TSP trials

Over the past two weeks, the 401k-style Thrift Savings Plan has undergone significant change with the implementation of a new automated record keeping system and the settlement of a long-running legal feud with the contractor originally hired to create the system.

The June 16 launch of the new record keeping system got off to a rocky start because of problems with the TSP Web site that prevented participants from accessing the new system. TSP officials immediately initiated a quick fix that allowed participants to at least view their current balance via the Web site and directed participants to call 504-255-8777 to conduct other business, such as fund exchanges and loan applications. As of June 24, TSP officials were still trying to correct the glitch.

But after waiting more than six years for the new system, many "Pay and Benefits Watch" readers were unhappy that they could not access it through the TSP Web site. Here's a sample of comments received by "Pay and Benefits Watch":

• "It would have been preferable to keep the old system until more of the glitches were worked out or maybe the new system could have been piloted rather than 'here it is if you can access it!' When it works as it's designed to, it'll be a vast improvement over the former system. The operative word being 'when,'" a Treasury Department employee wrote.
• "I'll be minimizing my TSP participation (by reducing my contribution from 13 to 5 percent) and investing that money elsewhere. The new record keeping system is horrendous, inspiring little investor confidence. I wonder about other 'invisible' record keeping problems and mismanagement issues when something as mundane as full online account access isn't possible. Every member of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board would have to be replaced before my confidence in the TSP is fully restored," a Navy civilian wrote.
• "I believe that it should not have been deployed until it was ready to use fully. To have a system that is only partially operational is like not having a system at all. This is just not customer-oriented at all," an Air Force civilian said.
• "Developers knew the potential number of members requiring access-[I] understand that at first the system will be overloaded-but what about daily access a few weeks from now. Will I face the same problem accessing my account to make my changes?" another Air Force civilian wrote.
• "I know the problems will eventually be solved, but given the availability of commercial software and the fact that Web access is pretty much the norm for financial institutions these days, I find it amazing that these guys just can't get it right. If people are supposed to be held accountable for their performance, the TSP folks deserve a D- (the only reason it's not an F is that part of the site is working)," one reader wrote.
• "In this day and age of computer technology and given the amount of money hard-working government employees have invested in the TSP program, it is absolutely phenomenal the delays we are experiencing. This is the 21st century where space stations exists, satellites have gone beyond the boundaries of our own galaxy and probes have landed to find if life exists on Mars; yet we are subjugated to a system that equals the Pony Express. If we were comparable to a private company entering the fast paced world of business, maybe selling lemonade at a street corner would be more profitable," wrote another reader.

• "It's great, and I'm so glad it's finally here! I know the system is new and will take a little time to work the kinks out," the reader wrote.

Under the settlement, the lawsuits have been dismissed, AMS must pay the TSP $15 million and TSP must pay AMS $10 million. But TSP participants are footing the remainder of the bill, totaling $36 million.

Some "Pay and Benefits Watch" readers were unhappy with that solution:

• "I am not really sure why I, as an active TSP participant since TSP involvement with DoD, should be obligated to pay this contractor a penny. Plans to automate were not mine, I had no say in the developing fiasco, and now my co-workers are going to pick up the pieces for a poorly managed piece of contract administration," wrote one Defense Department employee.
• "I find it rather interesting that the participants have to foot a $36M bill. The participants were not the ones that negotiated the original contract to upgrade the system. The 'better deal' we have now with the outfit in New Orleans is unbelievably awful (yesterday, I tried to call in 12 times and got a busy signal 11 of them, and in the past 10 days could get into my account once, but tried at least 100 times). We had no say in the negotiations of the lawsuit. I would have rather kept the 20th century system we had than go with the improved version," an Energy Department employee wrote.
• "I find it very displeasing that TSP members were not informed, given notice, or [able to vote] on paying for something that went afoul and had nothing to do with contract bargaining of AMS. I feel we have been stabbed in the back and salt poured in the wound with the TSP board. Who in the world gave them permission to have the TSP members foot the $36 million dollars? I would think a class action suit would be forthcoming in the near future; this is really a sad day!" a Defense Contract Management Agency employee wrote.
• "While I'm sure there is a lot of 'behind the scenes' information that has not been made available, the point is this contract was mishandled by the TSP board from the beginning. That board should be responsible for shouldering the burden of the costs, not the plan participants. Their contract administration was absurd," an employee at the Federal Aviation Administration wrote.