GovernmentExecutive.com

New rules allowing federal agencies to purchase printing services directly from private firms will be issued "in the near future," an Office of Management and Budget spokesman said Friday. In the meantime, agencies still must go through the Government Printing Office for most jobs.

Nearly a year ago, OMB Director Mitch Daniels announced that agencies would soon be freed from the printing office's "monopoly," which it has enjoyed for a century under federal law. Daniels said in a May 3, 2002 memorandum that Congress cannot force executive branch agencies to use the printing office, citing a 1996 Justice Department opinion. He instructed the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council to rewrite procurement rules governing the purchase of printing.

The council, which oversees procurement rules, issued proposed rules in November. Government Printing Office officials and some lawmakers spent the summer before launching a counteroffensive to Daniels' plan, arguing that the executive branch cannot simply ignore a federal law. Printing office proponents also said that letting agencies go their own way on printing would be expensive because they would no longer reap the savings of centralized purchasing.

But Daniels argued that competition would promote savings and better service from the printing office, which could still compete for agencies' work under the plan.

Since the council issued its proposed rules in November, about 1,500 people and groups commented. Most said they were opposed to the changes. Hundreds submitted a form letter that said the changes would make it harder for libraries across the country to get copies of government documents. The Government Printing Office collects documents and forwards them to hundreds of libraries through the Federal Depository Library Program. Agencies would be less likely to provide documents to the printing office if they contracted directly for printing services, the form letter said.

Federal agency representatives submitted mixed views on the rules. While some agencies supported the change, the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services, which represents printing specialists across the executive branch, announced its opposition to OMB's plan. "By enacting OMB's proposal, the government will end up spending more on printing than it currently does," the council said. "The public will have far less access to documents they are entitled to, competition will actually be restricted and any semblance of consistency in presentation of information, formats, styles, cost efficiencies, will be lost."

The Government Printing Office got a new leader at the beginning of the year. New Public Printer Bruce James said in a recent interview that Daniels' plan has kick-started a push for more efficiency at the printing office. James also echoed the concerns of the interagency council, however.

OMB's plan has also run into trouble at the General Accounting Office. The office issued an opinion in December ruling that the Bureau of Land Management could not pay a bill to Kinko's because the bureau should have gone through the printing office for a copying job. The bureau would have saved nearly $14,000 by going through the printing office, a later bureau review of the copying job found.

OMB spokesman Trent Duffy said Friday that officials are considering the comments submitted on the proposed rule. "There hasn't been any delay," he said.

COMMENTS

• This change allows an executive branch employee responsible for printing to use the GPO or a private printer based on cost and performance criteria—common business sense. It will not increase printing costs as the employees will select a GPO printer, if it is the lowest cost. It does not affect the distribution of material to the library system, as they will be part of the publication distribution. However, if one looks at what is available in the libraries the obvious question is whether anyone ever accesses parts of it. You can find shipping documents associated with the distribution of publications—no public value. More importantly, you can find technical publications for weapons systems. I cannot imagine why such material would be made available to terrorists or foreign governments, and must believe that it slipped through a system that is more focused on dissemination that what is being disseminated and why. It is time to give those responsible for publications the ability to control their printing and distribution. GovExec.com reader Posted April 23, 2003 8:52 PM
• After a cursory review of comments pro and con for the proposed OMB change to printing acquisition, I could not help but note they fall into 3 categories. These are: (1) comments fielded from individuals who have specific experience that relates to use of government printing and have a vested interest in improving government processes. My comments are in this group as a manager of Army technical publications for operation and maintenance of the Bradley vehicle system (2) Comments from people who have direct experience regarding printing and or print distribution and (3) a form letter type of comment from various libraries and educational email addresses that were identical in form and clearly had NOT read the proposed change. The latter group was fearful they might be shortchanged from some free data they could not log into their computers. Why would any library want weapons system data and why in the world does the government continue to authorize GPO to distribute same? We have enough problems with terrorism now, without using government dollars to support it. Additionally, with each dollar spent disseminating information to those who have no vested interest in same, we shortchange our soldiers in the field as fewer and fewer funds are available to update major weapons system data, provide timely delivery and spare parts. Each and every one of those librarians and educational email submissions did our soldiers in uniform a grave disservice. We will never know how much out of date data or undelivered data could have saved just one life in Iraq. We do know that many people submitted a recommended rejection of an acquisition change because someone told them to do it, not because they read the material and were capable of an intelligent response. Gayle L. Locke Posted April 22, 2003 1:47 PM
• Have had experience in being forced to deal with the GPO. I agree that agencies should use private printers but also government should get rid of the GPO. Here is another example of the government going a new route but not getting rid of the old costs. Similar to homeland security! Tax Payer Posted April 22, 2003 7:06 AM