GPO Enjoys Long-Standing Partnership with Print Industry

The procurement of commercially obtainable federal printing by GPO on behalf of federal agencies has been a staple of our operations since the Second World War. Today, more than 78 percent of GPO’s printing revenue (exclusive of passport work) is from agencies for work procured by GPO from the private sector printing industry. GPO has a long-standing partnership with America’s printing industry to provide for the government’s printing needs.

GPO competitively buys products and services from thousands of private sector firms nationwide in one of the government’s most successful procurement programs, assuring the most cost-effective use of the taxpayers’ printing dollar. More than 80 percent of the printing contracts GPO awards go to small businesses, supporting this vital sector of America’s economy.

This program makes good economic sense. As Mr. Gindlesperger notes, past studies have shown that the work GPO procures from the private sector is less expensive than work performed in federal agency plants. Utilization of GPO’s services by federal agencies also ensures that government publications and information products will be made available for dissemination to the public, and helps ensure the enforcement of laws and policies concerning recycled paper, vegetable oil-based inks, and other requirements.

GPO traditionally has supported maximizing the procurement of commercially procurable printing to the greatest extent possible, but we also traditionally have recognized the need of agencies to have some level of print production capability of their own. Some federal printing is specifically exempted by law from the requirement to use GPO, such as printing for the national security agencies. There is also some printing that is performed legitimately in agencies—limited, quick turnaround printing to support internal agency administrative operations—as authorized by waivers for internal plants issued in past years by the Joint Committee on Printing.

The problem comes when printing capabilities established for these purposes are expanded to produce printing needs that can and should be more cost-effectively performed through GPO’s procurement program. We agree with Mr. Gindlesperger that this problem is widespread, particularly as printing and duplicating technologies, which now include digital technologies, have emerged to provide agencies with expanded production capabilities.

Over the years we have commented on this issue in testimony before Congress. Our view is that agencies should be equipped only with the capacity necessary to fulfill either their own limited administrative needs. Otherwise, unless there are extraordinary cases in which GPO is unable to fulfill a printing requirement or procure it from the private sector, the work should be sent to GPO.

Among the difficulties in enforcing this policy has been the absence of reliable data to measure how much and where the work that should be coming to GPO is actually being performed. Mr. Gindlesperger suggests that there may be $30 billion to $90 billion in current costs associated with non-GPO federal printing, but in our long association with this problem we’re not aware of costs anywhere near this magnitude for the annual value of authorized federal printing.

A more supportable estimate is contained in the object class analysis for the fiscal year 2009 federal budget published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This analysis indicates that printing and reproduction (object class 2400) for the federal government is estimated at $2.524 billion for FY 2009. Adjusting for possible double-counting of reimbursable obligations in these numbers (where GPO’s printing procurement program is concerned), it appears that GPO sees approximately half of all federal printing being performed today, an allocation that is roughly consistent with previous analyses of these numbers.