State Auditor Marion Higa is recommending all branches of state government comparison-shop or use "changing technology" when doing large-volume printing. Legislature urged
to review printing law
By Leila Fujimori
lfujimori@starbulletin.comShe also recommends that the Legislature review the law that gives an advantage to local companies that bid for state printing jobs.
A study of state agencies' use of printing services in fiscal year 2002 came in response to a legislative request, prompted by concern from the local printing industry about how much state printing work was going out of state.
The audit showed 90 percent of the $15 million reported by state agencies for printing services in fiscal year 2002 was spent in state, or $13.5 million.
About $6.2 million of that amount was paid to vendors by direct contract, and $2.6 million was spent through subcontract, of which an approximate $1.6 million was spent in state.
But Higa said those figures may not be accurate. State agencies do not formally determine in-house printing costs, and answers to a questionnaire sent out by the auditor were sometimes incomplete and confusing.
Higa said it was also difficult to determine whether it was reasonable to hold a state agency responsible for monitoring printing that is done out of state by subcontractors, since the statute is not clear on the issue.
Also, agencies reported their printing differently. For example, two agencies considered compact discs to be printed materials.
However, a case study of printing done by the state Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism showed state agencies were generally in compliance with the state procurement code's printing preference requirements.
State of Hawaii
