[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]
Readers Exchange
World Map Display
at
Central Washington University Library
Submitted by Thomas Y. Yeh
Head, Documents, Maps and Microforms
On December 20, 1995, CWU Library received six sheets of D.M.A. World Maps, series 1150, 3rd ed., 1995, scale: 1:14,000,000. Our Map Technician, Brian Bach, initiated the idea of mounting the six maps together on a wall for display. Thomas Y. Yeh, Head of Documents, then approached the Friends of the Central Washington University Library, applied for and received a $400 grant to purchase a 7抶9� metal frame, and also secured a matching grant from the Dean of Library and Media Services to purchase a 7抶9� sheet of plexiglass for the purpose of framing the 6-sheet D.M.A. depository map, which was assembled by the Documents Department. This beautiful map is now mounted on the first floor lobby wall adjacent to the library抯 main entry as a permanent display. It attracts a lot of patron attention and has become one of the library抯 attractions.
[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]
Public Printer Comments on Management Audit of GPO
April 29, 1998
Ms. Joyce C. Doria
Vice President
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102-3838
Dear Ms. Doria:
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review and comment on the draft final report, Management Audit of the Government Printing Office (April 15, 1998).
Report Affirms Continued Role for GPO. House Report 105-254, accompanying H.R. 2209, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998, directed the General Accounting Office (GAO) to produce an "objective evaluation" of GPO抯 documents sales program, printing procurement program, in-house production operations, personnel management activities, financial systems, and information technology programs (H. Rpt. 105-254, p. 33). The GAO was specifically instructed that its work "should not be encumbered by presupposing that GPO抯 current operations卌annot be changed" (H. Rpt. 105-254, p. 34). In view of this charge, I am pleased that the independent review performed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., affirms a continued positive role for GPO in the Federal Government in the production, procurement, and dissemination of Government information products.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., found strong support in Congress for GPO抯 in-house production operations for congressional printing, stating that GPO抯 production area "consistently meets a demanding congressional production schedule" (p. 4-17) and that "GPO effectively satisfies its priority congressional customers and meets the variable demands and outputs requested by Congress" (p. ES-8). The report further states that GPO抯 "production functions are geared toward rapid and consistent turnout of congressional products" (p. 4-17) and are "flexible and responsive to changing congressional needs" (p. 4-17). In addition, it states that GPO has "developed strong and cordial relationships with their contacts within congressional organizations and offices" (p. 4-17) and that GPO抯 "communication with the congressional customer is frequent and regular" (p. 4-17). These are highly positive indicators of GPO抯 performance in service of Congress, our primary mission.
With respect to GPO抯 statutory mission to provide printing for executive branch agencies, the auditors found "universal support" (p. 1-7) among the agencies for our printing procurement program. The final draft report says "these agencies viewed this service that GPO provides as an example of 慻overnment at its best,� and none of them felt that they wanted or could do this function better than GPO" (p. 1-7).
We are disappointed, however, that other positive statements concerning printing procurement which were presented to us in the March 18, 1998, project review briefing are not contained in the draft final report. These include the finding that "the Printing Procurement Department is dedicated to customer service and performs many value-added services which are transparent to their customers" (Project Review Briefing Document, p. 5-9), and the statement that "for some time now, GPO has been employing contracting techniques that have recently become recognized as best practices through the Government" (Project Review Briefing Document, p. 5-17). Among other things, the project review originally stated that "long before the use of past performance in award decisions became a best practice, GPO was evaluating and collecting data on vendor quality and contract performance" (Project Review Briefing Document, p. 5-17). It also stated that "GPO抯 term contract provides ordering features which the rest of the Government began to allow only within the last several years" (Project Review Briefing Document, p. 5-17). I urge you to include this information in the final report.
Concerning GPO抯 mission to disseminate Government information, the draft final report says GPO抯 depository library program "is well managed, provides a valuable public service, and is respected by the library community" (p. 2-52). Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., found strong support for GPO to make an increasing amount of Government information available electronically, free of charge, over the Internet and praised the success of GPO Access (p. 2-32, p. 1-7). The draft final report says GPO Access is "one of the Federal Government抯 largest and most active Web sites" (p. ES-15) and suggests that GPO seek additional funds from Congress to expand this program (p. 2-32).
The final draft report notes other positive aspects of GPO. It says "GPO has successfully implemented new I/T [information technology] capabilities in many parts of the organization" (p. 7-2). In GPO抯 production area, it says "production has established important information access and dissemination systems and capabilities" (p. 4-13) and observes that "the Production Department is implementing state-of-the-art printing technology, computer-to-plate (CTP) to improve quality and throughput and reduce operating costs" (p. 4-16).
In GPO抯 financial management area, the report says that "GPO has been a leader in providing Congress accrual-based accounting and financial statements" (p. 6-3). This service, which GPO has been providing since 1951, was only recently required of all other Federal agencies by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The March 18, 1998, project review briefing stated "GPO has long-standing experience with business-oriented accounting systems that other Federal agencies are just beginning to adopt" (Project Review Briefing Document, p. 4-3). I urge you to include this information in the final report. The draft final report also notes "the high level of subject matter expertise" in GPO抯 budget and accounting areas (pp. 6-7, 6-18).
Overall, these comments signify a continued need for GPO operations and affirm GPO抯 performance of mission-critical responsibilities.
Procurement of the Congressional Record. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., cursorily reviewed the feasibility of privatizing the production of the Congressional Record. It found interest among the few private sector printers surveyed but was inconclusive on any savings and suggested further study would be required. Most importantly, it "found little support among congressional staff for relinquishing control of the in-plant production capability of GPO" (p. 4-88).
Based on long experience with Government printing, I have serious concerns about whether any savings can be achieved by procuring congressional printing. I also have concerns about the level of control that could be retained over printing that is essential to the legislative process if it is commercially procured. I testified at length on legislative proposals to privatize congressional printing during the 104th Congress. As I stated at that time, privatizing congressional printing would have a strong potential for leading to increased costs and compromising Congress抯 control over its printing. Also testifying before Congress on this subject were two former Public Printers, one a Republican appointee and the other a Democratic appointee. Neither agreed that privatizing the printing GPO performs for Congress would generate savings.
If Congress decides to pursue this issue again, the overriding question to be addressed is the desirability of contracting out printing and other information product needs that are essential to the conduct of the Nation抯 constitutionally-mandated legislative business. Within the context of history, such a move would represent less a movement toward reform than a revisitation of the past, when congressional printing was the exclusive province of private printers. The record shows that contractors frequently failed to perform on time or even to complete the work, and they generated enormous costs. Congress remedied these problems by creating GPO in close physical proximity and under close congressional scrutiny.
As the draft final report notes, strong consideration must be given to the "numerous qualitative and/or service-level impacts to Congress [resulting from contracting out the production of the Congressional Record] as they would likely lose some of the current flexibility they enjoy by having dedicated print facilities within a few blocks of Capitol Hill" (p. 4-88). GPO has taken a variety of measures, including equipment backups, personnel contingency plans, and paper storage, to ensure that congressional work is delivered on time, and it is prepared to work under any circumstances. In November 1995, and at the specific request of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, GPO kept its production staff on duty during the Government-wide budget shutdown to support Congress抯 constitutionally-mandated functions. Most Government contractors were forced to cease operations during this period due to lack of funding authority to continue operations. These factors must be weighed with great care in analyzing the privatization of congressional printing.
Documents Sales is a Governmental Function. I strongly disagree with the finding by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., that the Superintendent of Documents� Sales Program could be privatized. As stated in the draft final report itself, the specifications for the audit called for an evaluation of "the appropriateness and adequacy of the policies and procedures involved in the management of publication inventories" (p. 1-1, emphasis added), not a review of whether the Sales Program is an inherently governmental function. In my view, in reaching this finding the audit not only exceeded its intended scope but produced an opinion that is not sustainable.
The basis used for reaching the assessment that the Sales Program is not an inherently governmental function梐n interpretation of a provision in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76梚s insufficient when balanced against the statutory provisions of the Sales Program or even against other OMB Circulars. Circular No. A-25, for example, provides for fees assessed for the sale or use of Government property or resources, such as Government publications.
Title 44 clearly authorizes and requires the Superintendent of Documents to sell publications, an authority dating to the Printing Act of 1895. Section 1702 of Title 44 states that "the Superintendent of Documents卻hall receive and sell [documents] under this section" and must turn over revenues received to the Public Printer. Section 1705 states that "the Public Printer shall print additional copies of a Government publication卹equired for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents." Congress抯 interest in the Superintendent of Documents� Sales Program extends to the price at which Government documents may be sold and the value of discounts provided to book dealers (section 1708), and to the requirement that documents not needed by the departments "shall be turned over to the Superintendent of Documents annually for distribution or sale" (section 1720). When Congress recently enacted the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-40), it included a statutory provision authorizing the Superintendent of Documents to charge for the online dissemination of certain products based on the Superintendent抯 authority to sell Government publications (this information is now disseminated free of charge to meet strong public expectations for free access to Internet-based materials). Contrary to the statements provided in the draft final report, the Superintendent of Documents Sales Program is firmly grounded in both statute and a century of administrative practice and service to the public.
GPO is one of a several Government agencies authorized to perform the retail sale of publications and other materials, including the U.S. Mint, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Technical Information Service of the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Postal Service, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the Smithsonian Institution. If Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., wants to raise the question of whether a government organization should operate a retail sales activity, its review should be applied equally to all of these organizations.
The draft final report asserts that "disseminating government information to the public is an inherent government responsibility. We found no evidence that people believe otherwise" (p. 1-7). These statements apply equally to the Sales Program and the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). Historically, the Sales Program and the FDLP have been viewed as complementary rather than conflicting. The FDLP provides no-fee public access to Government publications as defined by section 1902 of Title 44, while the Sales Program provides the public with a reasonably-priced means to obtain personal copies of a broad spectrum of Government publications on a cost-recovery basis.
Indeed, the Sales Program provides a remedy to the general failure of the marketplace to offer Government publications for sale. Congress has recognized and even encouraged the distribution of Government publications through private sector mechanisms, providing in section 1708 of Title 44 a discount for bookdealers and in section 505 a means for the sale of reproducibles to private sector purchasers. However, a private sector source for the range of titles offered by the Sales Program has never developed. Absent a private sector source, the Government has made the Sales Program available as a public service.
The value of the Sales Program lies in its being the official source for a broad range of Government titles. Many of these titles are for limited interest publications that would not meet the qualifications for inclusion in commercial sales programs. If the Sales Program were privatized the public would simply lose access to these publications. In its role as the official source of Government sales titles, the Sales Program now maintains a permanent inventory of certain "core" publications of the Government with enduring historical and educational value. The inadvertent disposal of some of these titles two years ago, including copies of The Senate, 1789-1989, led to the implementation of the concept of "indefinite availability" for these titles following a GAO review of the matter (GAO, Government Printing Office: Information on September 1996 Major Inventory Reduction, GAO/GGD-97-177, September 1997). In this review of Sales Program management practices, the GAO did not suggest that the Program is not an inherently governmental function. Neither did the GAO propose that the private sector should be made responsible for ensuring the indefinite availability of copies of The Senate, 1789-1989 and similar publications.
Absent a comprehensive market-based alternative, therefore, the Sales Program梚ncluding its nationwide network of bookstores providing local access to Government publications梒ontinues to be necessary as a visible, convenient, public service. This service is funded entirely by revenues earned from the sale of publications, not taxpayer dollars. Since 1982, it has recovered its costs in every year but one (1996), and in that year actions were taken to restore the program to a sound financial basis.
I also take issue with statements made in the report which seem to attribute the decline in sales of Government publications solely to the free availability of information on the Internet. This is only one factor affecting the performance of the Sales Program. Cutbacks in agency publishing budgets and competition from private sector reprinters and other Government sales programs are contributory factors to the decline of Sales revenue. The decline in subscriptions to the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) predates its availability via the Internet by almost a decade. Reductions in the Defense budget (a prime source of Government contracting dollars) and widespread dissemination of CBD data to many private sector vendors that repackage and sell it in a variety of formats affected CBD sales. Federal Register subscriptions were also declining prior to its online availability via GPO Access.
Apart from these matters, the recommendations by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., to improve the operation of the Sales Program are well-taken. The public has the right to expect that Sales Program services are provided as efficiently and as economically as possible, with the foremost regard for customer service. We outsource Sales Program functions, such as processing payments through the Mellon Bank, when the outsourcing proves economical and efficient. In addition, as the draft final report notes, we are also currently making internal improvements that will "offer the potential for dramatic improvements in order processing and inventory management" (p. 2-24). We will use the draft final report recommendations to guide us in making improvements to the Program wherever we deem them to be necessary and feasible.
General Review of Draft Report Recommendations. The draft report contains a number of specific recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of GPO抯 programs. These include recommendations for developing a strategic planning program, providing smaller spans of control for top management, improving customer communications and marketing, capitalizing on opportunities to increase revenues and reduce costs in printing procurement, improving internal communications and management information systems, expanding training opportunities agency-wide, and accelerating efforts to prepare computer systems for year 2000. GPO management is currently reviewing all of the recommendations and will take action to address them as it deems necessary.
We are particularly sensitive to the need to ensure the readiness of GPO抯 computer systems for the year 2000. We are working closely with the GAO in this matter and are confident that we will be fully prepared. We will utilize the recommendations made by the draft final report to help guide us in making these preparations.
GPO抯 printing procurement operation is one of the Government抯 most successful procurement activities. The program makes effective use of available capacity in the private sector, provides a full range of contracting services to customer agencies, secures the lowest possible prices through full and open competition, generates jobs and tax revenues nationwide, and obtains millions in savings for the taxpayers each year. To the extent that this program can be made more efficient and effective on behalf of our customer agencies and the taxpayers, without compromising the level of service we provide and the policy goals that the program is designed to meet (and within available resource levels), we will utilize the recommendations to help guide us in making improvements.
Some of the draft final report抯 recommendations would require major changes in standing policy in order to be implemented. For example, the notion that printing procurement jobs below a certain dollar level could be non-competitively procured in the interest of efficiency contravenes existing policy to provide full and open competition on all printing procurement orders. Similarly, the recommendation to add an additional shipping charge to GPO抯 publication sales prices when standard postage is already included would require a substantive change in pricing policy.
Other recommendations have been reviewed before and rejected. With respect to the recommendation to implement a just-in-time (JIT) inventory system, prior analyses have disclosed that it would reduce competition, increase costs, fail to provide for items with long lead times, and restrict our ability to deal with emergency needs. We have previously considered and rejected recommendations to consolidate Engineering Service and Materials Management Service functions with the Production Department. These organizations, which provide services GPO-wide, function more effectively as separate organizations providing services on a charge-back basis to recipient organizations.
We also have previously reviewed and rejected the consolidation of all GPO I/T functions because it would mix the management (and job skills) of dedicated production I/T systems with business support systems having a GPO-wide basis. However, while a consolidated approach still presents significant problems, it is also clear that there are increasing similarities in I/T solutions for both our production and business support systems. There are increasing opportunities for cross-functional operations in these areas that can be utilized.
I agree that GPO needs to ensure that its internal control systems are functioning effectively and will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are. However, I am concerned that some of the recommendations in this area, such as the one regarding internal controls over billing, are overdrawn and not based on quantitative tests of billing data. Similarly, the identification of opportunities for human error in the acquisition, classification, ordering, and production processes in GPO抯 Library Programs Service did not carry with it a quantification of the actual occurrences of error. We will monitor current internal control systems and make changes when necessary. Financial controls are also periodically tested in audits of our financial systems.
The recommendations concerning information management and communications with Congress, executive branch agencies, publications customers, and GPO抯 employees will be useful to us. Effective communications with GPO抯 customers are essential to our status as a service agency, and to our ability to market our products and services in the increasingly competitive Government information product arena. GPO抯 employees also have the right to expect full and frequent communications from management. The recommendations on improving communications across functional areas and using cross-functional teams to address specific tasks will also be useful. GPO has had notable successes in this area梚n the implementation of GPO Access, the development of the new Commerce Business Daily, and in other projects梩hat have demonstrated the value and utility of this approach.
Audit Indicates Need for New Investment. Many of the specific recommendations address a substantial need for investment to offset the effects of reduced spending and downsizing pursued by GPO in recent years.
Following congressional direction, GPO has downsized significantly in the past 5 years, reducing its workforce by 25 percent. Congressional direction for this was provided through reductions in GPO抯 annual statutory ceiling on full-time equivalent employment (FTE抯). A policy of cost reductions has also been pursued in response to a pattern of declining congressional appropriations (appropriations declined by 7 percent from 1993 to 1998) and to offset reductions in agency work stemming from agency budget reductions, non-compliance with Title 44 requirements, and the transition to increased electronics. Part of GPO抯 cost reduction policy stemmed from direction provided by the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) to hold GPO抯 printing rates at stable levels over the 1990-96 period. This direction was incorporated into two resolutions in 1994, directing GPO to break even in the final quarter of fiscal year 1994 and in fiscal year 1995 without adjusting prices. In response, GPO offset rising costs of production and materials with cost cutting actions in other areas, including staffing (both at the top management and line employee level), training, travel, employee incentives, and non-essential modernization and maintenance of buildings and equipment.
Investment for the future梩he kind of investment targeted by the recommendations in the final draft report梙as been minimized in recent years because declining funding levels have restricted spending to essential needs. I agree that investment is necessary to ensure GPO抯 future effectiveness. For fiscal year 1999, I have requested that Congress remove the statutory ceiling on GPO抯 FTE抯 and allow us to manage within our own funding limitations, instead of being subjected to constant downward pressure on the ceiling from Congress. If it continues much farther, this pressure will eventually jeopardize our ability to perform even our mission-critical operations.
However, there is more that must be done to address GPO抯 needs for the future. I agree with the concept to ensure the appropriate level of staffing, including the use of effective recruitment strategies. I agree also with the need to increase the amount of training made available to GPO抯 employees. I particularly agree with the need to expand our investment in I/T GPO-wide to improve information management, productivity, and product and service offerings. However, our ability to address these recommendations is conditioned on our ability to pay for them. In an environment of reduced spending, and in view of the critical modernization needs confronting our revolving fund, we will require increased investment by Congress through appropriations in order to fully fund these recommendations. Unfortunately, the draft final report makes no recommendation directly to Congress in this regard.
GPO抯 Experience with Strategic Planning. Also minimized in recent years has been strategic planning, due to the continuing debate over GPO抯 mission. In the 1993-94 period, GPO抯 future was being discussed in terms framed by the "reinventing government" report of the National Performance Review. This report urged decentralizing executive branch printing authority to the agencies. In the 1995-96 period, GPO抯 strategic outlook was dominated by proposals to privatize its operations during the 104th Congress. At the same time, the Justice Department released an opinion claiming that the requirement to use GPO is unconstitutional because of congressional "entanglement" with GPO operations through the JCP. In the most recent period, there has been discussion of Title 44 reform involving downloading JCP responsibilities to the Public Printer to resolve the question of constitutionality and modernizing the FDLP to facilitate the transition to a more electronic future.
The continued changes in public debate about GPO have not contributed to the kind of atmosphere in which effective strategic planning involving the entire GPO organization can thrive. Indeed, in an era of scarce resources, they formed a potent argument against making a substantial investment in the development of a strategic plan that would risk being out of step with changing thinking about GPO抯 role in the Government. During this period, the best possible vision that could be articulated for GPO was one of downsizing and transformation to an electronic future. This vision has been communicated constantly to Congress, customer agencies, GPO employees, and other stakeholders.
I agree with the value of a strategic plan, and indeed GPO has generated a number of highly valuable planning instruments in recent years. At the strategic level, these have included the 1996 Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Other plans have been issued at the tactical level, including Production Department planning for the implementation of computer-to-plate technology and Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) planning for migrating from mainframe legacy systems to server-based solutions with commercial off-the-shelf applications. Planning helps to guide spending decisions, prioritizes agency decisionmaking, and provides a highly valuable communications tool to GPO抯 stakeholders. I agree that GPO needs to reinstitute this process, particularly in view of the use of planning by other Federal agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act. Hopefully, the conclusions of Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., in this draft final report will help to restore a consensus on GPO抯 role in Government and provide an environment conducive to effective strategic planning for this agency.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft final report. Your findings will be useful to us in guiding GPO forward into the future.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Public Printer
[The report is available at www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gpo.pdf ]
[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]
Upcoming Events
1998
Fall Depository Library Council Meeting
Oct. 19 - 22 San Diego, CA
1999
Spring Depository Library Council/
Federal Depository Conference
April 12 - 15 Washington, DC Metro Area
Interagency Depository Seminar
June 2 -9 Washington, DC
Fall Depository Library Council Meeting
Oct. 18 - 21 Kansas City, MO
[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]
|
Administrative Notes is published in Washington, DC by the Superintendent of Documents, Library
Programs Service, Government Printing Office, for the staffs of U.S. Federal Depository Libraries. It is published monthly, on
the 15th day of each month; some months may have additional issues. Postmaster send address changes to:
The Editor
Administrative Notes
U.S. Government Printing Office
Library Programs Service, SLLD
Washington, DC 20401
|
Internet access at URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/pubs/adnotes/index.html
Editor: Marian W. MacGilvray (202) 512-1119 mmacgilvray@gpo.gov
|
![[ Click Here For Information About the FDLP Desktop ]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081126232239im_/http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/images/fdlpdskz.jpg)
I was delighted to read the recent article in Government Executive on BEST FEDS ON THE WEB. Let me take this occasion to congratulate you for the excellent customer service you are providing through your Web site. As you know, quality customer service is a top priority in the Clinton-Gore Administration.