TOPICS

Defense Department names task force to review NSPS

By Alex M. Parker aparker@govexec.com May 15, 2009

The Defense Department has announced a three-member task force will conduct a review of the National Security Personnel System, the controversial Bush-era pay-for-performance program that has been frozen by the Obama administration.

The panel will make recommendations to the Defense Business Board this summer, to be followed by a report to Defense in the fall.

Rudy deLeon, who was deputy secretary of Defense during the Clinton administration, will head the task force. He is now a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank headed by John Podesta, who was co-chair of the Obama transition team.

RELATED STORIES

The Defense Business Board, an independent advisory panel created in 2001, launched the task force at the request of the Office of Personnel Management and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn. According to the Pentagon, the task force will focus on whether NSPS is meeting its objectives and operating in a fair and transparent way.

DeLeon said one focus of the review will be whether the performance-based pay system is attracting and retaining skilled civilian workers. "We do need to make sure that we're bringing in the next generation of civilian employees," he said.

The task force plans to seek input from civilian employees about the program's effectiveness and whether it is reaching its goals. DeLeon said the panel would say more about how it will conduct its review after its first meeting later in May.

Other members of the panel are Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board, and Robert Tobias, a professor at American University, where he heads the Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation. All three members were chosen by the Defense Department and OPM.

Several Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Office of Management and Budget on April 3, asking the administration to halt all planned pay-for-performance systems from going into effect pending the NSPS review. The lawmakers said they were unnecessary and encouraged discrimination by managers.

Several unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, have opposed pay-for-performance systems such as NSPS in the courts and in the legislature.

"IFPTE applauds OPM Director John Berry and Secretary Lynn for putting together what we view as a very fair and well-rounded panel of professionals to review the NSPS program," said Matt Biggs, legislative director for IFPTE. "We're confident in the folks who were chosen."

OPM's decision to halt implementation of NSPS prevented Defense from transferring 2,000 employees into the system, but 205,000 employees already were in NSPS.

VIEW ALL 86 COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • The poor economy is attracting people to the Government not NSPS. If attracting people is the criteria, the fix is already in for that criteria. In general, NSPS appears to be too complicated and costs too much. As a transparency exercise I would like to see the total employees covered by NSPS, hours and dollars used by DCMA, including training, to implement and process the FY 2008 ratings. I would also like to see the number of employees covered by the GS system, hours and dollars used by DCMA, including training, to process the GS system CY 2008 ratings. Also in the interest of transparency, I would also like to see the ratings, broken down from DCMA Headquarters, through Divisions and Centers to the Tertiary CMO level. I suspect that a higher percentage of higher ratings went to Centers, Divisions and Headquarters then to CMO’S. The calculation would be as follows: number of eligible NSPS employees with higher ratings at each activity/ total NSPS eligible employees at each activity. If my hypothesis is correct, this would be objective proof that the NSPS system is unfair. Concerned Posted June 25, 2009 10:38 AM
  • This is the worst pay system ever invented.It is the best good old boy system invented. Wear else can a Superviser work over a thousand hours of overtime on every shift overseeing the overhaul of three subs be rated a 3 and supervisors in your code do not oversee any subs or only fill in when needed receives a 5 and 4 and only work 40 hour weeks on day shift. I guess it for national defence so we can have some young boys well rested to work when needed. Im 57 with 35 years of service they want us older guys to retire instead of rewarding us for our years of dedicated service and if they counted my overtime as time in service I would have over 50 years of government service. Please get rid of NSPS. Charles Woodington Posted June 24, 2009 2:21 PM
  • I have been under the NSPS system since 2007, and have personally witnessed the unfairness of both recruitment of new employees as well as employees who were former GS employees converted into NSPS. There is a serious lack of compensation reform of former employees who unfortunately did not receive the same opportunities simply because of new rules and regulation changes. In addition, I am a Pay Pool Panel member and have witnessed the failures in providing equal pay-for-performance as well as certain employee’s receiving greater compensation than others (same work, same geographical location and job objectives) with little to no oversight. When NSPS was developed it was geared toward “National Security and Defense”, however, not all employees who work for National Security and Dept of Defense are under this Personnel System. Again, where is the fairness? As a government, federal civil service employee there should be only ONE personnel system! If the federal government and the Department of Defense don’t force all civilian employees to convert to this system, than the NSPS personnel system should be abolished immediately. Frank Posted June 5, 2009 12:30 PM
VIEW ALL 86 COMMENTS

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR