In-plant Groups Unite in Concern About Washington In-plant Audit

Representatives of three major in-plant printing organizations voiced serious concerns about the "Subject Matter Expertise for Printing Services Performance Audit" being performed on the Washington State Department of Printing, according to industry consultant Ray Chambers, CEO of Chambers Management Group.

Printing performance audits can be a good thing, if done properly, Chambers noted. “The problem here is the process,” he says. “The State Auditor’s Office Work Request was titled ‘Subject Matter Expertise for Printing Services Performance Audit,’ and only firms that were “prequalified” were allowed to participate."

But only one of the 60 or so prequalified firms listed in documents provided by the State Auditor’s Office had past experience evaluating printing plants, Chambers says—and that experience does not seem to be applicable to this project.

Chambers used the freedom of information process to obtain copies of the two reports used as references of subject matter expertise by BERK and Associates, the successful vendor. Neither report appears to demonstrate the level of proficiency required by a project of this magnitude, he says.

In one report, BERK and Associates evaluated the performance of a printing facility with two full-time and one part-time staff, two part-time student workers and program income of approximately $570k. The other project evaluated a shop of about the same size. By way of comparison, the Washington Department of Printing employs over 100 staff with revenues of $30 million or higher.

“Industry leaders are concerned about the process,” continues Chambers.

Ragina Ostendorf, president of the National Government Publishing Association (NGPA) points out that in-plant printing facilities are responsible for more than just document production. “As president of NGPA, and having been a part of this industry for several years now, I understand the importance of controlling costs by local, state and federal government. But I also understand the importance of protecting the content of critical public documents in both print and/or electronic format. Any assessment of a public in-plant printer should factor in the important role in-plant printing facilities play in protecting sensitive content, especially in this ever increasing move toward more electronic management of data and communications.

The Association of College and University Printers (ACUP) voiced its concerns in a letter to Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag. ACUP president Richard Griffin notes “The Association of College and University Printers applauds Washington’s efforts to ensure that its taxpayers get the biggest bang for their buck. As printers ourselves we trust Washington’s auditors will involve staff members of the Department of Printing and take the time required to gain an understanding of the true costs and efficiencies in this situation."

John Sarantakos is president of the In-Plant Printing and Mailing Association (IPMA), a national organization representing over 500 printing facilities in government, higher education, insurance, manufacturing, and the non-profit sector. Sarantakos says “IPMA, supports responsible management and evaluation of in-plant print facilities, but the time frame for the project is unrealistic. The state scheduled a full review to be completed within a two-month window. This is simply not enough time to do an accurate and comprehensive study. The State Printing Division is a large and complex operation. In fact, The Washington State Printing Division is one of the largest in-plant operations in the country. The review described in the scope of work could easily take four to six months to complete properly, potentially even longer.

“If the goal is to cut costs by outsourcing printing to commercial concerns," Sarantakos continues, "the people of Washington State will be very disappointed. Control will be lost. Costs will increase. Soft costs like purchasing, accounts payable and the cost of issuing checks will go through the roof.”

One concern shared by several in-plant managers is that the SAO audit is a thinly veiled move to close the printing department. Chambers notes “At the end of the day this seems to be a process driven by politics, rather than an attempt to create governmental efficiencies.” A bill to move DOP under the umbrella of the Department of Information Services passed the House of Representatives but hit a snag in the Senate. According to the February 20^th edition of The Olympian, Sen. Rodney Tom said he wants to abolish the 100-worker shop because agencies can use desktop printers for small materials and private companies if they need brochures or reports printed.

“The Department of Printing is positioned to deliver significant savings to the citizens of Washington,” notes Chambers. “It would be a shame to throw those efficiencies away to fill a political agenda.”