1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |USPS Joins the Drone Delivery Domain with RFI for Services

USPS Joins the Drone Delivery Domain with RFI for Services

Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.03.19

The United States Postal Service (USPS) announced last week that it will explore the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems or “drones” to deliver mail and to collect data. Through a Request for Information (RFI) posted on FedBizOps, USPS is seeking input from interested drone operators and developers to inform a future solicitation for drone delivery and data collection services.

Mail delivery operations will include:

  • Long Driveway Delivery: the drone launches from a USPS vehicle, makes a delivery, and returns to the vehicle while carrier continues their route.
  • Remote/Difficult Delivery Points: rugged terrain, small islands, and other areas that are difficult to reach by road.
  • Ride-Sharing Model: customers use an application to access USPS drone fleet for their own business to customer delivery.
  • Infrastructure as a Service: drone service providers leverage USPS drone resources, including vehicles, launching, charging, and data for their own applications, such as farm or power line inspections.

Data collection operations will include mapping for use in future autonomous vehicle initiatives and USPS facility and land management objectives. All flights will be subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules for Public Aircraft Operations. 

Unsurprisingly, USPS is especially interested in delivery operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). This capability will be a critical piece of mail delivery flights. The emphasis on BVLOS is consistent with FAA’s recent focus on approving more complex operations. FAA approval of BVLOS operations spiked in the last few months, with many approvals being granted under the UAS Integration Pilot Program (UAS IPP). We discussed some of the recent developments in BVLOS approvals in an earlier client alert, which can be found here.

The USPS program is likely to share many similarities with the UAS IPP. For example, the RFI’s “crawl, walk, run” approach to testing and validation for aircraft and complex operations mirrors the FAA’s philosophy under the UAS IPP. The similarities to the UAS IPP do not extend to the procurement process. Neither the FAA nor the USPS is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and each agency operates under its own unique set of procurement rules. Companies that applied to the UAS IPP and intend to respond to this RFI should be aware of the differences between the agencies’ contracting processes.

The RFI can be found here. Responses are due by November 4, 2019.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....

View All Insights