Method
Four research notes, one evidence standard
The Statement of Work as amended is specific: propose up to six relevant domestic entities with a written rationale and then benchmark against them, benchmark against domestic competitors, review the UX of revenue-generating tasks, and identify revenue opportunities that survive the Postal Service's legal reality. Our method treats each note as a queryable evidence base first and prose second.
T1a · SOW 3.a
Comparison set: up to six relevant domestic entities, with rationale
A proposed set of no more than six domestic entities, public or private, comparable in some way to the Postal Service, each with a brief written rationale for inclusion, delivered in Microsoft Word. Unique visitors is one relevance factor; the SOW invites others, and the rationale is where the analytical work shows.
See the working previewT1b · SOW 3.a
Research note: USPS digital channels vs. relevant domestic entities
How USPS digital channels compare to the offerings of the entities agreed in Task 1a: available platforms including primary sites, apps, and other channels, and the digital revenue strategies comparators use. Revenue-stream types, not amounts. Max 5 single-spaced pages plus attachments.
See the working previewT2 · SOW 3.b
Research note: USPS digital channels vs. domestic competitors
Digital offerings from Amazon, UPS, FedEx, and other domestic parcel operators; how competitors monetize their websites; comparison of digital revenue-stream types (not amounts). Max 5 single-spaced pages plus attachments.
See the working previewT3 · SOW 3.c
Research note: UX of revenue-generating tasks on USPS digital channels
Broad heuristic review (not usability testing, not 508 review) of purchasing postage, stamps, and merchandise on usps.com and the USPS Mobile App; barriers and friction that suppress completion. Capped at 20 percent of the overall budget by the SOW.
See the working previewEvidence standard
How the benchmark holds up under audit
Every cell carries a source
Each entry in the benchmark matrices records what the capability is, the operator's own documentation for it, and the date we captured it. When the OIG's white paper cites a comparison, the underlying evidence is one click deep, not reconstructed from memory.
Common vs. emerging, explicitly
The SOW asks for common digital offerings plus non-common offerings that signal emerging trends. The matrix encodes provision status per operator, so 'common' is a computed fact (how many of the set offer it), not an impression.
Revenue mechanics rather than amounts
Tasks 1 and 2 compare the ways digital channels generate revenue, not the amounts. We catalog monetization mechanics (transaction fees, subscriptions, advertising, commissions, government service fees) per operator and map which mechanics USPS does and does not use.
Fresh capture, re-verified at fieldwork
Digital channels change quarterly. Everything on this portal was captured in August 2026 from operator sites, annual reports, and UPU research; under the engagement each fact is re-verified at fieldwork time.
Task 3 method
A heuristic review by people who build checkout flows
The SOW rules out usability testing and 508 assessment. What remains is expert review, and expert review is only as good as the experts' scar tissue. HSG ships digital products; we review the purchase path the way an operator would.
Task walkthroughs
We complete each revenue-generating task end to end (buy stamps, print a Click-N-Ship label, file a change of address, renew a PO Box, enroll in Informed Delivery) on desktop web, mobile web, and the USPS Mobile App, recording each step, decision point, and failure mode.
Heuristic scoring
Findings are scored against established heuristics (Nielsen's ten, plus e-commerce checkout benchmarks from published Baymard Institute research) with severity and revenue exposure ratings, which is exactly the 'broad, heuristic review' the SOW specifies in place of usability testing.
Comparative friction
The same tasks are completed on competitor channels, so every USPS friction point is stated with a concrete contrast: the number of steps, fields, and identity gates a customer faces here versus there.
Budget discipline
Planned allocation against the published ceiling
The SOW publishes a $100,000 not-to-exceed price and caps Task 3 at 20 percent of the overall budget. Our plan holds Task 3 at 18 percent and weights the evidence-heavy benchmarks.
Method summary prepared for RFI 6HQOIG-26-A-0008. Allocation percentages are planning figures against the SOW’s published not-to-exceed ceiling; firm pricing would be provided at the RFP stage.