Home
Solutions
Products
Pricing
Resources
Request Demo
Start Free
Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo
StateStorm

Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 376 new people
  • 171 new organizations
  • 408 new photos
  • 1234 job history records for people in our database
  • 653 education records for people in our database
  • 1467 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 3 new people through the revolving door
  • 109 new policy reports
  • 43 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 629 new personal financial disclosures
  • 15148 new press releases
  • 11 new town halls
  • 25 new hearings

Caught Our Eye Rss

» More from Caught Our Eye
» More from our DevBlog

Government Printing Office: General Management Review

  Premium   Download PDF Now (8 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date July 19, 1990
Report No. T-GGD-90-57
Subject
Summary:

GAO discussed: (1) the Government Printing Office's (GPO) role in providing printing services to the government; and (2) certain operational problems at GPO. GAO found that in-house production costs were generally double the costs of procuring printing services outside of GPO because: (1) of the scheduling of weekend overtime; (2) major press and bindery machines were idle an average of 53 percent of the time they were scheduled to operate; (3) GPO wasted or spoiled 28 percent of its total paper; and (4) almost 50 percent of the production equipment was at least 15 years old. GAO also found that: (1) efficiency goals were not generally met and were, in some cases, lower than private standards; (2) GPO had no system to identify and implement quality improvements; (3) GPO relied on post-production inspections to identify printing and binding errors; (4) GPO did not effectively sanction contractors or validate whether contractors delivered work on time; and (5) GPO did not know the extent of customer dissatisfaction because its records did not adequately count the complaints filed for 1989.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports

HomeAbout Us Contact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseJoin Us
© LegiStorm
LegiStorm
2101 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 360-4172 / congress@legistorm.com