Which agency won the bid for USPS (post office)?

Recently I was advised by my current agency that they lost the USPS client and were in a bidding war. Does anyone know which agency landed the USPS client? I'm in 14218 and would like to keep conducting more USPS audits.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

Already a member? Log In.

Welcome. Have you considered reading any of the current threads? There are a few that address this.
We can't tell you who has the contract, but if you search for threads regarding the client, you'll find out with whom to register.
Check out this thread [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Look for the post where A SCHEDULER says you can email them to ask them. They emailed me the name of the company.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2015 08:27PM by Nataliekorn.
Nataliekorn, I would not encourage these back-handed tactics. You are still breaking your ICA if you link MSC and client name together. It does not matter if it is n this forum, by PM, by e-mail or smoke signal. It is still a violation of your ICA.
@Nataliekorn wrote:

Check out this thread [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Look for the post where someone says you can email them to ask them. They emailed me the name of the company.

Jeez...how about telling the lazy ones who just want it handed to them on a friggin' silver platter to get off their donkeys. Ever hear of "due diligence"?
It was a scheduler who offered to give the name of the MSC in the thread I linked to. I didn't think there was anything wrong since there weren't any ICA Nazis saying it was a violation in that thread and that's usually the first thing people will point out. I don't believe I'm violating my ICA since I'm not giving out the information. Don't bite my head off, geez.
But you are perpetuating bad behavior and encouraging the breaking of the ICAs by doing so. It is a very simple FORUM rule.
Could someone explain to me how e-mailing Summit Scheduling about post office shops is breaking their ICA or how it is a back-handed tactic, when Summit Scheduling is a scheduling company? Also Summit Scheduling instructed shoppers to e-mail them.

@Sybil2 wrote:

Nataliekorn, I would not encourage these back-handed tactics. You are still breaking your ICA if you link MSC and client name together. It does not matter if it is n this forum, by PM, by e-mail or smoke signal. It is still a violation of your ICA.
It is not. MSCs and schedulers operate under different contracts and different rules. Just like it is well within a scheduler's own contract to post a job notice. While I can see how the wording on Natalie's post was confusing, the link cleared it up.

Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
I truly don't understand what you are objecting to. The poster provided a link to an existing message. The message was from a scheduler. Nothing in the scheduler's message violated a forum rule or encouraged breaking an ICA. If you take issue with the message from the scheduler, report it and ask to have it deleted. is that it? Are you objecting to the scheduler having suggested that people contact them for additional information? If that is it, how does that encourage breaking an ICA? What is the bad behavior? Reading messages and providing links to existing messages which do not IMHO break any rules?
@Sybil2 wrote:

But you are perpetuating bad behavior and encouraging the breaking of the ICAs by doing so. It is a very simple FORUM rule.

Shopping Southeast Pennsylvania, Delaware above the canal, and southwestern NJ since 2008
And indeed the forum rule is, "Do not reveal the clients of mystery shopping companies." This obviously does not apply to the Job Board where schedulers post according to the agreements they have with the MSC. And I feel sure that once the jobs post, the scheduler will be advertising the client with links to the company on the job board. The sheer massiveness of this endeavor is going to require the schedulers and company to really hustle if they are going to get even the first month's shops covered quickly. So if the scheduler can privately tell shoppers what we as shoppers are not allowed to share, more power to them!
@myst4au wrote:

I truly don't understand what you are objecting to. The poster provided a link to an existing message. The message was from a scheduler. Nothing in the scheduler's message violated a forum rule or encouraged breaking an ICA. If you take issue with the message from the scheduler, report it and ask to have it deleted. is that it? Are you objecting to the scheduler having suggested that people contact them for additional information? If that is it, how does that encourage breaking an ICA? What is the bad behavior? Reading messages and providing links to existing messages which do not IMHO break any rules?
@Sybil2 wrote:

But you are perpetuating bad behavior and encouraging the breaking of the ICAs by doing so. It is a very simple FORUM rule.


Thank you! I don't get what the problem is. Oh well.
@Nataliekorn wrote:

Thank you! I don't get what the problem is. Oh well.

There's no problem Natalie. Ignore the whining.
Sybil, you are missing the point. Natalie is not a scheduler. Natalie provided a link to a post by a scheduler who will provide shoppers the requested information, nothing more, nothing less. As it is the scheduler, not Natalie, who is providing the MSC name, no violations of contracts or forum policy.

Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
OK, I do not see any link. I was basing my posts on what I was reading in this thread and her posts as is were giving me the impression of back dooring. I guess the links do not show up on cell phones.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login