There is another typo in the OIG’s solicitation: “This change would not impact existing retirement systems for current employees.” It should say “This change would not impact existing retirement systems for current CAREER employees.” Up to 20 per cent of the workforce is non-career and not in a retirement system. They would be affected when converted to career.
Don Cheney
Auburn WA
The USPS OIG has posted Questions and Answers on the retirement benefits study. The amendment is the USPS OIG’s second attempt at trying to correct mistakes made in the first Questions and Answers. The USPS OIG explained Amendment 2 as “The purpose of this amendment is to correct the answers to the questions posted in Amendment 1.”
A recap of the OIG’s initial solicitation from the Federal Business Opportunities website:
Under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Postal Service is obligated to provide wages and benefits comparable to those provided in the private sector. However, Postal Service management believes that the FERS system is more costly and does not compare to retirement benefits provided in the private sector. The private sector has the ability to adjust to market conditions through changes in plan design, portability, investment strategy and other factors that reflect “best practices” in compensation and benefit policies.
Postal Service management is proposing a new retirement system, which it feels would benefit both new employees coming on board and the Postal Service. Management believes that by shifting to a Postal Service-administered retirement system, the Postal Service can more fully reflect the private sector trend and incorporate private sector best practices. This change would not impact existing retirement systems for current employees.
Purpose
The purpose of this contract is to provide guidance for administering a retirement benefits program and a cost savings analysis by implementing industry best practices. Based on the research and analysis results, the Supplier will produce a report with findings and recommendations that will reveal ways in which the Postal Service could benefit from adopting the indentified best practices for its retirement benefits program. The USPS OIG intends to use the results in an audit report comparing the Postal Service’s retirement benefits program to private sector programs.
Here is the most recent amendment:
Amendment 02
Questions and Answers
1. The central purpose of the project is stated in the Introduction as “to compare the U.S. Postal Service’s (“Postal Service”) retirement benefits program to retirement benefits programs offered by major private sector companies.” However, in the Scope of Work, it is stated that the chosen supplier will be required to “identify and select at least ten (10) companies and agencies for review,” and that these should “include a mix of both public and private organizations.” Can you clarify whether the entities to be examined will include only private-sector companies and their plans, or are public-sector employers and their retirement plans also to be considered?
OIG Response: The OIG would like the companies selected to be both private and public sector companies that are comparable to the Postal Service.
2. Does the USPS have an estimated budget for this project? If so, how much is it?
OIG Response: The OIG’s budget for this solicitation is no more than $100,000.
3. We would like to confirm our understanding of the desired structure of the price proposal. We understand that bidders must submit “a detailed cost/price proposal that includes appropriate direct labor categories and rates.” However, we would like to confirm that our price proposal must also include an all-encompassing fixed fee for the entire project. Additionally, although invoices are required to contain total hours cost and direct travel costs for each task, we would like to confirm that the price proposal does not have to present a breakdown of the proposed overall fee by task.
OIG Response: Each price proposal shall include fully burdened rates for each labor category proposed. Supplier are not required to submit backup documentation or breakdown cost per task.
4. As the intent is to examine alternative retirement designs for the coverage of future new hires and the potential cost savings associated with them, will the USPS be able to provide us with information on the demographic characteristics of new hires in recent years and/or workforce projections that would be helpful in conducting our analyses of this issue?
OIG Response: The OIG will be able to provide the statistical data needed to assist in the analysis that will be conducted.
5. We understand that our price proposal must be submitted as a separate document from our technical proposal. May they be e-mailed as separate attachments to a single e-mail message, or must they be e-mailed separately as well?
OIG Response: Pricing and technical proposals may be submitted via emailed in one single email.
6. Please clarify the types of benefit programs included in the scope of work. Does it include defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution plans, retiree medical benefits, leave of absence benefits, any other benefit types?
OIG Response: The scope of work should include “defined benefit pension plans” and “defined contribution plans”.
7. Should the research be limited to organizations that have gone through cost savings efforts in the recent past?
OIG Response: No, we do not want the research to be strictly limited to organizations that have gone through recent cost savings effort. However, we would like all the organizations to showcase effective cost savings that can be beneficial to the Postal Service.
8. Has a Supplier provided similar retirement benefits services to Postal Service (OIG or Management) in the last 5 years? If so, who?
OIG Response: NO
9. Task 3 states “Develop a comprehensive list of questions and other tools or techniques as appropriate for use in the research and analysis of worker’s compensation programs.” Please clarify the task.
OIG Response: Typo, the contract should read retirements benefit program.
10. Section 4 states “The total contract value of this contract to include base and all options is $________.” In section 7, the period of performance does not make reference to option years. Please clarify the period of performance.
OIG Response: Typo, the contract only has a base period of performance. Contract will expire.
11. The Introduction states “The purpose of this contract is to compare the U.S. Postal Service’s (“Postal Service”) retirement benefits program to retirement benefits programs offered by major private sector companies”; however, public sector entities are listed as potential sources for research. Does the USPS OIG prefer its program to be benchmarked against public sector, private sector or a blend of both?
OIG Response: The OIG would prefer both private and public sector companies, however, we would like that the companies be comparable in size and structure.
Amendment 2
Type: Mod/Amendment
Posted Date:
September 13, 2013
Amend_2_-_Question_responses_9-12-13.doc (40.50 Kb)
Description: Revised QnA
One of the problems with government backed retirement systems is the lack of funds to support those who have retired at say 55 or so and the system will support these folks maybe into their 80’s. I believe this pre-funding has more to do with folks who retire within the next ten years, not thirty. If the P.O. finally collapses, that means that money has to support those are retired and soon to be retired on the CSRS plan. When one is promised 35-40% of base pay for 30 plus years will be a drain on the system. Yes, they did pay into the system, but lack of putting money in into other retirement vehicle while working is asking for trouble. If you a just buy stock in one company instead of say a mutual fund, you live and die by that one stock. You spread your risk by buying multiple company stocks, hence, a mutual fund. If you don’t trust the market, buy bonds, CDs, money market, etc. I am on the FERS system and like it much better because I have more control over my retirement. I have more options to move my money around in my 401k depending on how market fluctuates. Yes, I will have to wait for social security, but was planning to work anyway, cause I like to work. May work full-time, might work part time, my choice. Most of work 40 years or so, so planning for retirement should be really important. It doesn’t take alot at first then adding more as one gets older. One would be suprised how much you get accumulate over the that span. Scary part is, is that a lot of folks let someone else determine their financial outcome. Take control. It’s your money and you worked for it. If don’t know, do some research. Plenty of free info on the net. Don’t go whistlin’ past the graveyard………..
Watch for that APWUseless Downahole stooge Cliff Goofy and his lackeys,if re-elected,giveaway their retirement and health plans in their next contract to USPS mismanagement to run into the ground along with the postal service.
I so agree with Mongo
Somebody will have to stay to take down the flag, put up the closed sign.
Funny as hell, all this talk about “future postal employees” retirement.
Hell, in ten years max, the whole show will be gone anyway.
Leaving FERS for a privatized 401k will be a disaster for the majority of people. In my shop, we have people who constantly move their money in and out of the stock funds to the “G” fund. These people buy high/sell low and contribute only about 5% of their pay. CSRS takes care of people who have no ideal how to invest with a good life time pension. FERS at least has a 401k, partial pension, and social security. With only a privatized 401k people better get used to working until they reach social security age. That’s all Suckas.
Capt Jack’s got it right. First everyone got a defined benefit pension, the good old CSRS system. Then the genius bar in Congress got the bright idea around 1984 to compel all future USPS employees into FERS and Social Security to shore it up, after they kept raiding its money for spending elsewhere in the budget. (Remember the promise they were going to put this money in a lockbox, to be untouched?) The pitch was that FERS is a “three legged stool”: the 1% per year pension, matching money in your Thrift Savings Acct and Social Security. You had to do max out your Thrift Savings if you wanted to come close to a CSRS pension. As Capt Jack noted, some were foolish enough to voluntarily “opt out” of CSRS and go into FERS, probably attracted by the “free” matching money and projections of big, unrealistic returns in their Thrift Savings Accts, not realizing they were taking on all the investment risk.
Now, Congress and Donahoe are saying FERS is too generous and want to dump the FERS 1% pension, and just go with a 401K. After all, this is one of the “best practices” in the private sector for compensation and benefits. That’s what the OIG report is all about – arbitrarily selecting 10 private sector companies, seeing how little they offer their employees then the report conclusion will be USPS benefits are too generous compared to what the private sector is getting away with. It’s reverse engineering – cook up a study and its results to justify what you wanted to do all along. Figures don’t lie, liars figure. The companies they select to study, and the size of the sample will skew the results and conclusions. Ladies and gentleman, it’s a race to the bottom – how low can you go.
Their argument that it will be a benefit to new employees has to do with “portability”. They figure many of the new, non-career, low wage employees they got to hire in the new contracts will not stick around for a full Postal career and the quit rates will be higher. That way, they can take their 401K with them to their next job. What a great benefit! This is what they mean when they use the buzz words innovative, flexibility and best practices. Best for whom?
“Postal Service management is proposing a new retirement system, which it feels would benefit both new employees coming on board and the Postal Service.”
Sounds like the same BS congress pushed about FERS. Some were dumb enough to buy into that lie and switch from CSRS. When the PO says they are “here to help you” you are about to be screwed.
“The amendment is the USPS OIG’s second
attempt at trying to correct mistakes made in the first Questions and
Answers”
Ya can’t make this shit up.
What a clown show.
It’s fine, remove every one from Fed to Private system. No body like to work for the crap benefit.
Who cares?
In response to Northlander, congress and their staff do currently pay the same amount for their health insurance as all other Federal Employees do, so it is not free. They do, however, have access to on site medical care that is provided at no cost. And congresspersons and senators are under the same retirement plans as are other, either CSRS or FERS, depending on when elected. They also have to meet the same age and service requirement. CSRS is the same as all others, but they did sweeten the FERS percentage to 1.7%. This is not an endorsement of them as I believe their pay and benefits should be reduced.
Will Postal Employees not have the same benefits as other government employees? If so why not.
Congress staff got a 10% pay raise we got 1.2%, Congress gets free Health Insurance we pay our share, Congress can work 6 years and get retirement benefits[$36,000],we have to work 40 years. Lets not talk about the Armed Forces benefits.Seems like Issa has a bone to pick with the U.S.P.S. , yet we are the only one’s in government who pay our own way with no tax dollars.
I have a unique idea. Why don’t you just continue to pick through the garbage and try to find junk mail you think was trashed by the carriers and try to fire them. Your previous attempts reminded me of the Keystone Cops. How much back-pay do you think that cost the USPS? I’ve been doing this job far longer than you’ve been spying on me. You don’t even know what you’re looking for. Assholes!