Tag Archive: management


Here’s one way to get young people into public service: Pay them to spend time outside.

The Obama administration announced Friday its intention to hire more than 20,000 people ages 15-25 for summer jobs in national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges and other public lands.

Of the total, 12,000 will work for the Interior Department and 8,000 will work for the Forest Service within the Agriculture Department. Though the agencies routinely hire young workers for summer restoration jobs through programs like AmeriCorps, the number of those workers has been steadily increasing: Interior, for example, has increased its cadre of young summer workers by 35 percent since 2009, according to department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley.

Of the outdoor jobs, 500 will be filled through $3.7 million in competitive grants funding projects at public lands in various states. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will fund $1.4 million of the grant money, which will be matched by $2.3 million raised by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through private partners.

Lee-Ashley said the young outdoor workers would not replace any full-time federal employees.

The General Services Administration has issued guidance to federal agencies on how to consolidate their mail management practices to help reduce both economic and environmental waste.

A bulletin GSA issued earlier this month directs federal agencies to examine their internal policies and to look for ways to consolidate mail, such as presorting, reducing hard copy agency-to-agency mailings and ensuring teleworkers properly receive their mail.

GSA makes several specific suggestions for mail consolidation in the memo, including using U.S. Postal Service flat-rate boxes, eliminating inefficient postage metering, scheduling mailings in advance and coordinating with other agencies to qualify for discounts, and training employees in USPS address management tools to reduce the number and expense of returned mail.

It also suggests using email rather than hard copies where possible, and scanning first-class and standard incoming hard copy mail and delivering it electronically.

In addition, federal agencies can earn a work-sharing discount if they reduce the effort USPS must put into mail processing. The Postal Regulatory Commission also has expressed interest in the issue: At a May 2 public meeting, the USPS watchdog discussed a related 2011 paper written by PRC staff. That research suggests USPS could save up to $100 million if the federal government further presorted its mail, and up to $250 million from centralizing state agency mail operations.

Although mail volume overall is slowly declining — junk revenue climbed in 2010 but USPS delivers less first-class mail today than it did five years ago — mail communication in the federal government differs, in part because nongovernment mailers can use alternative electronic communications, according to PRC.

“Nongovernment mailers can offer incentives and penalties to convert customers from the mail channel to electronic channels,” PRC stated. “In contrast, a government entity must serve everyone, and thus does not possess the same type of operational flexibility. Most government use of mail is mandated by laws that both obligate and specify the use of the mail channel. For example, the U.S. government mandates that federal agencies notify affected citizens following electronic data breaches.”

The guidance, addressed to heads of federal agencies, is slated to take effect this month. It is unclear whether target dates or metrics for implementation have been established.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday approved President Obama’s choice to be administrator of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Committee members present for the vote unanimously approved Joseph Jordan, a current Office of Management and Budget adviser. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who weighed in by proxy, registered the sole vote against the nomination.

Ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was backing Jordan despite some “qualms” as to whether he “will stand up to efforts by the Obama administration to introduce politics to the contracting process,” a reference to a leaked draft executive order from the president that would require contracting companies to disclose campaign contributions. Collins said Jordan’s statements and responses to her questions convinced her that “his personal view is that politics has no place in contracting,” even though he was not “definitive” on the draft executive order. Other critics, she said, opposed Johnson as underqualified.

Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., however, said Jordan is well-qualified. “Mr. Jordan has acquisition experience in both the private and public sectors,” Lieberman noted in a statement. “I support the nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.”

The procurement nominee was approved in a bloc vote on several bills, including ones dealing with changes in federal domestic partnership benefits and efforts to keep politics out of federal contracting awards.

Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Monday asked the acting chief of the scandal-tarnished General Services Administration to conduct a series of reviews of conference spending and travel and posed 41 detailed, multi-part questions on lavish spending on the ill-fated training conference held in Las Vegas in October 2010.

In a letter to acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini and GSA Inspector General Brian Miller, Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Maine sought clarification on GSA’s overall financial management, its leaders’ control over its 10 administrative regions and its spending policies on conferences and contracting.

“The waste, excessive spending, and possible fraud uncovered as a result of this investigation and continuing investigations cause us great concern,” they wrote. “It is never appropriate for an agency to skirt acquisition rules and policies and waste taxpayer dollars in the process. These issues are even more troubling given GSA’s unique and lead role in contracting and management of travel and conference planning.”

The senators recommended that GSA’s chief financial officer review recent conferences for possible waste as well a sampling of per diem expenses.

The 41 questions, presented with a deadline of May 31, 2012, addressed the scope of GSA’s current “top to bottom review.” They asked what changes GSA has made since the overspending was made public in early April and posed various general questions about lines of reporting within GSA when it comes to approval for travel and conferences. The senators also asked for a review of disciplinary actions that have been taken against employees involved in planning the Las Vegas conference.

The letter also requested information on the steps GSA has taken to comply with President Obama’s November 2011 executive order promoting efficient spending. “We often hear that GSA considers itself different from other agencies because, although part of its budget is appropriated, much of its operating budget comes from fees other federal agencies pay to GSA out of their own appropriated accounts in exchange for services GSA provides,” the senators wrote. “GSA’s employees, therefore, may be less conscious of budget constraints than agencies that rely on appropriations. What will you do to instill in the mindset of GSA employees that they are first and foremost the stewards of taxpayer dollars?”

Asked for a response, GSA Deputy Press Secretary Adam Elkington said in an email to Government Executive that the 2010 conference was an anomaly. “We were appalled by the missteps highlighted in the IG’s report, have taken disciplinary action against those responsible, accepted all of the IG’s recommendations and are conducting a top-down review of our agency’s operations,” he said. “We welcome responsible oversight and look forward to working with the committee on this matter. Our agency remains committed to eliminating excessive federal spending and promoting government efficiency.”

It was a given that travel for General Services Administration employees was going to become much more closely scrutinized following news of extravagant spending on the agency’s 2010 Western Regions Conference. Now a document reveals just what kind of travel will be allowed.

According to an April memo from GSA acting commissioner Dan Tangherlini and reports Thursday by Federal News Radio, the agency has suspended all travel for agency employees through the end of fiscal 2012 for “internal GSA meetings, trainings, conferences, seminars, leadership or management events, etc.” The suspension does, however, come with exceptions.

Travel to approved conferences for external audiences still is allowed, as well as travel for the purpose of performing the routine mission functions of GSA. Management will determine which employees are essential to the performance of the relevant function.

In addition, travel will be permitted for routine management meetings, provided that other options such as teleconferencing have been exhausted, according to Federal News Radio. Training-related travel for essential job skills will be allowed, as will travel to conferences for the purpose of expanding services or reaching out to clients, though these requests must be approved by several levels of management before any procurement activity can take place.

These new conference policies will be tested as early as next week, when employees attend the annual GSA Expo in San Antonio. Federal News Radio reports as many as 50 Federal Acquisition Service employees have been cut from the conference’s travel budget since the scandal. More than 35 other GSA conferences have been cut. Agency participation in vendor events such as dinners also may be cut by half.

The Senate on Tuesday passed a longtime in the works bill to expand protections to federal workers who report wrongdoing. The vote by unanimous consent was hailed by many watchdog and transparency groups.

The bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 743), sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, would clarify the difference between policy disputes and whistleblowing.

It would expand the types of employee disclosures of violations of laws, rules or regulations that are protected and beef up employee rights. It also would broaden coverage to employees of the major intelligence agencies and the Transportation Security Administration, prohibiting the revocation of a security clearance in retaliation for a protected whistleblower disclosure. And it would expand the rights of the Office of Special Counsel to file friend-of-the-court briefs.

The bill would strengthen authority for reviews by the Merit Systems Protection Board and provide whistleblowing employees with more access to their agency’s inspector general. It would allow jury trials under specified conditions for up to five years and establish whistleblower protection ombudsmen to educate agency personnel about whistleblower rights.

“Whistleblowers are critical to effective, accountable government,” Akaka said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know that whistleblowers will be protected when they have the courage to come forward to disclose wrongdoing.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said, “Congress has consistently supported the principle that federal employees should not be subject to prior restraint or punishment from disclosing wrongdoing. This should give federal workers the peace of mind that if they speak out, they will be protected. Full whistleblower protections will also help ensure that Congress and our committee have access to the information necessary to conduct proper oversight.”

A House version, the Platts-Van Hollen Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 3289), cleared the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in November 2011.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said on Wednesday, “I am pleased the Senate approved much-needed legislation to protect well-intentioned federal employees who expose waste, fraud and illegal behavior in the government. In many respects, this legislation mirrors efforts being undertaken in the House, and I look forward to working out differences between the House and Senate so that legislation enhancing protections for whistleblowers becomes law.”

The Senate effort to enact the bill goes back at least to 2001, as Akaka’s website notes, and a version nearly passed the last Congress, having drawn the backing of the Obama administration.

The bill went down previously because of an “unrelated controversy” over the WikiLeaks revelations involving a Defense Department employee who leaked hundreds of classified documents, according to the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. “The WPEA will modernize the government whistleblower law by ensuring legitimate disclosures of wrongdoing will be protected; increasing government accountability to taxpayers; and saving billions of taxpayer dollars by helping expose fraud, waste and abuse,” POGO said in a statement on Wednesday. “The bill also will strengthen failed procedures, close loopholes, create efficiencies and affirm lawful disclosures. For the first time, some federal whistleblowers would have a real ‘day in court.’ ”

Patrice McDermott, executive director of the coalition Openthegovernment.org, said in an email to Government Executive, “While the bill itself is not a breakthrough — the Senate has passed it previously — it is landmark legislation that specifically brings national security and intelligence community workers, federal scientists and Transportation Security Administration officers under protection. The bipartisan support for the legislation is indicative of its importance for accountable government.”

Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center, was less enthusiastic. “All federal employees badly need strong whistleblower protections consistent with the protections enjoyed by private sector workers,” he said in an email. “The Senate version of the WPEA contains some improvements, but falls far short of the comprehensive whistleblower law reforms promised in the 2008 political campaign.” He said under the Senate version, “federal employees will still lack important protections when they report fraud against the taxpayers,” citing as examples “full access to federal court for all federal employees, including national security employees, and no summary judgment at the MSPB.” His group worries the bill “will be watered down further once the House takes up the measure,” Kohn said.

Charity Wilson, legislative representative at the American Federation of Government Employees, called the bill “much-needed legislation to give federal workers protections when they report wrongdoing. We look forward to seeing the bill pass the House and the president signing it.”

The National Treasury Employees Union also welcomed Senate passage of the bill.

Asserting that “early, frequent and constructive engagement with industry leads to better acquisition outcomes,” the Office of Management and Budget on Monday released Mythbusting 2, a follow-up to guidance sent out in 2011 to encourage agencies and contractors to shed some of their reluctance to communicate.

“Whereas we focused last year on the misconceptions on the part of federal agencies, we want to continue the discussion by addressing in this memorandum the misconceptions that may be held by some in the vendor community,” wrote Lesley Field, acting administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement, in a May 7 memo to chief acquisition officers, senior procurement officers and chief information officers.

Agency recipients were encouraged to share the document with the contracting community, especially new contractors. Copies also were sent to agency counsels and ethics officers.

An attachment laid out seven “myths” that inhibit precontract communication — which is often self-censored for fear of unintentionally disqualifying vendors from winning contracts — and provided best practices agencies can use to help overcome any hesitancy. Examples of myths include:

  • “Misconception — `The best way to present my company’s capabilities is by marketing directly to contracting officers and/or signing them up for my mailing list.’ ”
  • A second is: “Misconception — `Agencies generally have already determined their requirements and acquisition approach so our impact during the pre-[request for proposals] phase is limited.’”

Field said the document also is designed to encourage incorporating more industry input into agency acquisitions, publicizing events that allow contractors and contracting officers to interact, and providing training and awareness to employees and vendors.

The memo cites two agencies as models for outreach to vendors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses quarterly business seminars to educate vendors about the agency, as well as one-on-one discussions between vendors and project managers and technical counseling sessions for market research on specific requirements.

The Education Department holds webinars, advertised in the presolicitation phase, on FedBizOpps.gov, as a “virtual outreach” to increase competition.

Field announced the new document during a panel at a Monday conference on small business federal contracting hosted by the American Council for Technology-Industry Advisory Council.

Asked how agencies were doing in implementing the principles of mythbusting, she said, “they are more mindful of the pre-RFP phase,” participating in more webinars and industry days, while contractors are getting more specific in how they target agencies. “Sometimes it’s just a simple conference call at the right time,” she said. “I’ve seen it happen with 100 folks participating, and I’m pleased.”

The first mythbusting memo, written by then-OFPP administrator Dan Gordon, came out in February 2011.

Thirty-three federal employees are finalists for the 2012 Service to America Medals for their outstanding achievements in a range of fields including health, national security, disaster management and law enforcement.

“The Service to America Medal finalists epitomize the true spirit and value of public service,” said Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the Partnership for Public Service, the organization behind the awards. “Their stories showcase the good that our public servants do each and every day behind-the-scenes on behalf of the American public.” The Partnership will hand out medals in nine categories at an annual gala in Washington on Sept. 13.

Winners receive cash awards ranging from $3,000 to $10,000.

The 2012 finalists were selected from among more than 400 nominations and represent several agencies and departments across government, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Veterans Affairs. Twenty-eight finalists are from the Washington area; others work in Atlanta, Houston, Utah and Germany.

The honorees’ achievements include:

  • Developing an innovative rehabilitation program to help wounded warrior amputees lead active lives and potentially return to duty
  • Preparing staff at U.S. embassies and consulates to protect and evacuate Americans caught in uprisings, wars and natural disasters
  • Overseeing the cost-effective acquisition and procurement of military equipment for warfighters
  • Reducing homelessness among veterans by 12 percent in one year
  • Leading a governmentwide campaign against bullying
  • Recovering thousands of historical documents stolen from the National Archives
  • Creating an electronic system to track medical treatment of disaster victims and to monitor emerging health threats
  • Studying ways to prevent and treat the growing epidemic of type 2 diabetes in children

Click here for a full list of finalists.

The Office of Personnel Management received fewer retirement claims in April than expected, after a spike in applications submitted during the first three months of 2012.

OPM received 6,616 claims last month — 1,384 less than the 8,000 claims expected and 474 less than the number the agency received in March. The slowdown likely helped OPM chip away at its 50,000-plus backlog of claims: The backlog currently stands at 51,016 claims, down 1,258 from March. Since January, the backlog is down 17 percent from 61,108 claims. The agency projected it would have a backlog of 55,078 claims in April, so by those measures, OPM is ahead of the game.

OPM released the latest statistics Thursday.

The agency slightly overestimated the number of claims it projected it would process in April — 8,028 actual claims completed versus a target of 8,300 claims. Since January, OPM has received 41,600 retirement claims. It began 2012 with a backlog of 48,378 claims.

OPM administers benefits for 2.5 million federal retirees and processes about 100,000 new claims annually. Director John Berry has said eliminating the backlog is his highest priority in 2012. Earlier this year, OPM unveiled a plan that aims to get rid of the claims backlog within 18 months and to reduce processing times so that 90 percent of claims are administered within two months of receipt.

Lawmakers asked OPM in February to report monthly on the status of the backlog.

Processing retirement claims, particularly disability claims, can be complex and time-consuming, and OPM relies heavily on other federal agencies to provide retirees’ information, including the amount of their annuity. The agency uses more than 500 different procedures, laws and regulations to address retirement applications.

Federal employees’ performance reviews would be expanded to factor in the quality of the service they provide under a bill headed to the House floor with the blessing of good-government advocacy groups.

The Government Customer Service Improvement Act (H.R. 538), introduced in February 2011 by Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, was approved on April 18 by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

It would “establish improved customer service standards” for federal agencies by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to develop performance measures for gauging the quality of agency service. Each agency would name a “customer relations representative” to implement the policy and report feedback on the agency’s annual report executed under the 2010 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act. Under the bill, all performance appraisal systems then would include an element of customer service compliance.

“When taxpayers interact with a government agency, they deserve the same timely, reliable assistance they would expect from a private sector business,” Cuellar said in a statement. “My bill would raise the bar for federal customer service and help improve transactions between the American people and the agencies that serve them. Improving customer service from passport issues to student loans to Medicare is long overdue.”

Cuellar singled out the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and the Transportation Security Administration as examples of service agencies that would be affected. He cited a 2011 survey by the IT consulting firm MeriTalk that showed only 31 percent of Americans surveyed were satisfied with the government’s service, a rating up from 24 percent the year before.

The Congressional Budget Office on Monday scored the bill has having no significant costs over the next five years.

President Obama in April 2011 issued an executive order directing every federal agency to develop a customer service plan. But it made no mention of integrating the measures in employee performance reviews. Agencies posted their plans on Performance.gov last October.

OMB then posted a blog by then chief performance officer (now acting budget director) Jeffrey Zients marking the administration’s movements to boost customer service, singling out the Health and Human Services and the State departments as well as the Internal Revenue Service. “We look forward to more improvements ahead, ushering in a new phase for customer service that reduces costs, accelerates delivery times, and improves the overall customer experience,” he wrote.

Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, praised the Cuellar bill in an April 18 letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, urging him to put it up for a vote. “Publicizing data on the quality of federal agency customer service will shine a spotlight on agencies that are struggling and highlight best practices at agencies that excel in customer service,” Stier wrote. “The Partnership for Public Service enthusiastically supports this practical legislation and applauds the effort to make our government more responsive to the American people.”

John Kamensky, senior fellow and associate partner at the IBM Center for the Business of Government, also is encouraged by the bill’s movement. “Especially now, with a real decline in citizen trust in government, a bill like this may be helpful if implemented in a vigorous way,” he said.

Kamensky noted that a similar effort was made back in 1994 as part of the Clinton administration’s [[should this be upper case? Or put in quotes?reinventing government initiative, though that focused on setting standards and altering citizen perceptions and not on federal employee evaluations. A University of Michigan survey showed that public trust in government was only 21 percent when the initiative got going, but by 2000 the trust levels had more than doubled, he said.

The British government set customer service standards two decades ago, but they seemed to get looser as time passed, Kamensky added. The Cuellar bill contains provisions -- including a third-party evaluator -- to avoid that, he said.

Cuellar’s staff says he is working with House leaders to bring the bill up under suspension of the rules, as occurred with a similar bill in the 110th Congress, when it passed 383-0. They say support for the bill is bipartisan and there is no known opposition. A spokeswoman for Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking member on the Oversight panel[[should be either Committee or Subcommittee, or else lower case oversight.]], confirmed his support for the bill.

The Senate never acted on Cuellar’s earlier bill in part, Kamensky notes, due to of concern by some unions that employees would be held accountable for the quality of customer service even though they would not be given sufficient training or new staff to implement the new standards.

In 2010, the Government Accountability Office released a report examining customer service at 13 major agencies. It found that most had implemented improvement plans, including using results in employee evaluation, but those results were not posted in ways visible to the public.

On the issue of concern to unions, GAO said, “officials from both unions told us that many employees do not have control over the customer service results achieved, and one said that customer service performance is best addressed at the agency level. This official also cautioned that using customer service measures, such as the time to handle a case, in performance appraisals could lead to employees overlooking details of the case as they attempt to save time.”

John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, said, “including customer service in performance reviews is not an issue per se, but the unions would typically want to negotiate over how it is applied. For example, if there is a customer satisfaction survey conducted each year, they may want to discuss whether a certain score has to be achieved,” he said.

The Senior Executives Association said it has no position on the Cuellar bill.

Powered by WordPress and Motion by 85ideas.