GovernmentExecutive.com

The House approved a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel Thursday, also approving measures to scale back the Defense Department's controversial personnel system and limit public-private competitions for government work.

"There are many provisions in this bill that are good for our men and women in uniform, such as a 3.5 percent pay raise and a prohibition on fee increases for the TRICARE and TRICARE pharmacy programs," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., following the 397-27 vote to pass the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization legislation.

The final measure preserved committee language to overhaul the Pentagon's National Security Personnel System, which has been challenged by federal labor unions as limiting the collective bargaining and appeal rights of the department's civilian employees.

The House-passed bill would restore those rights and would require the department to bargain with unions before implementing changes to its pay-for-performance system.

The White House opposes the changes, and in a statement warned that presidential advisers would recommend that Bush veto the final bill if it includes the language.

Federal labor union officials, however, praised the House vote. "We commend the House of Representatives for repairing the damage inflicted by the department's misguided personnel system," said American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage.

The House also left untouched committee-passed provisions related to competitive sourcing, the process of inviting the private sector to bid on government work under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.

An amendment sponsored by Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., would give federal employees new appeal rights in A-76 competitions, and would give managers discretion not to recompete work at the end of an in-house team's performance period.

The bill would also push the department to develop guidance on bringing contracted work back in-house, prevent contractors from gaining a cost advantage by offering health or retirement benefits cheaper than those provided to federal employees, limit OMB's role in the Pentagon's decision-making around competitive sourcing, and require a reconsideration of all ongoing competitions to gauge whether they should continue.

The bill would require all agencies to notify Congress of their intention to announce a new competition.

The White House condemned the A-76 provisions, as well as lawmakers' decision to raise pay more than the 3 percent proposed in the president's budget, but did not threaten to veto the authorization measure based on those issues.

Brittany R. Ballenstedt contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• The language in this bill would simply clarify the original Congressional intent of NSPS which DOD intentionally ignored when it unilaterally developed the NSPS regulations. Congress always intended to preserve employees' collective bargaining and appeal rights but DOD saw a chance to gut these statutory rights because of some what murky language agreed to when the NSPS language went to Conference committee. Fortunately so far the Courts recognized this illegal power garb by DOD and voided the regulation dealing with collective bargaining and appeal rights. I am also encouraged that the language also allows for group incentive pay in the NSPS “pay for performance system”. In my experience the peer pressure applied within a work group to achieve goals is more beneficial to an organization compared to individuals attempting to beat their fellow workers to receive the individual rewards. This approach would foster team work rather than jealousy and back biting. LJH Posted May 18, 2007 9:21 AM
• As an Air Force reservist subject to activation (again) and a DOD civillian employee, I enthusiastically welcome attention from Congress to any and all military and civil service benefits. Those who would argue against such are more than welcome to voluntarily enlist in military service to gain the proper perspective of the challenges, uncertainties, and dangers we face on a continuous basis. Or they should sit back and be quiet while they enjoy all the freedom and privilages they are not earning. If the members of Congress who have introduced legislation to modify Guard and Reserve benifits are serious, and not just pandering and window dressing, I challenge them to submit these changes as ammendments to the Defense Authorizations and Appropriations bills. Allowing these bills to languish in committee and die slowly is not going to do anything to help. Does anyone really want to see grandparents approaching 60 in a combat situation because they can't afford to retire with no benefits until age 60? Also, I can see a potential win-win situation for everyone concerned. When active duty move to a new duty station, their spouces are given preference in certain hiring situations at local government facilities in their new location. I suggest that spouces of Guard and Reserve members also be given preference in hiring in the local area of the facility their husband/wife would normally drill at if that member is placed on active duty in support of a contingency opperation for 90 days or more. This would cost the government absolutely nothing, yet would be a tremendous morale boost to our troops,as well as a fantastic opportunity for both their families and the government agencies involved. Ray McCord Posted May 18, 2007 8:48 AM