Reprographics 101

I live in sunny (well, mostly sunny) St Petersburg, FL. The closest Starbucks to my house is only about 16 blocks away. Two doors down from Starbucks you’ll find a new location of one of the reprographics companies operating in the Tampa Bay Area marketplace.

I’ve always counseled my business associates and friends (and, when I was active in the reprographics business, I, myself, always took this into consideration) that “appearance” is important. What “customers” see (or don’t see) when they first arrive at your store does, more often than not, influence their “perception” of your company.

If your store is “perceived to be” neat and clean and not “cluttered up” or “disorderly”, then a visitor, I think, is going to get the impression that the service that your team gives is going to be organized, responsive, timely, blah, blah blah. Just to the opposite, if your store is “perceived to be” cluttered and disorganized, that could easily create the perception that the service your team gives is not going to be great. What I’m basically saying is that, even if your team is capable of giving (and later does give) great service, a customer who arrives at your store for the very first time is not going to know that, until he’s greeted and his order is completed. So, with all of the investments you make in people, equipment, SOP’s, work-flow process, etc., why let “appearance” cause the possibility of a negative impression, when it is so simple to solve that sort of thing?

I looked in the store window of this shop yesterday morning, and, right inside the door window, I could see a completed order (three large rolls of prints) and the invoice for that order. Since this company provides “POS” (point-of-sale) invoicing, the invoice contained descriptions of the services offered, units of measure for each service, unit prices for each service, and the extended totals for the order. I could also easily read the name of the customer to whom the work was invoiced. I’m retired and not a competitor, but, if I was not retired and was a competitor, is that the type of information that my competitor wants to hand me on a silver platter? I don’t think so. Perhaps what we “older” veterans of the reprographics wars need to do is to not fail to remember to tutor our younger team members on the “confidentiality” that’s important to, and necessary for, our businesses?

(Disclaimer: I’ve not proofread this post. Please excuse the typos and spelling errors you find in this post.)

Here’s a link to the RFP document I’m later going to be referring to:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JYjM5ZDllZGYtNTAyMy00NjMwLTkyZWEtZTYwYjlkMjdhZGNj&hl=en&authkey=CJaJpIIG

Very early this morning (in the wee-hours of the morning), I received an interesting e-mail from one of the officers of a reprographics company located in one of the Mid-Western states that’s now completely covered in a couple of feet of snow (if not more than that.) But, actually, he let me know that he was currently in Bonita Springs (near Naples), Florida, so he managed to avoid all that snow (at least until he has to fly home.) That e-mail prompted this post.

Okay, let me get directly to the subject of this particular post.

Some reprographers pursue business in the Government sector (Fed, State, County, City). But, some don’t. When I was active in the reprographics business, I was one of the reprographers that did pursue government-sector business. Although pursing business in the government-sector can be totally aggravating and frustrating (and I personally know that that statement is fact, not just opinion), government-sector customers a) pay their invoices, b) don’t go bankrupt, c) pay their bills on time, provided that you invoice them in strict accordance with their invoicing requirements, and d) offer reprographers the opportunity to generate sales and, yes, even profits. Whenever in the past I heard a reprographer say that he/she does not go after government-sector business because ….. “they don’t pay their bills and the work is never profitable, so why bother,” I always “rolled my eyes.” I absolutely loved it when my direct competitors ignored government-sector business!

To “properly” pursue government-sector business, one must be keenly aware of a variety of issues that bidders/proposers have to deal with. Understanding those “issues” ….. and how to deal with those issues ….. can either “make or break” your attempts to successfully reap benefits from your foray(s) into government-sector business.

Issue #1 – Fairness. Since the U.S. is a nation where “government is of the people, by the people and for the people,” government-sector procurement agencies are required to hold procurements that a) promote competition, and b) promote competition in such a manner where no one vendor has an advantage over another, in other words, create a “level playing field”, where all vendors have an “equal opportunity” to win business (subject, of course, to “affirmative action” initiatives, which, I think, should be done away with, simply because they allow firms to “scam” the system. But I’m not going to get into that issue in this post, because that issue is worthy of its own post.) Also, c), government-sector purchasing departments (and all of their personnel) are supposed to go about RFPs/bids in a completely “unbiased” manner. But, be aware that that does not always happen. When it does not happen, you have to, you must, speak up! There are two parts to “fairness”, a) fairness to all who choose to enter an RFP/bid competition, and b) fairness to the taxpayers!

Points related to Issue #1:

a) when you find a procurement that creates an advantage for one particular vendor, you must voice your concern to the agency holding the procurement. If you remain silent, that unfair advantage will not go away, and you will be at a disadvantage. Voicing your concern is your right! Some view voicing concerns as being politically incorrect. (“They may not like us if we criticize their bid/RFP document.” “They might ‘blackball’ us if we criticize their bid/RFP document or the bid/RFP process.”) And, while I do agree that “they might say that” if you voice your concerns, if you really want to do your job (as a citizen taxpayer in your community, you MUST be willing to speak up and voice your concerns. There are times when having a “third party” be your spokesperson is a good idea (doing that would allow you to remain anonymous.) E.G., years ago, there was a government-sector RFP procurement in our Tampa, FL market and, in the procurement document, they “basically’ spec’d the equipment requirements in such a manner that limited proposers to include only “Xerox” (brand) equipment. That, of course, gave an unfair advantage to Xerox Corp. We voiced our concern (we cried, “foul ball”), and they subsequently revised the “specs” to eliminate that unfair advantage.

b) Some bids/RFP’s are “evaluated” (for vendor-selection purposes) by “price” only, meaning that the awarded vendor will be the one vendor who proposed/bid the “lowest” price. But, as our government-sector found ways to waste our taxpayer dollars, more and more RFP’s, over the years, have been “structured” to be more “subjective” and less “objective.” When you find RFP’s that are structured in a more “subjective” manner, this basically makes “price” (which is a purely “objective” evaluation factor) of less importance. This enables a government-sector procurement agency to “select” a vendor who offers a higher price than the other vendors (sometimes, even the vendor with the highest price), and, in these cases, be very aware that cronyism and favoritism can render a procurement completely unfair to all proposers except for the one proposer who has “connections” inside (or, even retired from) the government agency that’s holding the RFP procurement. In the RFP document I’ve posted on Google Docs (related to this post), you will notice that “price” is only 25% of the “evaluation criteria”! For a procurement related to ‘planroom’ and ‘printing’ services, that is flat-out ridiculous. 60% of the valuation criteria is allocated to “subjective” criteria (“vendor capability to provide the services requested” and “vendor qualifications”). If I had a friend or relative inside the government (or retired from the government, but who maintained his/her connections within the government), I’d be very comfortable that “my” proposal would be “graded” the highest for those 60 points. Even though government-agency procurement personnel are “supposed to” evaluate subjective points (subjective evaluation criteria) “equally and with all due fairness to each and every proposer”, don’t, even for a minute, think that that’s always the case. And, if you’ve criticized the procurement (document or process) or simply made “suggestions” to improve the procurement, be aware that the points you earn for the (subjective) evaluation criteria will probably get hammered, even thought that’s not supposed to happen. Government-sector procurement departments and people do “take offense” to anything you say about their procurements! (The latter is often why using a “third party” is a good idea.) In any event, if I were a proposer for the RFP I posted on Google Docs, I’d cry “foul ball” about “price” being only 25% of the proposal evaluation. To do that, you must be capable of ranting about “the interest of taxpayers.” In the case of the City procurement I posed in Google Docs, I would have voiced my opinion (and backed it up with comments about the “interest of taxpayers”) that price should be 85% of the evaluation criteria.

Issue #2 – Knowledge and Transparency. Since in the U.S. (and because were are a true democracy) we have something called “Freedom of Information”. Because of that, all government agencies (whether Fed, State, County or City) are required to have laws, rules and regulations that obligate government agencies to be “transparent.” In Florida, laws, rules and regulations (referred to as the Florida Statutes) are put into place by our legislators and all administrators (of State, County and City government agencies) are required to adhere to the law. In Florida, we refer to these laws, rules and regulations that cover “transparency” as the “Florida Sunshine Law”. (meaning, “let light shine on all documents and matters in the public domain”.) Citizens have the right to request and the right to receive documents that are “in the public domain” and government agencies have the obligation to provide what’s requested. (That doesn’t mean that you can obtain documents for free. Most government agencies have pre-established prices for copies of documents.) (Also, not all government documents are covered by transparency law; for example, and these are just two of many exceptions, the government does not have to disclose government employee pay records and the government does not have to disclose documents that would imperil our safety.) But as to exceptions, I have yet to find any documents, related to a reprographics-industry RFP or Bid, where an exception applied. Meaning that, over the years, I’ve requested a TON of documents, and not once was any request not honored. You will note in the City RFP document I posted, that the RFP document mentions Indiana’s public disclosure law. It also says in the RFP that, if a proposer wants to, he/she can mark as “trade secrets” his/her response (proposal). Wait a minute. Instead of typing all this from scratch, I’ve placed, below, a few paragraphs from the RFP document:

The information supplied by a vendor as part of an RFP response will become the property of the City. Proposals will be available to interested parties in accordance with the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (IC 5-14-3). None of the proposal responses will be made available to the public until after negotiation and award of a contract or cancellation of the procurement.

To the extent requested by a vendor and allowed by law, the City will treat trade secrets and confidential financial information as confidential (if designated as confidential and submitted separately in a sealed envelope). The vendor must request confidential status before the proposals are opened.

If the City believes that information designated as confidential should not be treated as such, the vendor will be notified and afforded reasonable time to present objections prior to any release of the information. The City will take into consideration the possibility of harm resulting from any disclosure, but reserves the right to make the final determination in accordance with the law. (Note: Pricing information may not be considered confidential.)

Okay, now that you’ve read that, consider this. During an RFP proposal process I was involved in years ago, one of the proposers marked its entire proposal “secret, not subject to disclosure.” We successfully defeated that request. We were only able to “defeat” that request because we had read the law (the entire law) and because, knowing what “the law” said, were able to make the points necessary to defeat the proposer’s claim (that its proposal should be considered “trade secret.”) It takes some time to go about this, but it is definitely worth it (well, that’s just my opinion, of course.) After all, we aren’t talking about nuclear-bomb secrets, are we? I am “so anal” on this particular point that I would, if I had to, hire an attorney to force disclosure.

Points related to Issue #2:

Now, I’m going to do my best to explain to you what you should consider doing if you really want to be successful in competing for government-sector business.

a) Read the entire RFP or bid document, over and over, until you are absolutely sure what you have to do to be considered a “responsive” proposer/bidder. Do you really want to be considered “non-responsive” because you did not fulfill every requirement to be considered “responsive”? If you have questions about the RFP or bid document (about anything in the document), then prepare your questions in writing and send them to the procuring agency. (The only dumb question is the one that is not asked!) Later, when you get the response, if you get a response you don’t understand, ask for clarification! Government procurement people are sometimes lazy and sometimes stupid, to the point where they issue responses that even the most veteran reprographer can’t understand!

b) Do your best to educate the procuring agency about reprographics and about the terms we use for our services and the units of measure commonly used by reprographers. Do your best to convince the procuring agency to update and modernize their procurement document so as to eliminate services that are completely obsolete. (When they don’t listen to you and/or don’t do what you suggest, learn how to take advantage of their ignorance.)

c) If the procurement is one that’s replacing an earlier procurement (meaning that the current procurement represents competition for a contract that is soon to be over and done with), then request one year’s worth of paid invoices. I’m talking about the invoices that the “current vendor” submitted to the government agency for work that was done during the most recent twelve month period. Government agency procurement people are particularly lazy when it comes to publishing “real” past demand (the actual quantities that were ordered from, and provided by, the current vendor) for the services listed in an RFP or Bid document. Don’t ever rely on “estimated” quantities listed in an RFP or Bid document! Rarely are they accurate …. or even close.

d) Make sure that your proposal or bid is delivered before the deadline (we most always hand-delivered our proposals and bids, so that we could watch the receiving person “date and time stamp” our envelope. That way, no funny business, such as later being told, “your bid/proposal was late,” or, “sorry, we didn’t receive your bid/proposal.”)

e) If the procuring agency is holding an “open bid” session, meaning that they will, at a designated time and place be “opening” the envelopes and reading out who bid and what was bid, then, by all means, have someone from your company attend the bid opening session! Most government agencies, simply as a matter of standard procedure, will hold “open bid” sessions, and, if you attend the session, they will, if asked, read out the bids. Or, allow you to examine the bids that were submitted. (This is not always the case for “proposals” responding to RFP’s.) As to “bids”, there were times when I had to ask that the gov’t person opening the bids read out the prices that were bid (by each bidder) or where I had to ask for copies of the bids so that I could record the bid-prices on a sheet of paper I always brought to bid openings. Whenever the information wasn’t voluntarily offered, I spoke up and asked for it. They can’t deny you! So, if the information is not offered, then ASK FOR IT! In fact, DEMAND IT. The best way to prevent funny business with bids, is to record the bids when they are opened. Then, no one, later on, can slip a new bid into the pile of bids. (You never know who’s got a friend inside a government procuring agency.) As I said, RFP’s are different, so you have to refer to the instructions to proposers to find out when you can get copies of proposers’ proposals.

f) Always request, at the earliest time they are supposed to be available, copies of every bid and every proposal submitted! (and submit your requests in writing, not over the phone.) You can learn a lot from reading and reviewing bids and proposals submitted by competitors. Never, ever let any government procurement agency get away with not complying for your request for copies of bids or proposals. Remember, you have the right to request and receive copies of those documents, and they have the absolute obligation to comply with your request!

g) When the procurement is an RFP and is evaluated by subjective criteria, that means that someone (or several people) at the government procuring agency is going to read, review and ‘score’ the proposals. You have the right to request and receive the minutes of proposal-review meetings and the right to request and receive any recorded-tapes from those meetings (if recordings were made, and, nowadays, most government procuring agencies do make recordings.)

h) Also, if the proposal review/scoring meetings are going to be held in “public” session, then attend those meetings and listen in. You will be surprised at how absurdly stupid some of those meetings are. You will learn, first-hand, how the “points” for “subjective” criteria are awarded.

i) Maintain a history file of government-sector bids and proposals. That history file can make a difference.

Issue #3 – Evaluation of “Price”. I don’t mean to shock you, but there have been (and will continue to be) bid documents and proposal documents that contain sheets where bidders/proposers are required to enter their “prices”, but nothing said about how the “low price” bidder/proposer will be determined. In most bids/proposals that call for pricing, the procuring agency will list the services, will indicate the standard unit of measure for each service (pay particular attention to that), and will provide an “estimated” quantity for each service. They will also require you to enter your unit prices and to extend each line item (total for each line item) and to enter a “total bid” (for all items) at the bottom of the list of services. That’s the simple way of “evaluating” who is the “lowest” bidder/proposal. Now, if you look at the “pricing page” that’s in the City RFP document that I posted on Google Docs, you will see that this City agency has not explained how the “low price” proposer will be determined. There are 8 items listed. “What if” there were 8 proposals submitted and each proposer entered the lowest price for one service? Meaning that 8 different proposers would be the lowest-price proposer for a different service. How the hell does that compute to the “lowest overall price proposal?” It does not compute! That would have been the first question I asked this City agency, right after I first read the RFP. When it is unclear, in any way shape or form, “how” the agency is going to calculate the “lowest price” proposer, then you MUST ask that question, and do that as soon as you can. Don’t allow “price” to be come a “subjective” evaluation criteria.

Other Issues:

Earlier, I mentioned the issue of “politically correctness.” If you are worried that your communications with a government agency will hurt you, then you may want to consider asking your questions or making your suggestions and comments (including criticisms) through a “third party.” Could be a cousin, a friend, a consultant, an accountant or an attorney, someone who won’t be (can’t be) directly connected to you or your company.

If you believe that any competitor is benefitting from favoritism and/or cronyism with respect to bids/proposals and/or “projects” in the government sector – and, folks, that is NOT supposed to happen in government-sector procurement – then you may want to seriously consider speaking to someone in the local state legislature, to voice your concerns and to ask for guidance how to deal with it. You may also want to consider speaking to an investigative reporter (for a local newspaper, alternative newspaper, local TV station, local radio station). Investigative reporters love to find and report on stuff that government agencies (or politicians) are doing but not supposed to be doing. C’mon folks, this is America. If you have not yet read any of Upton Sinclair’s books (one of the most famous “muckrakers” in U.S. history), read a few; they are enlightening; they will encourage you to participate in the process of keeping our government-sector “honest.”

Doing business in the government-sector can be very profitable over the long haul, but, like it or not, it can also be very frustrating. Learning to take advantage of bids and proposals can be a lot of fun and be very rewarding, but it takes a lot of work to position oneself to really know how to take advantage of bids and proposals.

Above, I mentioned that it is always a good idea to request copies of all bids and proposals that were submitted in a competition in which you participated. But, you shouldn’t limit your interest to only competitions you entered. If your company is thinking about offering a new business segment that your company has not offered in the past, such as the FM business (if you are not already in that business), you might find it very interesting to request and review copies of proposals that were previously submitted in government sector FM Service RFP competitions held in the past. And, not just ones that were submitted to government agencies in your market area. Last year, Pitney-Bowes (PB’s FM business segment) was awarded two different government-agency staffed (reprographics-services-related) FM deals. Although I haven’t read the proposals that PB and others submitted in those competitions, I’m sure that anyone who read/reviewed those proposals would learn something about the FM business and how to propose FM’s.

I invite Repro 101 blog visitors to comment on this article. And, to use the “comment” section to share their advice.

I may or may not update this particular post.

Just to let you know……

Steve Bova, Executive Director of the IRgA, contacted me this afternoon to let me know that my request for a “press pass” to the IRgA Convention has been granted.

To those of you who supported my request for a press pass, thank you.

Joel

Déjà vu: (meaning “already seen”) is the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the previous encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined.

Yesterday, an industry-friend alerted me to a bid “on the street” from one of our local government agencies. From the bid document, I printed (pdf’d) just the “bid form” page. That page shows you the services this government agency is “calling out”, including descriptions of services and units of measure. If you click on the link below (which will take you to the “bid form” that I’ve posted on Google Docs), you will get a tinge of nostalgia!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JYjM4YTE5ODgtYmMyZS00ZWViLWFjNzgtY2RkZTZkM2U2OGYy&hl=en&authkey=CMu-sbkF

Yes, this is a current bid on the street! I kid you NOT!

If anyone knows Bill Berg’s e-mail address (ex-owner, ex-CEO of MBC Precision Imaging, which is now an ARC-owned company), please kindly let him know about this post. When I first met Bill Berg, back in 1970, he was a sales guy for Teledyne-Post in the Wash/Balt area. I’m sure he’d get a kick to see, in 2011(!), a bid form that calls out diazo prints using Teledyne blueline paper!

When’s the last time you got an order for diazo prints?

And, OMG, when’s the last time you got an order for Sepia-Tone Slicks? (I’d be willing to bet you that anyone who’s been in the reprographics business for less than 5 years wouldn’t have a clue what “slicks” are, unless they asked an older veteran reprographer.)

As to Government Agency bids for reprographics services ….. do you take the time to try and educate “purchasing agents” so as to encourage them to “update and modernize” their procurements for reprographics services? Having made that a practice when I was active in the reprographics business, I can tell you, first hand, that, more often than not, they completely ignore your suggestions for improving their procurement (bid) documents. Attempting to convince them to “update and modernize” was an agonizing, frustrating process! But, someone’s got to do it.

Although I miss being in the reprographics business, there are times when its nice to be out of the fray, because you no longer have to worry about being “politically incorrect” when you communicate with Government Agency procurement offices. I’d now like to share with you the e-mail I sent, yesterday, to the purchasing agent at the City of St Pete, about the City’s current bid document for repro services:

From: joelsalus

Subject: Bid#7103

Date: February 2, 2011 2:56:12 PM EST

To: lawanda.bodden@stpete.org

Dear Ms. Bodden,

I just read through the above reference bid document for “Copying Services: Construction Drawings”.

The “bid form” you are using for this particular procurement is seriously out of date … and the “bid form” page is absolutely stupid. The City of St Pete Purchasing Department should be embarrassed for issuing a bid form that calls for services that have been basically obsolete for more than 10 years by now. And, the manner in which the bid form calls for pricing is absolutely idiotic. When the City (or, for that matter, any government agency purchasing department) calls for bidders to bid on services that are provided by a specific industry, in this case, the “reprographics” industry, the purchasing department should, at the very least, have at least an elementary-level understanding of how vendors in that industry sell and price their services and what those services are called. It is quite evident that no one in the City’s purchasing department has even an elementary understanding of the services called-out for on the bid form.

I am retired from the reprographics industry. But, when I was not retired, I won this particular city contract. Prior to winning that prior bid, I took the time to educate the city’s purchasing person (who that bid was assigned to) – as to how to go about “updating and modernizing” this particular procurement. But, every bit of advice and guidance I furnished to the City purchasing department was completely and utterly ignored. I am a 40+ year veteran of the reprographics, and, during the time I was in business, I participated in hundreds of government-agency procurements for reprographics services. The City of St Pete’s procurement for reprographics services (the bid form, in particular, and some of the terms and conditions) is just, flat out, ridiculous, the worst one I’ve ever come across.

The City Purchasing Department should do this:

a) cancel the current bid document.

b) schedule a meeting with area reprographics firms to get their input on how the bid-form should be updated and modernized, or, if a meeting is not practical, then, at the very least, call area reprographics firms to request their written input/advice as to how the bid form should be updated and modernized.

When the City issues a horribly prepared bid form, there are two outcomes:

a) fewer vendors will submit bids!

b) the few vendors who do submit bids, will be able to take advantage of the City, financially, because of the way the bid form is structured!

Our City’s budget is under tight constraints, and it is the City Purchasing Department’s primary job to issue “smart” bid documents, bid documents that will invite increased competition, bid documents that will avoid the City from overpaying for necessary services. I am a resident of St Pete. Our city does not have any money to waste. if the City modernizes and updates this procurement, it will encourage more competition and result in lower cost to the City.

Please give a copy of this e-mail to Mr. Moore, the City’s Director of Purchasing. I will, under separate cover, send a copy of this to the Mayor’s office.

Respectfully yours,

Joel H. Salus

In this article, the strangest comment was this one, “The financial crisis is a blessing, because it has created a sense of urgency.”

I immediately found myself wondering, “what’s that guy smoking? …. must be some weird stuff! And, to whom was the financial crisis a blessing?”

________________

Found on Southeast Construction News:

Article Title: 2011: Time to Appreciate That Things are “Less Worse?”

Author: debwood

Date posted: 1/31/2011

(Note: I’m posting only some of the information that appeared in “debwood’s” article; see link at end of post to access full article.)

“Things are moving in the right direction, with the world economy rebounding and six consecutive quarters of economic growth in the United States, but construction has been immune to improvement and will be the last sector to recover, says Anirban Basu, Associated Builders and Contractors’ chief economist, who spoke at the Central Florida Chapter of ABC’s Economic Outlook forum in Orlando.

“At some point, construction will recover; it always does,” Basu told more than 100 people in attendance. But for now, “less worse is the new excellent.”

The U.S. economy is in recovery, much of it motivated by the stimulus package. But that work is winding down and the private sector is not ready to step forward to create new jobs or start building again, Basu says.

Since the start of the recession, the construction industry has lost 1.9 million jobs. The U.S. economy now supports 25% fewer construction workers. However, Basu maintains, “things are getting better,” with private-sector job creation moving in the right direction. In Florida, the education, health care and hospitality industries have added jobs, but construction is still losing jobs. Orlando was the exception, with 600 more construction jobs in December 2010 than one year prior. Tampa, on the other hand, lost 4,500 construction jobs during that period.

“Things are turning around faster in Orlando than people realize,” Basu says.

Nationally, the American Institute of Architects’ architecture billings index shows an increase starting in October 2010. Basu indicates that means contractors should start getting busier in about 14 months.

“We have seen the worst of it,” Basu says.

Economic forum panelist Ted Garrison, of Garrison Associates of Ormond Beach, Fla., advised attendees to “get out of the building industry” and restructure to improve processes, to work more collaboratively, to shift toward integrated project delivery and to focus on solving owners’ problems.

“The financial crisis is a blessing, because it has created a sense of urgency,” Garrison says. “We need to make fundamental changes if we want to survive.””

Click on this link to read the full article:

http://southeast.construction.com/opinions/blogs/?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=13506d49-1969-4925-b282-756982c11f10&plckPostId=Blog%3a13506d49-1969-4925-b282-756982c11f10Post%3aeda8480f-984b-4fc9-8be2-87dc23587cb7&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

ARC announced that it will release its Q4 2010 and Full-Year 2010 Results on February 22, 2011.

On October 11, 2010, ARC issued revised guidance on its expected 2010 results, lowering its full-year 2010 EPS forecast to a range of $.04 – $.09 per share (excluding any one-time charges that may be incurred.)

ARC is very consistent in issuing Press Releases for upcoming earnings results. On February 9, 2010 (last year), ARC issued a press release to say that its Q4 2009 and Full-Year 2009 results would be released on February 9, 2010. Two weeks prior to that, on January 27, 2010, ARC issued a press release (in advance of its press release on February 9) to say that earnings results would be better than previously forecast.

Since ARC has not issued any further guidance (either lower or higher), since it last released revised guidance on October 11, 2010, I think it would be reasonable to assume that ARC’s Q4 2010 results and full-year 2010 results will fall into the EPS range forecast on October 11, 2010 ($.04 – $.09).

According to the “earnings estimates” on MarketWatch.com, 4 analysts have issued projections for ARC’s full-year 2010 EPS results.

· Low estimate: $.05 EPS

· High estimate: $.15 EPS

· Mean estimate: $.09 EPS

From previous 2010 Quarterly results Press Releases:

· Net income for the first quarter of 2010 was $717,000, or $0.02 per diluted share.

· Net income for the second quarter of 2010 was $1.7 million or $0.04 per diluted share.

· Adjusted to exclude the period’s goodwill impairment, net income for the third quarter of 2010 was $0.3 million, or $0.01 per diluted share.

Through the first 9 months of 2010, ARC reported $.06 EPS per diluted share (which excludes one-time charges.) (Comment: I know. If you add .02 + .04 + .01, that equals $.07, so the $.06 must be ‘after’ the effects of adding the quarterly EPS numbers, then rounding to the nearest full penny.)

ARC management forecast full-year 2010 EPS in a range from $.04 to $.09. In order for ARC’s actual full-year 2010 results to fall into that range, ARC would have to report, for Q4 2010, somewhere between a loss of $.01 EPS and earnings of $.03 EPS. (Comment: Yes, I “aced” addition and subtraction in 2^nd grade, but fell off later on when I encountered Algebra, Geometry and I managed to altogether avoid Trigonometry.)

So, what’s your prediction of ARC’s Full-Year 2010 EPS Results?

If you care to make a prediction, post it as a comment to this post.

My own personal prediction is that ARC will report $.03 EPS for Q4 2010 and $.09 EPS for the full-year 2010. I would imagine that ARC, by now, has gained at least some traction in its efforts to grow its non-AEC business (MPS and Riot Color.) And, ARC has continued right-sizing its costs.

I previously estimated that ARC’s full-year 2010 Sales will come in at right around $445 million.

And, in a recent post, I predicted that ARC’s 2011 Sales will end up being around 15% more than ARC’s 2010 Sales, as the reprographics industry begins in 2011 its long awaited recovery.

______________

Simply for reference purposes, here are the ARC Press Releases I referred to in the commentary above:

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Jan 31, 2011

American Reprographics Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2010 Results Conference Call

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Jan 31, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) —American Reprographics Company (NYSE: ARC) today announced that it will hold a conference call with investors and analysts on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 2 P.M. Pacific Time (5:00 P.M. Eastern Time) to discuss results for the Company’s fourth quarter and full year 2010.

The news release announcing the fourth quarter 2010 results will be disseminated on February 22, 2011 after the market close.

______________

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Oct 11, 2010

American Reprographics Company Revises Annual Forecast

American Reprographics Company (NYSE: ARP), the nation’s leading provider of reprographics services and technology, today announced that it is lowering its annual earnings per share forecast for 2010. The Company currently expects to see annual EPS in the range of $0.04-$0.09, down from its earlier forecast of $0.15-$0.30. Operating cash flow for the Company is expected to be in the range of $50-$60 million, down from $65-$80 million. These projections exclude any one-time charges that may be incurred through December 31, 2010.

______________

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Jan 27, 2010

ARC 2009 Earnings Expected to Exceed Estimates Due to Less Than Anticipated Decline in Fourth Quarter Revenue

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Jan 27, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — American Reprographics Company (NYSE: ARP) (“ARC” or the “Company”), the nation’s leading provider of reprographics services and technology, today said that it expects to exceed its previously announced annual earnings per share forecast for 2009. It now anticipates earnings per share (on a fully-diluted basis) to be in the range of $0.35 to $0.38, excluding previously announced one-time charges.

The Company said that its earnings per share performance was the result of a lesser decline in fourth quarter revenues. The Company’s previously announced earnings per share forecast was in the range of $0.27 to $0.33.

ARC executives will be available for comment during the 2009 fourth quarter and year-end earnings call scheduled for February 23, 2010, when they will provide details on the Company’s financial and operational performance for 2009.

______________

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Feb 09, 2010

American Reprographics Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2009 Results Conference Call

WALNUT CREEK, CA, Feb 09, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — American Reprographics Company (NYSE: ARP) today announced that it will hold a conference call with investors and analysts on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 2 P.M. Pacific Time (5:00 P.M. Eastern Time) to discuss results for the Company’s fourth quarter and full year 2009 and first quarter 2010 business outlook.

The news release announcing the fourth quarter 2009 results will be disseminated on February 23, 2010 after the market close.