Memphis School board rejects proposal to consolidate printer contracts
By Jane Roberts
Published Thursday, June 23, 2011
The city school board Monday voted down Supt. Kriner Cash's recommendation to consolidate multiple photocopying and printing contracts into a single, three-year contract, saying long-term investments could subject it to legal scrutiny as the merger with county schools moves forward.
Board members also said they found it difficult to vote on a contract that did not include the price or savings.
Cash wanted board members to approve a cost-per-copy proposal with IKON/Ricoh, the winning bidder, based on a "free" assessment of equipment the district already owns or leases.
Cash sought to move to centralized purchasing instead of principals ordering copiers as they see fit. Vendors say the practice has resulted in over-purchasing copiers and print supplies.
Sybille Noble, head of procurement, estimated savings at 20 to 30 percent under the new contract.
"So right now, we don't have a handle on what we are spending. So we don't know the savings or potential savings. Do we have any idea what this contract is going to cost us?"
Without the assessment, the answer was no.
In all, the district makes about 500 million copies a year based on its annual purchases of copier paper. Depending on the machine, the average cost is 1.5 cents per sheet for black and white copies, 6 to 12 cents per color copy.
The district was stung by a copier contract in 2008 when a local salesman leased it three digital copiers for $517,000, using a forged signature of deceased school board attorney Percy Harvey.
"I have some concerns of the chosen vendor," unsuccessful bidder David Ambrosia told the board. "This vendor was involved in the opportunity several years ago to defraud Memphis City Schools. I wonder why you are moving forward with the same vendor."
Noble said "controls" were in place to keep fraud from recurring.
Ambrosia, who has contracts for printing and copying in Shelby County and DeSoto County schools, also wanted to know how the district could enter a three-year contract when it could be consolidated with the county schools by the fall of 2012.
Board attorney Dorsey Hopson told the board they would be opening themselves to a legal challenge, reminding the board that a court says "it doesn't exist."
Board member Patrice Robinson shared Hopson's concerns and questioned why the district would allow a vendor to assess its needs.
"We need to tell them what we need.... I have learned from 11 years on the school board you can't depend on the vendor to do what is in the best interests of a school district. They are going to do what is in their best interests."
The board defeated the proposal 5-3.
Original Post