
Objection
to OCA/USPS-54(b)
and (e) (Objection).
2 Office
of the Consumer
Advocate Motion to Compel Responses to
Interrogatories
OCA/USPS-48, 53(b) and (c), 54(b) and (e), and 56(c)
(Motion).
3 Opposition
of the United States Postal Service
to Office
of
the Consumer Advocate Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
OCA/USPS-48, 53(b) and ic), 54(b) and ie), and 56(c)
(Opposition).
.*
005364
I-.
Docket
NO. MC96-3
- 2 -
Interrogatory
the
Postal
Service
(Library
of
References
compare
using
a computer,
and more
argues
that
the
the
its
emphasizes
cost
Service
that
of
is
format
would
produce
a single,
its
own purposes,
are
difficult
to
The cost
alternative
descriptions
development
difficult
of
to
computerized
reading
the
not
the
manuals
versions
Postal
see a significant
text-matching
and comparing
are
alternative
program
them
lead
it
version
of
sets
the
the
does
not
manuals
file
for
components
2-3.
the
OCA seeks
textual
analyses.
in
these
hard
to
these
electronic
cost
in
the
data
that
primarily
to
of
electronic
to
that
advantage
2.
It
of
generated
which
Service's
at
requirements.
asserts
for
in
descriptions
at
a;;sure
versions
which
Objection
It
eye.
help
to
the
it
Ifaster
human
Motion
calculated
also
that
1995
hardcopy
computer
because
fcor FY
manuals
changes
filing
beyond
It
integrate.
electronic
filing
electronic
part,
any
summary
argues,
lead.
unified
in
would
responses.
are
evidence"
to
comparison
"reasonably
not
1994
on the
that
done,
it
admissible
hardcopy
simply
has
Therefore,
requested
discovery
it
cost
relying
Commission's
manuals
two
from
discovery
the
Components
the
overlooked
contends
these
that
analyses.
format
had not
satisfies
analyses
were
computer-assisted
or
of
changes
it
manuals
Descriptions
Summary
and
asks
The OCA a:sserts
versions
if
Service
the
format.
identify
than
development
by Segments
electronic
OCA/USPS-48
cost
and SSR-123,
Costs
testimony
manuals
certain
electronic
and
The Postal
these
in
the
Postal
preparing
,-
of
thoroughly
that
produce
SSR-1
and FY 1995)
could
or
to
USPS Development
1994
Interrogatory
OCA/LJSPS-48.
applying
manuals
copy
form.
It
is
a
compared
to
The claim
/-..
Docket
No. MC96-3
that
there
is
a significant
an electronic
format
Service
had not
analyses
done
library
and Postal
already
for
these
of
the
in
response
at
S-11;
the
value
not
clear,
compel
the
party's
di:scovery.
Appendix
having
A;
OCA-'r5-24,
e:Lectronic
and requiring
on the
cost
testimony,
OCA-T5-:L,
of
in
Postal
it:;
various
burden
to
manuals
between
years
APWLT-T5-1,
additional
motion
the
USPS-LR-SSR-123,
to
is
to
these
if
fiscal
manuals
OCA's
plausible
respective
Because
these
having
differences
responses
a significant
deny
be more
in
identified
(Patelunas)
OCA-T4-2.
versions
impose
and
Service
UPS-TS-3,
advantage
would
references,
See USPS-T-5
will
- 3 -
them
Postal
a response
to
would
Service,
I
this
interrogatory.
Interrogatories
variance
formula
as a term
at
actual
particular
Tr.
Service
sample
office
"provide
analogous
IOCS."
Motion
Service
is
estimates
what
reflect
I-
at
being
of
4.
It
to
by craft
actual
reliability
of
use
costs
of
with
the
Kth craft
to
for
with
the
sample
these
IOCS.
Service
(b)
of
to
this
IOCS estimates
in
reliability
what
of
way the
to
office,
estimates
a
each
compare
the
a
the
IOCS data."
IOCS data
each
asks
for
Postal
part
for
weighted
explain
weighted
the
to
includes
(b)
costs
in
evaluating
not
Part
these
asks
cost
"wishes
does
which
provided
using
it
R94-1
of
(c)
those
as a means
cost
way comparing
on the
that
values
refers
No.
quarter.
Part
to
asked
the
the
estimated
The OCA asserts
costs
Docket
associated
FY 1995."
but
actual
cost
"provide
for
costs
of
(CAG) and postal
to
interrogatory,
with
l/57
total
stratum
Postal
OCA/USPS-53
OCA/USPS-53(b)(c).
Postal
yield
nor
would
the
in
,/--.
Docket
No. MC96-3
- 4 -
The Postal
ground
that
"such
information
of
is
relevance
questions
where
less
labor
costs
particular
facility
than
all
offices
in
for
basis.
about
facilities
These
informed
the
means
pleadings
are
to
meaningful
IOCS-based
importance
of
of
the
IOCS wo,uld
Accordingly,
with
a more
reliability
provides
OCA's
warrant
detailed
the
facility-specific
I will
goal
on the
the
IOCS using
that
is
with
cost
is
the
any
also
OCA's
how it
a
level
reliability
these
its
to
data.
the
Motion
assess
If
specific,
making
the
Motion.
sufficiently
of
that
produce
the
plans
requested
make an
facility
supplement
before
is
a way to
OCA to
costs,
the
comparison
as to
question
a
specific
me to
Motion
the
than
there
evaluating
the
for
harm.
at
of
of
the
the
costs
costs
Service
allow
there
of
explanation
total
of
granting
allow
address
Postal
to
if
stated
ruling
an explanation
plausible,
.-
However,
I will
of
value
clear
total
on an office-by-office
such
general
estimate
before
interrogatories,
too
that
by IOCS, since
costs
avoiding
Service
asserts
be greater
costs
associating
the
make.
Service
is not
to actual
of
testimony
CAG, estimated
it
light
a meaningful
CAG will
Thus,
of
about
the
that
:shed any
The Po:;tal
generate
entire
it
develop
4.
The OCA and the
harm
OCA proposes
to
why the
demonstration
does
The Postal
the
office.
at 5.
judgment
nor
at
can
within
the
and
requisite
information
for
estimated
Opposition
disagree
the
on the
concerning
in a CAG are sampled
office
comparing
case,
level.
costs
that
statement
make the
approach
the
interrogatories
Opposition
this
at
costs
value
use
2.E."
sampled
not
particular
Rule
include
these
general
does
this
whether
comparison
actual
desired
OCA might
Special
opposes
a broad,
to
on how the
under
Service
the
and
sensitivity
a final
OCA
of
ruling.
the
,-
Docket
No. MC96-3
- 5 -
Interrogatories
Postal
Service
were
not
in
"certainty
the
for
not
along
to
confirm
the
sample.
its
certainty
is
sample
Part
IOCS sample,
FY 1995
it
(e)
strata
that
(e).
but
lower
asked
to
If
list
were
had no chance
of
the
that
'to the
Posr;al
the
for
any
for
offices
the
each
as:ks
had no chance
probability
there
(c)
advanced
IOCS sample.
if
Part
B) by FY 1995,
selection
asks
and
68 CAG C or
(CAGS A or
confirm,
with
that
FY 1993
strata"
selection
does
OCA/USPS-54(c)
of
Service
168 offit:es
thl2
offices
in
selection
FY 19'35
the
non-
fin the
FY 1995
sample.
The OCA states
that
had no chance
evaluate
the
know
number
the
Motion
at
part
(c)
offices
of
validity
5.
of
this
that
selection
adds
the
labor
costs
for
based
all
The Postal
part
moot
because
be added
offices
to
in
that
the
for
of
"no
the
that
offices
sample"
a CAG."
Ibid.
IOCS,
and that
frame,
it
necessary
FY 1995
these
is
not
strata
in
F‘f 1995
IOCS sample.
from
and
other
"the
a further
to
CAG strata
CAG costs
12
that
had
response
reflect
Opposition
response
to
incorporated
costs
Ibid.
only
Its
"are
renders
to
response
were
where
to
be sampled.
there
relevant."
a further
facilities
that
facilities
this
tc
a partia:L
a CAG stratum."
that
with
had no chance
methodology
and clearly
argues
by the
certainty
within
argues
solely
provided
the
costs
deals
stating
weighting
Service
also
sample
Service
to
offices
Cc) "moot
Service
the
interrogatory,
advanced
cost
sampled
facilities
of
the
being
The Postal
of
that
OCA/USPS-54
of
no chance
in
.,,I
that
labor
at
6.
response
to
The Postal
part
(e)
were
designed
include
costs
would
:Eor
be
to
all
I-.
Docket
NO. MC96-3
The
that
IOCS sample
there
frame.
the
are
tallies
in
that
the
frame
does
having
are
not
offices
extent
affects
the
adequacy
interrogatories
to
Interrogatory
the
FY 1995
IOCS sample
was not
used
to
frame
steps,
the
it
prepare
need
to
The extent
sample
time
to
very
relevant
the
the
outside
associated
:sample
tha
frame.
samplse
answers
to
argues
frame
these
arising
to
If
it
finance
in
its
such
it
was not
at
the
at
Postal
from
chooses,
response.
the
FY
in
the
sample
IOCS information
Opposition
steps
at
is
to
needed
correct
IOCS isample.
Service
7-8.
Such
retcognition
of
6.
Service
the
is
4;
FY 1995
changing
evaluating
thle
the
i~n:s objections
took
Postal
in
numbers,
IOCS information
Service
in
in
finance
FY 1996
FY 1996
Service
selecteld
of
Objection
a;sks how
wsere not
and reiterates
indicate
the
being
that
case,
Motion
Postal
of
that
Postal
which
interrogatory
CAGs A and B that
a list
present
interrogatory.
numbers
the
full
sample
by IOCS
def,ects
outside
This
(cl.
the
them.
defects
Accordingly,
,-
that
frame
is
frame,
numbers.
would
cure
distributed
outside
sample
reason
its
clearly
argues,
are
the
offices
frame
are
for
Service
whether
defects
costs
offices
in
asks
finance
determine
with
sample
had no chance
The OCA argues
to
the
and the
The Postal
revealing
which
It
frame.
to
alleged
numbers
each,
the
outside
e~xtent
required.
finance
IOCS sample.
CAG for
in
tso the
are
associated
OCA/USPS-56
many of
the
costs
defective
CAG that
a CAG that
of
are
arguably
a given
the
in
the
is
included
cure
Because
1996
frame
offices
The fact
sample
with
- 6 -
identifies
and
circumstances
reliability
directed
to
Postal
Service
the
answer
cures
cover
IGCS.
this
may use
dummy
P
Docket
No. MC96-3
- 7 -
RULING
The Office
1.
Responses
and
as
(e),
to
and
described
October
2.
supplement
Cc),
7,
the
Consumer
Interrogatories
56(c),
filed
in
body
the
Advocate
OCA/USPS-48,
September
of
this
6,
Motion
to
Compel
and
ic),
54(c)
53(b)
1996,
ruling.
is
granted
Responses
are
in
due
part,
on
1996.
The Office
its
30,
of
motion
to
in
the
as described
September
of
the
Consumer
compel
body
Advocate
responses
of
this
to
ruling,
Quick,
Officer
authorized
OCA/USPS53(b)
on or
1996.
H. Edward
Presiding
is
Jr.
before
to
and