Federal Printing: Fewer Plants Are in Operation Than in 1990, and Selected Agencies Reported Declining Volumes
Released: 2013-07-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The JCP and the GPO have prominent roles in federal government printing. The oldest joint committee in Congress, the JCP was established in 1846 and is comprised of five Representatives and five Senators. It oversees the operation of GPO, which by law is the principal printing organization for federal agencies. The JCP exercises oversight over government printing, and is authorized to “use any measure it considers necessary to remedy neglect, delay, duplication or waste in the public printing and binding, and the distribution of Government publications.” To assist in carrying out its responsibilities, in 1990 the JCP updated the Government Printing and Binding Regulations, which require agencies to report semi-annually to the JCP any in-house printing and any printing that exceeds 5,000 production units of a single page or 25,000 production units in the aggregate of multiple pages.

GPO was established in 1861 to print government documents and disseminate them to the public. Title 44 of the U.S Code, Public Printing and Documents, provides that all printing for Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary (except the Supreme Court) is to be done by or contracted by GPO, unless otherwise exempted. GPO prints at its in- house plant in Washington, D.C., and one other secure facility for passports and smart cards only, but it contracts with private printers to produce the majority of printing for the federal government. At its in-house plant, GPO prints primarily congressional documents, such as the Congressional Record. GPO offers different programs and services such as GPO Express, which allows agencies to print directly to FedEx Office and other private sector vendors, and the GPO Simplified Purchase Agreement Program, which provides a list of pre-approved private printers and stated prices for federal agencies to use when selecting a printer. GPO receives funding through direct appropriations ($126 million in fiscal year 2012), collection of an approved fee-for-service from other federal agencies for print procurement, and the sale of publications to the public.

GPO’s activities also include providing public access to official government documents though the FDLP and GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) website. The Superintendent of Documents, who heads GPO’s Information Dissemination division, is responsible for collecting government products and disseminating them to the public through a network of approximately 1200 depository libraries and online catalogues. GPO evaluates documents to identify those that contain information on U.S. government activities or are important reference publications, and should therefore be disseminated to a depository library. Title 44 requires that federal agencies make their publications available to the Superintendent of Documents for cataloging and distribution though the FDLP. With the onset of digital publishing, the FDLP has been transformed into a primarily electronic program, obtaining and distributing federal documents digitally. GPO’s FDsys website, which offers an online catalogue of official government digital documents, also aids in the collection and preservation of government publications and provides access to the public.

Printing Definitions

Federal government printing definitions are outlined in statute and regulation. Title 44 at Section 501 Note defines printing as the processes of composition, platemaking, presswork, duplicating, silkscreen processes, and binding. The 1990 JCP Regulations include the definitions of key printing terms applicable at that time. Prior to 1994, Title 44 did not include duplicating in the definition of printing, but in 1994, the Title 44 definition was updated to include duplicating (i.e., printing done on high- speed duplication machines) as a printing process. However, the 1990 JCP Regulations were not updated to include duplicating.

In our review, we identified two main categories of agency printing used today— ink-based, and toner-based or ink-jet-based: Ink-Based Printing (also referred to as conventional printing) is a water and ink-based process that uses machines called printing presses to produce material such as publications and other documents. Presses use plates to transfer images onto a final paper document. Conventional presses are relatively costly to set up, making the first impression of a document expensive, but costs decline as the volume of copies increases, which makes it cost- effective for high volume print jobs. Ink-based printing uses offset or digital printing presses. Offset printing presses typically have many open areas where the machinery can be manually adjusted, and can take up a large amount of space (see fig. 1).

A digital printing press also uses plates to transfer images and ink, but the process is computerized and the press is mostly closed because it does not need the same level of manual adjustments (see fig. 2).

Toner-Based Printing (also referred to as duplication) is a process on machines that use either heat to transfer an image on paper or toner or ink-jet to transfer an image to paper. Toner-based printing is typically done on one type of equipment, a high-speed duplication machine, also referred to as a high-speed copier. This refers to a high capacity toner-based machine, typically capable of 100 or more black and white images per minute with some finishing capabilities (e.g., staples, collating, limited binding, etc.) (see fig. 3). These machines typically have a higher printing speed and capacity than typical “walk- up” office copiers.

Current Printing Practices Show Changes since 1990

Since the JCP Regulations were updated in 1990, agencies’ printing operations have changed in scale and type. Printing industry and government data suggest that the total volume of printed material has been declining for at least the past 10 years. A major factor in this decline is the use of electronic media options, such as digital publishing. As such, federal agencies publish more documents directly to the Internet where the public can access them, bypassing the need for the agency to print hard copies. At the same time that digital publishing was increasing, digital printer/copier technology was developing. In circumstances where agencies still needed hard copies to be printed, digital printers and copiers allowed federal agencies to produce documents themselves that formerly would have required professional printing expertise from outside vendors such as GPO or private printers.

Fewer In-house Printing Plants Are in Operation Than in 1990

Based on definitions we developed in conjunction with GPO and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services, among the agencies in our survey universe, we measured 64 percent fewer in-house printing plants than the number included in the 1990 JCP Regulations. The 1990 JCP Regulations listed 231 authorized in-house printing plants; agencies we surveyed reported operating 84 in-house plants. Although there was an overall decline in the number of printing plants, there was not a decline across all agencies—9 of the surveyed agencies reported a decrease in the number of plants, 14 agencies reported no change in the number of in-house plants, and 8 agencies reported an increase in the number of in-house plants.

DOD accounted for the greatest decline in in-house printing plants. For example, the 1990 JCP Regulations listed 142 in-house printing plants for the armed services and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which currently manages the majority of DOD’s printing infrastructure. DLA officials reported managing 17 in-house plants in our survey (see fig. 4).

Other agencies that reported declines showed less dramatic reductions, such as the Department of Energy, which had 18 plants on the 1990 list, and reported 5 plants in our 2013 survey. A decline in the number of in- house plants could be due to some agencies reducing their printing and focusing more on digital publications. One factor that could have influenced the increased emphasis on digital publications is a November 9, 2011, executive order promoting efficient spending. This executive order included a provision encouraging agencies “to limit the publication and printing of hard copy documents and to presume that information should be provided in an electronic form, whenever practicable, permitted by law, and consistent with applicable records retention requirements.”

Agencies Reported Operating Primarily Duplication Equipment at In-house Printing Plants

The vast majority of agencies that currently operate in-house printing plants reported operating duplication equipment. That is, most agencies reported operating high-speed duplication machines, and fewer reported operating conventional printing presses. Of the 32 agencies operating in- house printing plants, 17 reported that all of their in-house printing was duplication, and another 14 agencies reported operating some duplication equipment in addition to ink-based conventional printing presses. The remaining agency did not report its type of equipment (see fig. 5). No agency reported having only ink-based conventional printing presses at its in-house plants.

In addition to agencies operating fewer printing plants and conducting more duplication, interviews with selected agencies showed declines in printing volumes in recent years. We interviewed six agencies that, according to OMB budget data, accounted for about 80 percent of total federal printing and reproduction obligations. Of those six agencies, five reported declines in total printing volumes between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2011, ranging from 6 percent to 59 percent. One agency reported an 11 percent increase in printing volumes and told us it was due in part to opening an additional in-house plant in 2009. All six agencies estimated a decrease in total spending on printing and reproduction between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2011. Decreases ranged from as little as 0.1 percent to over 90 percent. All six agencies also reported greater spending on printing sent to GPO and private printers than on in-house printing or duplication. For example, in fiscal year 2011, USPS reported spending $5.8 million on in-house printing and spending $108.3 million on printing sent to private printers. Similarly, HHS reported spending $0.4 million on in-house printing, and $50.2 million on printing sent to GPO or private printers in fiscal year 2011.

Agencies told us that they use a number of factors such as sensitivity, cost, volume, turnaround time, and in-house capabilities to determine if they will print in-house or externally through GPO or private printers. For example, DLA officials told us DLA produces some documents, such as those printed for the President, at in-house facilities to accommodate the short turnaround time and possible sensitive nature of the documents. VA officials said they send large volume print orders or documents requiring special finishing to private printers. For example, VA officials told us they used GPO and its approved private printers to print 2.9 million copies of its 2011 federal benefits booklet for veterans, survivors, and dependents because private printers could better handle this quantity than VA could in-house.

Current Printing Practices Are Not Fully Reflected in Existing Printing Authorities

1990 JCP Regulations

Even with these changes in agencies’ printing, the definition of “printing” has not been updated in the 1990 JCP Regulations, which outline printing-related definitions and list authorized agency in-house printing plants. In 1994, Title 44 was updated to include “duplicating” in the definition of “printing,” so that it read “… ‘printing’ includes the processes of composition, platemaking, presswork, duplicating, silk screen processes, binding, microform, and the end items of such processes.” However, the 1990 JCP Regulations have not been updated to include duplicating in the definition of printing, and duplicating is not separately defined in either authority. For example, Title 44 does not separately define duplicating, and the 1990 JCP Regulations include a definition for “duplicating/copying,” such that it is not distinguished from “copying.”

Some agencies had difficulty using the definitions we created or identifying the number of their in-house facilities that performed duplication and qualified as printing plants. As mentioned above, to facilitate consistent data gathering from federal agencies on their printing activities, we worked with GPO and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services to establish working definitions that included the Title 44 definition of printing and an updated definition of duplicating. In our survey, three agencies told us their definition of printing differed from ours. Two of those reported using the 1990 JCP Regulations printing definition, which does not include “duplicating”. Similarly, VA officials believed their agency operated one in-house printing plant, but in our discussion officials noted that the facility does not typically produce work that exceeds the volume limits of “duplication” and as such would not qualify as a printing plant. Postal Service officials reported that its 67 district offices do not track printing volumes, and thus could not determine if those offices’ printing operations would qualify as printing plants. We excluded these VA and Postal Service plants in our tally.

Some agencies also had difficulty providing volumes and spending data under these definitions. For instance, printing officials from Commerce’s bureaus told us that they each tracked printing differently—some tracked pages while others tracked the number of jobs. Regarding spending, some printing officials told us they combined in-house printing and printing through GPO and its contractors in their spending estimates while others were able to report these amounts separately. For example, DLA officials said that they do not typically track volumes by our duplication volume limits, and as such would not track spending at facilities (i.e., printing plants) that may exceed those volumes. However, at our request, DLA officials reviewed production at the agency’s in-house facilities and identified plants that met our definitions, and then estimated spending at these plants. Other agencies we interviewed, such as the Postal Service and the State Department, provided total spending for all jobs printed at their in-house printing plants. As such, this data could include jobs printed at volumes below those in the provided duplication definition.

Agencies may also have had difficulty providing volumes and spending data because of decentralized printing practices. For instance, five agencies reported that their printing operations were dispersed across the agency, which meant that officials responsible for printing operations did not have readily available information on agency-wide printing operations. One was the Department of Commerce, which houses 12 bureaus and agencies that operate independently and differently. Commerce officials told us that because printing is dispersed, there was not a single official who could report on printing across the agency. Health and Human Services’ four divisions with printing operations also reported operating with their own distinct printing officials and practices. In these cases, each division provided its own volume and spending information, which could lead to inconsistencies in data across bureaus or sub-agencies.

In addition, the 1990 JCP Regulations provide that federal agencies report on their print operations to the JCP, but the requirements do not address duplication. The 1990 JCP Regulations state that agencies shall report printing operations semi-annually to the JCP, on information such as the total cost of printing and an inventory of plant equipment at in- house printing plants. Officials from four of the six agencies we interviewed reported that they did not recently send reports on their printing operations to the JCP, and JCP staff told us they received only a few reports in the last 5 years. Discussions with officials from one agency suggested a reason for this may be that some agency officials believed they are only required to report on printing plants with offset or conventional printing equipment, not those with duplication equipment. Since the reporting requirements date back to 1990, before Title 44 was updated to include duplicating in the definition of printing, neither the 1990 JCP Regulations nor the JCP report forms specify that agencies are required to submit reports for printing plants that agencies may consider duplication plants. Officials from one agency told us they did not report to JCP because they did not have any in-house facilities, and officials from another agency noted that they were exempt from the reporting requirements. Additionally, officials from a bureau at one agency told us they send JCP reports to an in-house printing officer, suggesting some confusion regarding reporting requirements.

JCP staff told us they recognize the 1990 JCP Regulations do not include duplication in the definition of printing, and are working to revise this guidance. Specifically, JCP staff are in the process of developing printing definitions that more closely reflect current printing practices, particularly for “duplication” activities. JCP staff also told us that they are working to streamline reporting requirements for agency printing officials.

The majority of government documents are published digitally (electronically produced and then disseminated over the Internet); however, the provisions in the law that require agencies to submit documents to the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) do not reference digital publishing. GPO estimates that more than 90 percent of all government information is published digitally. Title 44 outlines the types of documents that are required to be submitted to the FDLP, upon request, but does not reference digital documents explicitly. Currently, Title 44 defines a “government publication” as “… informational matter which is published as an individual document at Government expense, or as required by law.” Title 44 does not specify if “published” includes digitally published documents. Officials from selected agencies told us they do not submit digital documents to FDLP, and two reported that they do not have any policies or procedures for submitting documents to the FDLP regardless of whether the documents were printed at their in- house printing plants or published electronically. For documents printed through GPO, agencies are not required to make a determination about whether a document should be submitted to FDLP, as GPO typically identifies documents that could be of interest to the FDLP and then, if FDLP request them, sends them directly to the FDLP. Some agencies’ officials told us they rely on GPO for this service, and do not submit digital documents to the FDLP.

FDLP staff have taken a number of steps to address this challenge, and to obtain digital documents from agencies. FDLP staff told us they focus on educating agencies about document submission requirements, and searching for and locating possible “fugitive documents”—documents that agencies published and FDLP staff believe should have been submitted to the FDLP. In a January 2013 report, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) recommended that GPO work with depository libraries and other library groups to develop a comprehensive plan for preserving the print collection of government documents, including a process for ingesting digitized copies into FDsys, GPO’s online system that provides free access to government publications. In response to NAPA’s recommendation, GPO noted that GPO and the depository library community have long recognized the need to catalog and preserve the tangible collections that GPO has distributed to federal depository libraries since 1861, and that implementing this recommendation will be incorporated into GPO’s national plan for the future of the FDLP. Because NAPA’s review was ongoing and GPO was outside the scope of our review, we do not make recommendations regarding FDLP submissions to GPO in this report (see app. I for more information on our scope and methodology).

Agency Comments

We provided copies of our draft report to GPO and DOD for their review and comment. GPO generally agreed with our findings and provided a letter and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Website at https://www.gao.gov If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives, we developed working definitions of key printing terms—“printing”, “duplication”, and “printing plant”—to use when surveying and interviewing agencies on their current printing practices. To do this we used existing statutory language for “printing” and “printing plant” from Title 44 of U.S. Code, Public Printing and Documents, and the Joint Committee on Printing’s 1990 Printing and Binding Regulations (1990 JCP Regulations). To define “duplication” we worked with GPO and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services to update the definition of duplication in the 1990 JCP Regulations.

We considered volumes above 500 copies of a single page and 2,500 copies in the aggregate of multiple pages “duplication,” and volumes below that “copying”. This allowed us to identify agencies’ printing operations that qualified as printing plants rather than lower volume copying operations, sometimes referred to as “copy centers”. In interviews with selected agencies, printing officials expressed confusion over this definition of “duplication”, in part due to the volume limits distinguishing duplication from copying. The volume limits we used were similar but not the same as limits outlined in the 1990 JCP Regulations on the number of pages agencies are permitted to produce in-house without prior authority of the JCP (5,000 copies of a single page or 25,000 in the aggregate of multiple pages). We clarified our definitions when possible, but it is possible that agency officials’ confusion could have affected the number of printing plants reported in our survey. See table below for a list of how each printing term was defined in the 1990 JCP Regulations, Title 44, and by GAO with assistance from GPO and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services.

To identify agencies that could be operating in-house printing plants, we developed a universe consisting of agencies authorized in the 1990 JCP Regulations and agencies that had obligated funds to the “printing and reproduction” object class in at least 2 years between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. Agencies report printing and related obligations in this object class. Data in the various volumes of the President’s budget request, including object class data, undergo rigorous review by the OMB, and accordingly, are generally considered sufficiently reliable for most of GAO’s purposes. This includes using this data to select agencies to survey.

For the purposes of our review we made a number of adjustments to the 1990 JCP Regulations list of 36 agencies. First, we combined the armed forces and their plants, which were listed separately in the 1990 JCP Regulations, under the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) since DLA took over all printing plants for the armed forces. Second, we excluded the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, due to its being outside the executive branch; GPO, as it was outside the scope of our review, and the National Academy of Public Administration since it had ongoing related work on GPO; and the Panama Canal Commission, as it was de- commissioned in 1999. Finally we separated the Social Security Administration from Health and Human Services. In 1990 the Social Security Administration was a sub-agency with an in-house printing plant within Health and Human Services, but it became an independent agency in 1994. With these exceptions, 31 of the agencies from the 1990 list remained in our universe.

Through budget obligations data we identified 16 additional agencies with at least 2 years of printing and reproduction obligations for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. This resulted in a total universe of 47 agencies with possible in-house printing plants.

To describe how federal printing regulations and statutes reflect current printing practices, we reviewed legal documents such as Title 44 of the U.S. Code and the 1990 JCP Regulations, administered a survey to the universe of agencies described above, and interviewed officials from the printing industry, GPO, and other federal agencies.

To describe agencies’ printing volumes and spending, we interviewed the six agencies from our survey universe whose printing and reproduction obligations in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 together constituted the majority—roughly 80 percent—of total federal obligations to printing and reproduction. Those agencies were the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Department of State, U.S. Postal Service, and Veterans Affairs. We interviewed printing and budget officials from these agencies, and obtained information on their printing operations, including data on printing volumes and spending. Findings from our interviews with selected agencies cannot be used to generalize results to the entire population.

To describe agencies’ in-house printing spending, we relied on data provided by selected agencies since federal printing and reproduction obligations may not reliably describe agencies’ in-house printing spending. This is partially due to challenges with obligations data we have previously reported, such as that obligations categories are not mutually exclusive (e.g., it is possible for some printing and duplication obligations to be categorized under a different object class, and vice versa). We also found that the printing and reproduction object class includes printing done through GPO or external private printers as well as that done at agencies’ in-house printing plants. As such, we relied on interviews with agencies to describe their in-house printing operations and collected spending information from agencies for analysis. We also asked agencies to provide spending information on the printing that they sent out to GPO and private printers. Some agencies provided printing expenses and others provided obligations, but for the purposes of this report, we refer to both as “spending.” Obligations and expenditures capture different aspects of the budgeting process – obligations are the legal commitment to pay for a good or service while expenditures are the actual disbursement of money. For the purposes of this report we assume that there is a relatively short time lag between obligation and expenditure for printing and reproduction activities, and therefore that the difference is not material. As such, we refer to both obligations and expenditures as a single “spending” category.

Government Printing Survey

To describe agencies’ current printing practices, such as operation of in- house printing plants, we administered the survey described above to the 47 agencies in our universe from January through March 2013. Results from that survey are presented in this report, and the questions asked in our survey instrument can be found in appendix III. We received a 100 percent response rate on the survey and analyzed the information obtained.

Administration of Survey and Quality Assurance

We developed a questionnaire using Microsoft Excel to obtain information about federal agencies in-house printing operations. We identified potential survey recipients from a list of agency print contacts provided by GPO and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services. We tested the questionnaire with print officials from five agencies included on our list of potential respondents. We selected these agencies to represent different printing and reproduction obligations and to provide a mix of agencies we identified through obligations data and those listed in the 1990 JCP Regulations. We conducted these survey pretests to determine if the questions were understandable and measured what we intended, and to ensure that the survey was not overly burdensome. On the basis of feedback from the pretests we modified the questionnaire as appropriate. In late January 2013, we sent an email alerting agency contacts to the upcoming survey; the survey was delivered to recipients via email message a few days later. Using the questionnaire, we requested contact information for print officials; feedback on the definitions used in the survey, each agency’s cited authority to operate in- house printing plants, and information on in-house printing plants such as location and equipment used. We did not independently verify if the information in the surveys was accurate. For agencies in the JCP 1990 Regulations, we provided a list of plants that were authorized in 1990 and asked them to verify if a listed plant was operational or not operational. We also asked that the agencies identify any additional plants that were not included in the 1990 list. For agencies that were not included in the 1990 list but were added to our survey population using obligations data, we asked that they provide plant information. To help increase our response rate, we sent two follow-up emails and called agency officials from January through March 2013.

Nonsampling Error

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce some types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or the sources of information available to respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. As we discussed previously, some of our survey respondents reported having difficulty with the definitions of printing, duplication, and printing plant that we included in our survey. We included steps in the design of the questionnaire, such as testing the instrument, and followed-up with agencies to clarify responses during the data collection for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors.

We took the following steps to increase the response rate: pretesting the questionnaires with agency officials with print operation knowledge, conducting multiple follow-up calls and emails to encourage responses to the survey, and contacting respondents to clarify unclear responses.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 2013, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: 47 Surveyed Agencies’ In-house Printing Plants

GAO surveyed 47 agencies to determine if they operated in-house printing plants. To identify agencies that could be operating in-house printing plants, we developed a universe consisting of agencies authorized in the 1990 Government Printing and Binding Regulations and agencies that had obligated funds to the “printing and reproduction” object class in at least 2 years between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. The tables below contain the agencies in this universe and the number of plants authorized in the 1990 Printing and Binding Regulations and/or plants reported in 2013 in the GAO Government Printing Survey.

Appendix III: Questions from GAO’s Survey of Federal Printing Activities and Plants

We administered a survey focused on government printing operations to print officials at 47 agencies we determined could be operating in-house printing plants. We provided questions to identified agency print officials using Microsoft Excel to obtain information about federal agencies’ in- house printing operations. This appendix contains the questions from the survey questionnaire.

We provided the following definitions for agencies to use when answering our questions: Printing includes the processes of composition, platemaking, presswork, duplicating, silkscreen processes, binding, microform, and the end items of such processes. Duplicating includes high-speed duplicating. (Title 44 Sec. 503 Note)

Duplication (a) by automatic copy-processing or copier-duplicating machines, producing copies by electrostatic, thermal, or other copying processes, and using exclusively toner or ink-jet type inks instead of ink; and (b) in volumes that exceed either 500 copies of a single page or 2,500 production units in the aggregate of multiple pages, per job.

We asked officials from all surveyed agencies the following questions regarding the definitions of key print terms: 1. Does your agency have official definitions of "printing", "duplication," or "printing plant" that differ from any of the three definitions above? 2. If yes, please provide your agency's definitions below: 3. What authority are the definition(s) from? (Please include statute or other citation(s).)

We asked agency officials the following questions, with specific instruction, to determine how many in-house printing plants each agency operates: 4. What is the total number of in-house printing plants (including duplication plants) operated by your agency, across all departments and bureaus within the agency?

When completing your answer, please include the following types of facilities:

Any plant that produces printing (including duplicating), owned or

Duplication plants and high speed duplication plants that use toner or ink-jet machines and typically produce more than 500 copies of a single page or 2500 production units in the aggregate, per job.

When completing your answer, please exclude the following types of facilities:

Any small plants or “copy centers” that do NOT produce more than 500 single/2500 in aggregate production units, per job. 5. Which of the following is the source of your statutory authority to operate in-house printing plants (including duplication plants)?

1990 Government Printing and Binding Regulations

Some other statutory authority

Don’t know a. If you selected "Some other statutory authority" in Q5, please specify that authority in the space provided here.

We asked only print officials from agencies authorized to operate in- house plants listed in the JCP 1990 Government Printing and Binding Regulations the following questions to determine the operating status and additional information on those listed in-house plants: 6. The table provided contains information on printing plants operated by your agency, as indicated in the 1990 Government Printing and Binding Regulations. Please indicate the current status of each plant (Q6a), and complete the requested information for all operational plants (Q6b - Q6f). a. What is the current status of this plant? o Operational o Not Operational b. Does this plant produce the following types of products? (Yes, No, Don’t Know) o Toner or Ink Jet on Paper: o Ink on Paper: o Other products (i.e. other substrates): If you answered "yes" to other products, please provide two examples of other products below: c. Does this plant contain any of the following types of equipment? (Yes, No, Don’t Know) If yes, how many? o Offset printing press (ink): o Digital printing press (ink): o High speed duplication machine (ink-jet or toner): d. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is offset printing? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None) e. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is digital printing? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None) f. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is duplication? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None)

We asked all survey participants the following questions about any in-house printing plants not listed in the JCP 1990 Printing and Binding Regulations: 7. If your agency operates any in-house printing plants (including duplication plants) that were NOT included in the previous question (Q6), please list the name and location of the plant and complete the requested information using the table below.

If you do not have any in-house printing plants (including duplication plants) to enter on this tab, please check this box and proceed to the next tab: a. Name of Plant: b. Location of Plant (City and State): c. Does this plant produce the following types of products? (Yes, No, Don’t Know) o Toner or Ink Jet on Paper: o Ink on Paper: o Other products (i.e. other substrates): If you answered "yes" to other products, please provide two examples of other products below: d. Does this plant contain any of the following types of equipment? (Yes, No, Don’t Know) o Offset printing press (ink): o Digital printing press (ink): o High speed duplication machine (ink-jet or toner): e. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is offset printing? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None) f. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is digital printing? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None) g. Approximately how much of this plant's printing volume is duplication? (All, More than half, About half, Less than half, None)

Appendix IV: Comments from the Government Printing Office

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant Director), Melissa Bodeau, Leia Dickerson, Sarah Farkas, Kathleen Gilhooly, Leigh Ann Haydon, Carol Henn, Hannah Laufe, John Mingus, Jr., Betsey Ward- Jenks, Elizabeth Wood, and William T. Woods made significant contributions to this report.