GovernmentExecutive.com

Bush administration and union officials disagree about the cost of implementing the Defense Department's pending personnel system.

The system, dubbed the National Security Personnel System, was first laid out in the Federal Register in February. The regulations proposed a system with performance-based pay and lessened collective bargaining powers for employees.

The American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing about 300,000 Defense employees, is now asking department officials to give specifics on just how much this personnel system will cost to implement.

"Despite the reams of paper outlining details and procedures under the proposed system," AFGE president John Gage said, "little information has been made available to the public on the costs associated with implementing the new system."

NSPS officials, however, said they have not received a request recently from AFGE concerning the price of the personnel system. They said the unions raised the issue in February, when the announcement was published and the Federal Register disclosed all the cost information.

According to that announcement, the department "estimates the overall costs associated with implementing the new DoD HR system - including the development of a system and the creation of the [National Security Labor Relations Board] - will be approximately $158 million through [fiscal] 2008. Less than $100 million will be spent during any 12-month period."

That answer, said Don Hale, president of the AFGE's Defense Conference, is too vague.

We "don't know how they came up with that figure or what that is going to encompass," Hale said.

According to NSPS spokeswoman Joyce Frank, the $158 million takes in the estimated costs for designing and implementing NSPS, including centralized program office operations, training design and delivery, program evaluation, modifications to human resources information systems, and establishment of a National Security Labor Relations Board.

AFGE leaders said the Homeland Security Department, which has a similar personnel system slated to roll out on Aug. 15, awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman Corp. for $175 million, more than NSPS' estimated total cost, "solely for the purpose of designing" the system, not implementing it.

"When has the design ever cost less than the final product?" asked Ron Ault, president of the AFL-CIO Metal Trades Department, arguing the cost of implementing the program will likely outweight the cost of design alone. Ault said estimating the Defense Department's cost based on DHS', it will "probably cost billions to implement."

While NSPS officials said they could not comment on DHS costs, they noted that the "Department of Defense has an existing, robust infrastructure for things like training and information systems, and our costs reflect that."

Hale called the $158 million figure "a bogus number."

"A full week of training for some supervisors, that's a big cost," Hale said. "Just a transfer of some of these job positions is going to be another task and is going to take up a lot of time and a lot of effort for people who are supposed to be doing other things."

The final personnel reform proposal should be published in the Federal Register in the fall, according to Frank.

COMMENTS

• Robert M is missing the point on this one. His taxes result from last year's activities and not his projection of the next 50 years! For a savings projection over 50 years to only be off by 50% is not that bad (I think they only should be off by 30%). These ridiculous projections are what DoD is putting into its financial statements under the "new" accounting for liabilities. The estimated cost for environmental cleanup probably are off by at least 33% or more. There is no way on earth that any reasonable accounting system would "book" such a bad number on its financial statements. The SEC also wants private companies to begin booking these ridiculous numbers as well. The most suprising thing is that auditors are ok with these bad nuumbers, they only think they need more documentation concering the assumptions made to establish the estimates. This is the ultimate of "political accounting". taxpayer Posted August 16, 2005 6:57 AM
• I had the same question, which I addressed during the Public Comment period when the proposed NSPS was posted in the Federal Register . What could be gleaned from the report was that most of the mechanics of the new NSPS would be detailed in "DoD Implementing Regulation and Instruction", which I don't expect to see posted anywhere for public comment. Topic: Regulatory Review Reference E.O. 12866 Comment/Requested Clarification of Intent: Referenced Executive Order reads that "it is estimated that the cost of developing and implementing the Human Resources system and the creation of the National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB) is 158 million through FY 2008". References are made without any amplification of the intent “Less that 100 million spent in any 12 month period”. What does this mean? Are these monies appropriated for FY 05 to begin system design and implementation? Does this figure simply include paper regulation, how many personnel to run this system, at what levels, what is the budget proposal for beyond 2008 to maintain this separate system? This is a confusing statement if the estimate is to complete the system design and the Labor Relations board with 158 million, what does it mean by no more than 100 million can be spent in any one 12 month period? Is this 158 million purely for the establishment of the administration? What appropriations will be set aside for any performance payout, or are they inclusive in this amount. If so, what interfaces with pay out agencies will be established to ensure priorities will be established for the controlled expenditures. GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2005 9:49 AM
• I am so tired. I guess congress and the senators are not listening. Bush and Rummy are killing America. I have worked for the DOD for 21 years. I have worked hard for America. I love my job. But now not only will I not get any kind of raise for my hard work, but I have to walk into my place of employment and worry about the BRAC. My job is slated to be closed down if Bush agrees with the list and than my job is to be moved to Belle Chase, Louisiana. I am just tired. I support my elderly mother and young grandson. But I don't have a clue what I will do now. No yearly raises and no job!!! CAN SOMEBODY HELP US!!! WORKER BEE KC GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2005 8:01 AM