The five (5) hours dedicated to the leadership development workshops on July 23^rd qualify as training in compliance with 5 U.S.C. chapter 41 and are open to all Federal employees.

Federal employees are invited to review additional conference information regarding registration, costs, and workshop descriptions at www.nclr.org/events.

Agencies are reminded that reporting of training is governed by 5 CFR 410.601.

cc: Human Resources and Equal Employment Opportunity Directors

Attached is detailed guidance for preparing and submitting nominations.  The guidance has been updated to provide information relating to a requirement for agencies to verify professional credentials associated with nominees’ professions/positions within their organizations.  Additionally, when considering potential nominees, agencies must exercise due diligence in reviewing both the background of nominees as well as the programs and organizational components for which the nominees have any responsibility.  This is to ensure the appropriateness of the nominees for receiving Presidential recognition.

If you or your staff members would like any additional information about the program, please contact Stephen T. Shih, Deputy Associate Director, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, by telephone at 202-606-8046.

Presidential Rank Award Attachments:

• Guidance:  http://www.chcoc.gov/files/guidance-pra-2013.pdf
• Nomination Templates:  http://www.chcoc.gov/files/nomination-template-ses-appointee.pdf
• Billing Form:  http://www.chcoc.gov/files/pra-express-billing-form-fy13.pdf

NCMA’s 2013 World Congress qualifies as training in compliance with 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41. The training is open to all Federal employees and will feature training and workshops in areas such as Contract Negotiations, Contract Ethics and Compliance, Knowledge Management, and Career Management.

Before participating, Federal employees and their managers should review additional conference and training information such as course descriptions, costs, and schedules at www.ncmahq.org

Agencies are reminded that reporting of training is governed by 5 CFR 410.601.  

cc: Human Resources and Equal Employment Opportunity Directors

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a member of the Reentry Council and supports it with its expertise regarding Federal employment matters.  OPM has Government-wide responsibilities pertaining to suitability for employment in the competitive service.  Based on this experience, OPM is routinely contacted by agencies seeking guidance on adjudicating the fitness of contractor applicants and employees.

In support of the goals of the Reentry Council, OPM has developed a best practices guide which addresses employment fitness adjudication for contractor applicants and employees who support Federal agencies.  The attached best practices guide is offered to agencies to consider, consistent with their discretionary authority to prescribe appropriate contractor fitness standards.  This supports a goal of Executive Order (E.O.) 13467 to “ensure alignment of suitability, security, and, as appropriate, contractor employee fitness investigative and adjudicative processes.”  OPM also expects that this guidance will complement investigative standards for fitness to work for or on behalf of the Government as a contractor employee. 

I hope this best practices guide will be helpful.  If you have any questions, please contact Michael J. Mahoney at mike.mahoney@opm.gov or 202-606-1142.

Attachment:  Contractor Fitness Adjudication—Best Practices

            Federal Government contracts routinely include requirements for certain contract employees to undergo a background investigation and an adjudication of their “fitness” to work on the contract, based on character and conduct.  These are distinct from requirements that a contract employee have work authorization, be eligible for a security clearance, or be eligible to work in a sensitive national security position.  They are also distinct from any screening activities and employment actions undertaken by the private contractors who actually employ the contract employees.  As defined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13488, a determination of “fitness” is a “decision by an agency that an individual has or does not have the required level of character and conduct necessary to perform work for or on behalf of a Federal agency . . . as a contractor employee.”[1] 

            E.O. 13488 reaffirms each agency’s authority to “establish criteria for making fitness determinations,” but provides that for reciprocity purposes agencies “shall take into account” OPM guidance about suitability and fitness standards.  The order further delegates to OPM the authority to issue “guidance governing suitability, or guidance related to fitness, as the Director determines appropriate.”  Separately, OPM has been delegated the authority to prescribe the investigative standards for fitness determinations.[2]

    OPM also administers a Government-wide program to adjudicate the suitability of Federal applicants and employees whose positions are covered by the suitability regulations in title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, part 731.  The purpose of a suitability determination is to evaluate a person’s character and conduct to decide if it may have an impact on the integrity or efficiency of the Federal service.  Many contract employees have staff-like access and responsibilities; therefore, their character and conduct may also potentially have an impact on the integrity or efficiency of the service.  For that reason, agencies are encouraged to establish consistent procedures to evaluate the fitness of contractor and subcontractor applicants and employees in staff-like positions. 

            As a result of OPM’s responsibility for conducting investigations and adjudications for suitability for employment in the competitive civil service under Executive Order 10577, as amended, and pursuant to its role as human resources policy advisor to the Federal Government, we are routinely contacted by agencies seeking guidance on adjudicating the fitness of contractor applicants and employees.  In order to assist agencies, we have developed the following best practices guide.  We developed these practices after outreach to the Background Investigations Stakeholder Group — a group of Federal agency officials with expertise on these matters – on their current fitness adjudication practices.  We have also consulted with the Attorney General’s Reentry Council, and issuance of these best practices fulfills a commitment that OPM made to the Council.  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has reviewed the practices in this guidance for general consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

   These best practices are not intended to create any legal rights or obligations.  Rather, they are offered for agencies to consider, consistent with their discretionary authority to prescribe appropriate contractor fitness standards, and consistent with the terms of the contracts they have entered.

1. Provide Transparency

   Many contractor employees lack familiarity with the background investigation and fitness adjudication process.  Providing clear explanations of your process is a great way to de-mystify the experience and make Government contractors and their applicants and employees feel more comfortable. 

   You may wish to take the following steps to ensure contractors are able to answer questions raised by their applicants and employees about the investigation and adjudication process:

• Provide a briefing to new contractors at the time the contract is awarded to explain what to expect during the investigation and adjudication process.
• Provide the contractor with a point of contact at the agency who can respond to questions as they arise.
• Provide the contractor with periodic updates during the investigation and adjudication process, such as when the case enters an administrative review process, as well as when a favorable determination has been made that will allow the individual to begin work on the contract.
• Once an applicant’s investigation has received a favorable adjudication and the contractor has been notified, follow up with the company to determine whether or not the applicant has begun work.   

   There are also steps you can take to ensure the subject of the investigation and adjudication understands the process:

• When investigations are requested through OPM, individuals with questions about the investigative process may be directed to the explanations on the investigative form completed by the subject to initiate the investigation.  The purpose and content of the investigation is clearly explained on that form. 
• You may wish to provide additional information directly to the contractor applicant or employee at the beginning of the process to further explain the steps of the process from the investigation to the adjudication, as well as any appeal rights available to contractor employees who receive unfavorable fitness adjudications.  Or you may wish to provide readily accessible information such as a Q & A on a website to answer common questions and concerns.  If you choose to do so, use plain language.  Also ensure it is clear that questions about whether or not the person will ultimately be hired or retained by the contracting company must be directed to the contracting company. 

2. Adopt Sound Standards

   OPM has developed adjudicative standards for Federal employee suitability in part 731 of its regulations (at 5 CFR 731.202).  Though suitability and fitness determinations have different purposes and different consequences, both assess character and conduct, and many agencies have chosen to apply standards they consider to be equivalent to OPM’s suitability standards in making fitness determinations.  For the following reasons, we encourage agencies to consider adopting standards equivalent to OPM’s suitability standards for contractor fitness determinations, when appropriate.

   First, these standards have been painstakingly developed over decades and tested through litigation before the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal courts.  The considerations relevant to suitability for employment in the competitive civil service – such as whether the candidate has falsified employment documents, or whether he or she has committed criminal or dishonest conduct that has a nexus to the integrity or efficiency of the service – may also be relevant to whether an individual is fit for a staff-like position under a contract.  The standards also include additional factors that allow decisions to be tailored to individual circumstances.[3]    

   Second, use of these standards promotes reciprocal acceptance of investigations and adjudications, an important goal of Executive Orders 13467 and 13488.  Reciprocity improves the timeliness and reduces the cost of investigations and adjudications.  Specifically:

• A contractor employee whose fitness has been favorably adjudicated under these standards may be exempt from a new investigation and a new adjudication for appointment in the competitive civil service, or for appointment in any other position covered by OPM’s suitability regulations.  (See 5 CFR 731.104(a)(4), 731.202(d)).
• A contractor employee whose fitness has been favorably adjudicated under these standards may be exempt from a new investigation and a new adjudication for employment in another contract position, or for appointment in the excepted civil service.  (See OPM, Memorandum to Heads of Departments and Agencies, Guidance on Implementing Executive Order 13488 (Sept. 24, 2009).)

   Third, use of these standards – which incorporate additional factors that allow decisions to be tailored to individual circumstances, and which allow disqualification only when character and conduct issues have a nexus to the integrity or efficiency of the service – promotes fairness in collateral decisions affecting conditions of contractor employment (for example, the decision whether to grant the contractor employee an identity credential for access to facilities or information systems).[4] 

3. Explain Adverse Fitness Determinations         

   If the agency makes an unfavorable fitness determination, consider providing a written decision to the individual that explains the reason(s) for the unfavorable determination.  At a minimum, the individual should have an opportunity to raise concerns about the accuracy of any facts relied upon in deeming him or her unfit. 

4. Provide a Mechanism for Review

   Agencies should also provide an opportunity for contractor employees to obtain review of an unfavorable fitness determination.  At a minimum, agencies should advise that individuals receiving an unfavorable determination may request their investigative file from OPM (or other applicable investigative service provider) and explain the procedures for doing so.  In addition, we encourage agencies to provide notice to individuals of the reasons they were deemed unfit, a reasonable period of time to file a written response, and review by an official above the level of the official who made the initial fitness determination.  This is especially important where criminal history records are at issue, since an arrest is never, in itself, sufficient to establish the occurrence of criminal conduct, let alone its relevance to the position.  The EEOC has stated in its guidance on arrest and conviction records that an opportunity to respond is important to ensure that a disqualification on the basis of criminal conduct is job related and consistent with business necessity.

   Agencies may also want to establish an avenue for further appeal or reconsideration.  The review process should focus on allowing contractor applicants and employees to dispute the accuracy of the factual underpinnings of the agency’s fitness determination.  It should also afford the individual the opportunity to offer any additional evidence of mitigating factors or rehabilitation, where appropriate.

5. Preserve Confidentiality of Unfavorable Fitness Determinations

   Agencies should take care in reporting information about unfavorable fitness determinations to the contractor that employs or seeks to employ the individual.  While it is appropriate for the agency to advise the contractor that an unfavorable fitness determination has been made, it may not be appropriate to disclose additional information about the basis for the determination.  A determination that an individual is not fit to work on a particular Government contract does not necessarily imply that he or she is unfit to work for the same private employer in some other capacity.  Furthermore, OPM’s reports of investigation are protected from disclosure under the Privacy Act and other authorities.  Agencies should consult with their legal counsel in considering how to convey unfavorable determinations to the contractor.

6. Incorporate a Nondiscrimination Policy

   Under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), it is a prohibited personnel practice to discriminate "for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States."  Further, under E.O. 11478, as amended, "it is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons" and "to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, or status as a parent."  While these policies specifically apply to suitability and fitness determinations for Federal employment, it is a good practice for agencies to put in place similar policies for contract employee fitness determinations.

   Further, agencies should remind contractors that regardless of the outcome of an agency’s determination of whether an individual is fit to work on a particular Government contract, contractors must adhere to their nondiscrimination obligations under E.O. 11246, as amended; section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA); and Federal Acquisition Regulation sections 22.810 and 52.222-26.[5]  It is not acceptable for a Government contractor to take an adverse employment action against its employee for discriminatory reasons, based on information derived from an agency’s adjudication of whether the employee is fit to work on a particular contract.  (See OPM Federal Investigations Notice 10-05 (May 17, 2010), describing a similar obligation related to identity credentialing decisions; see also 41 C.F.R. Part 60, describing contractors’ and subcontractors’ nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations under E.O. 11246, Section 503, and VEVRAA, enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the Department of Labor).

* * * * *

            We hope you find these best practices useful in connection with adjudicating fitness of contractor employees.  If you have questions about OPM’s suitability policy, please contact Kimberly A. Holden, Deputy Associate Director, Recruiting and Hiring, at (202) 418-3218, or by email to kimberly.holden@opm.gov.

cc:        Chief Acquisition Officers, and Senior Procurement Executives

[1]               Likewise under E.O. 13467, “contractor employee fitness” refers to “fitness based on character and conduct for work for or on behalf of the Government” (but not as a Federal employee).

[2]               Office of Management and Budget, Assignment of Functions Relating to Coverage of Contractor Employee Fitness in the Federal Investigative Standards (Dec. 6, 2012).  The delegations read as follows:

a. The DNI shall prescribe investigative standards for contractor employees seeking to perform work for or on behalf of the executive branch that, had that work been performed by a Federal employee, would cause the Federal position to be designated as a "sensitive position" under EO 10450 of April 27, 1953, as amended.

b. The Director of OPM shall prescribe investigative standards for "contractor employee fitness" as that term is defined in section 1.3(f) of EO 13467.

[3]           When an agency makes a suitability determination and when pertinent to the individual case, an agency must consider criteria such as the nature of the position, the nature and seriousness of the conduct, and the recency of the conduct; and must also provide an opportunity for an explanation before an action is taken.  See 5 C.F.R. 731.202(c), 731.303, 731.403.  These decision factors and procedures are consistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Apr. 25, 2012).  See http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm.  The EEOC guidance is relevant to agency fitness determinations as well.

[4]               See OPM, Memorandum to Heads of Departments and Agencies, Final Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards under HSPD-12 (July 31, 2008).

[5]               See also Department of Labor, OFCCP Directive 306, Complying with Nondiscrimination Provisions: Criminal Record Restrictions and Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin (Jan. 29, 2013), at  http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir306.htm.

Agency headquarters-level human resources offices may contact Pay and Leave at OPM at (202) 606-2858 or pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.  Requests from individual employees will be returned or forwarded to the appropriate agency human resources office.  For more information on equal pay in the Federal Government, please see OPM’s August 16, 2011, memorandum here.

Attachments

cc:       Chief Human Capital Officers   
            Human Resources Directors

Attachment 1—Presidential Memorandum

May 10, 2013   

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT:  Advancing Pay Equality in the Federal Government and Learning from Successful Practices

Almost 50 years ago, when President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women were paid 59 cents for every dollar paid to men.  Today, women are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men.  At the same time, nearly two-thirds of women are breadwinners or co-breadwinners for their families.  Unjust pay disparities are a detriment to women, families, and our economy.

The Federal Government is the Nation’s largest employer.  It has a special responsibility to act as a model employer.  While salary ranges in the Federal workforce are generally determined by law, the fixing of individual salaries and other types of compensation can be affected by the exercise of administrative discretion.  Such discretion must be exercised in a transparent manner, using fair criteria and adhering to merit system principles, which dictate that equal pay should be provided for work of equal value.

In order to further understand how the practices of executive departments and agencies (agencies) affect the compensation of similarly situated men and women, and to promote gender pay equality in the Federal Government and more broadly, I hereby direct the following actions, pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States:

Section 1.  Government-wide Strategy for Advancing Pay Equality.

Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (Director) shall submit to the President a Government-wide strategy to address any gender pay gap in the Federal workforce.  This strategy shall include:

(a) analysis of whether changes to the General Schedule classification system would assist in addressing any gender pay gap;

(b) proposed guidance to agencies to promote greater transparency regarding starting salaries; and

(c) recommendations for additional administrative or legislative actions or studies that should be undertaken to narrow any gender pay gap.

Sec. 2.  Agency Review of Pay and Promotion Policies and Practices.

To facilitate the Director’s development of a Government-wide strategy, each agency shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, provide to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) information on and an analysis of the following matters:

(a) all agency-specific policies and practices for setting starting salaries for new employees;

(b) all agency-specific policies and practices that may affect the salaries of individuals who are returning to the workplace after having taken extended time off from their careers (for example, those who served as full-time caregivers to children or other family members);

(c) all agency-specific policies and practices for evaluating individuals regarding promotions, particularly individuals who work part-time schedules (for example, those who serve as caregivers to children or other family members);

(d) any additional agency-specific policies or practices that may be affecting gender pay equality; and

(e) any best practices the agency has employed to improve gender pay equality.

OPM shall provide guidance to agencies with respect to this request for information and analysis, including its scope.

Sec. 3.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law or Executive order to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Director is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.  

BARACK OBAMA

Attachment 2--Instructions for Review of Pay and Promotion Policies and Practices Relating to Gender Pay Equality

Please provide written responses to the following questions to OPM.  Agency responses should be organized as consistent as possible with the outline below.  Please do not respond by providing copies of agency policies or merely pointing to provisions of law, regulations, or OPM policies or standards without explanation. A complete response will include detailed information on the results of your review including any need for further analysis and study.  Agencies are not required to conduct any new data analysis of gender pay at this time.  OPM will review data reported to central systems to supplement agency policy reviews.

Agency reviews must cover General Schedule (GS) and equivalent-level employees unless there are fewer than 100 employees in the agency covered by the applicable pay system.  For the purpose of this memorandum, the term “General Schedule” refers to employees in the GS, GM, and GL pay plans.  The term “equivalent-level employees” refers to white collar employees who are not in executive or senior-level positions.  This term excludes employees in blue collar prevailing rate pay systems (i.e., craft, trades, and laboring prevailing rate pay systems with pay set under 5 U.S.C. 5341 et. seq., such the Federal Wage System or crews of vessels under section 5348) and Executive Schedule, Senior Executive Service, and senior-level and scientific and professional positions; administrative law judges; administrative appeals judges; members of boards of contract appeals; and employees in any equivalent pay systems.  Please also exclude experts, consultants, and any advisory committee members.  Agencies do not need to review policies and practices for employees in excluded pay systems at this time.  

I. Agency Information

Please provide—

1. Agency name

2. Name, phone number, and email address of contact point that can answer questions on your agency’s report

II. List of Pay Systems for Equivalent-Level Employees

Identify each separate non-GS pay system or pay authority your agency administers for equivalent-level employees.  For each pay system, provide—

1. The name of the system or a brief description

2. Pay plan code(s)

3. Legal authority (original public law, amending laws, and any current U.S. code citation)

4. Description of employees who are covered by the system (e.g., describe whether the pay system’s coverage is limited to a certain part of the agency or to certain types of occupations)

5. Number of covered employees as of [specify recent date] 

III. General Questions for GS and Equivalent-Level Employees

Section 1 of the President’s memorandum directs OPM to submit to the President a Governmentwide strategy to address any gender pay gap in the Federal workforce, including proposed guidance to agencies to promote greater transparency regarding starting salaries.  Please answer the following questions and separate your responses by pay system: 

1. Does your agency provide applicants or candidates any information on the pay-setting flexibilities your agency uses to set starting salaries or on typical starting salary data beyond the salary range included in the job announcement?  If so, please describe what information your agency provides to applicants or candidates and when your agency provides this information.

2. Does your agency review its use of pay-setting flexibilities on a periodic basis to examine the gender distribution of employees for which the authorities were used?  If so, please describe the type of analysis your agency conducts, the variables considered (e.g., occupation, grade, location), how frequently you conduct this analysis, how you use the analysis to influence your pay-setting policy and practice, and the results of your most recent analysis.

IV. Pay-Setting for New or Former Employees

Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the President’s memorandum direct agencies to provide OPM information on and an analysis of all agency-specific policies and practices for setting (1) starting salaries for new employees and (2) salaries for individuals who are returning to the workplace after having taken extended time off from their careers (for example, those who served as full-time caregivers to children or other family members).  For employees hired into GS positions, either for the first time or after a break in service, agencies have two flexibilities they may use to set pay—the superior qualifications and special needs pay-setting authority and the maximum payable rate rule.  GS equivalent-level pay systems may have similar flexibilities in setting starting salaries.  Where agencies have discretion to set salaries of new or returning employees, there may be an increased risk of unintended pay disparities.  The questions below will help us understand how agencies use their discretionary authorities.  Please answer the following questions and separate your responses by pay system:

A. Superior Qualifications and Special Needs Pay-setting Authority for GS Employees (5 CFR 531.212)

1. Did your agency use the superior qualifications and special needs pay-setting authority in FY 2012?

2. Does your agency or any component currently have written policies on this authority?  If so, please describe any areas where current policies (at agency or component level) provide approval requirements, criteria, or limitations that are more specific than the regulations.

3. Does your agency or any component policy or practice allow or require the use of a candidate’s existing non-Federal salary in setting the employee’s starting salary?  If so, please describe.

4. Does your agency or any component policy or practice consider how recent a candidate’s experience or education must be when using this authority?  If so, please describe.

5. Does your agency or any component policy or practice place any limits on the use of this authority by occupation, grade level, full-time or part-time work schedule, or other factor?  If so, please describe.

B. Maximum Payable Rate Rule for GS Employees (5 CFR 531.221-223)

1. Did your agency use the maximum payable rate rule in FY 2012?

2. Does your agency or any component currently have written policies on this rule?  If so, please describe any areas where current policies (at the agency or component level) provide approval requirements, criteria, or limitations that are more specific than the regulations.

3. Does your agency or any component policy or practice address how recent the employee’s highest previous rate must be to be used in applying this rule?  If so, please describe.

4. Does your agency or any component policy or practice place any limits on the use of this authority by occupation, grade level, full-time or part-time work schedule, or other factor?  If so, please describe. 

C. Pay-Setting for GS Equivalent-Level Employees

1. How does your agency set starting salaries for employees hired for the first time?

2. How does your agency set starting salaries for employees hired after a break in service?

3. Does your agency policy or practice place any limits on setting starting salaries by occupation or other factors?  If so, please summarize.

4.  Are the pay tables or rate ranges for GS equivalent-level employees in your agency available to the public?  If so, how (e.g., posted online)?  If not, why not? 

V. Evaluations for Promotion
 
Section 2(c) of the President’s memorandum directs agencies to provide OPM information on and an analysis of all agency-specific policies and practices for evaluating individuals regarding promotions, particularly individuals who work part-time schedules (for example, those who serve as caregivers to children or other family members).

Please answer the following questions regarding part-time and promotion policies and practices that apply to General Schedule or equivalent-level employees and separate your responses by pay system if there are differences among the systems:

1. Does your agency have a policy or practice for establishing positions as part-time?

2. May employees request changes from full-time to part-time work schedules in their current positions?  If so, please describe the criteria used to determine whether to approve full-time to part-time requests.

3. Does your agency provide information to your workforce about part-time opportunities?  If so, how are the opportunities publicized?

4. Describe the promotion opportunities for part-time employees in your agency?  

5. Does your agency have any policies specific to your part-time workforce?  If so, please describe.

6. Does your agency review the results of merit promotion actions for equal employment opportunity (EEO) statistical purposes, e.g., selectee gender in relation to the applicant pool or other EEO related statistical data?  If so, please provide the results related to gender for FY 2012.

7. Does your agency have any gender-specific positions?  If so, please provide the title, series, and grade ranges for male- and female-specific positions.  If the grade ranges are not equal, please provide the basis for the difference.

VI. Other Considerations

Section 2(d) of the President’s memorandum directs agencies to provide OPM information on and an analysis of any additional agency-specific policies or practices that may be affecting gender pay equality.  Please provide any additional input you have on whether there are any  policies or practices in your agency or Governmentwide that may be affecting gender pay equality in General Schedule starting salaries or starting salaries for equivalent-level employees in your agency.  With respect to agency policies and practices, please include input on relevant recruitment-related policies and practices.  We would also like you to comment on whether (1) the law and regulations on General Schedule pay-setting (i.e., 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter III, and 5 CFR part 531, subpart B) or (2) the law (i.e., 5 U.S.C. chapter 51), regulations (i.e., 5 CFR part 511), and OPM’s policies and standards on General Schedule classification may be affecting gender pay equality. 

VII. Best Practices

Section 2(e) of the President’s memorandum directs agencies to provide OPM information on and an analysis of any best practices the agency has employed to improve gender pay equality.  We welcome descriptions and copies of any policies, studies, or other materials you have developed and implemented to improve gender pay equality in any pay system applicable to employees in your agency (e.g., any efforts to recruit women into higher-paying occupations).

VIII. Executive-Level Summary

Please provide an executive level summary of your findings as a result of this review that could be included in the Governmentwide strategy to address any gender pay gap that OPM will submit to the President.  This executive summary should provide a high-level summary highlighting the agency’s significant findings and overall conclusions regarding gender pay equality in the agency.

This FLT qualifies as training in compliance with 5 U.S.C. chapter 41, and is open to all Federal employees. It will provide training and workshops in a variety of areas including Professional Development, Leadership Development, Communication Skills and Knowledge Transfer (Flash Mentoring).

Federal employees are invited to review additional conference information regarding registration, costs, and workshop descriptions at www.ocanational.org.

Agencies are reminded that reporting of training is governed by 5 CFR 410.601. 

cc: Human Resources and Equal Employment Opportunity Directors

The EWG Annual Leadership Summit qualifies as training in compliance with 5 U.S.C. chapter 41. The training, open to all Federal employees at the GS-15 level (or equivalent), will feature training and workshops in areas such as Leading in Times of Crisis and Embracing Change.

Before participating, Federal employees and their managers should review additional conference and training information such as course descriptions, costs, and schedules at http://www.execwomeningov.org/.

Agencies are reminded that reporting of training is governed by 5 CFR 410.601.

cc: Human Resource and Equal Employment Opportunity Directors

Objectives

Revising our human capital planning, management review processes, and reporting has two key objectives:

1. Develop and implement workforce strategies that advance progress on each agency’s mission performance goals and objectives.

2. Streamline core human resource (HR) policies, procedures, and technology to focus agency HR operations on supporting managers and employees in hiring, engaging, and retaining top talent, while reducing time and costs of HR processes and reporting.

To advance the first objective, OPM and OMB will help agencies develop workforce management strategies that advance specific mission goals.  OPM is considering regulatory changes that will allow agencies to use agency Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans, instead of preparing separate human capital plans and reports, to identify and address HR issues, strategies, and planned actions essential to making progress on the goals and objectives.  For example, GPRA Plans might identify specific skills gaps or offices where low employee engagement needs to be raised to make progress on a strategic goal.  If these changes are adopted, the transition to this new approach to documenting strategic human capital plans would begin with the development of the Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plans to be released with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget.

To advance the second objective, we plan to identify and promote best practices and increase shared delivery and co-investment in common HR functions and systems that strengthen HR services.  Possible areas of opportunity include increasing managerial engagement in the hiring process, addressing agency-wide problems identified by the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, processing retirement applications more quickly and accurately, and improving labor-management relations.

Finally, to facilitate the increased focus on driving agency performance, we are considering a plan, for which we will collect agency and public comment, to reduce current HR reporting requirements.  Numerous human capital reports have accumulated over the years, and agencies have complied with an increasing number of planning and reporting requirements.  The attached appendix lists the plans and reports that OPM and OMB have identified as possible candidates for elimination or consolidation, and what we will propose for each existing report.

Next Steps

To develop a shared vision for advancing these objectives, OPM and OMB will work with agencies in the following broad areas:

1. Refining Roles and Responsibilities

Marking the 10^th anniversary of passage of the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Act of 2002, OPM has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF), which formed the systems, standards, and metrics for strategic human capital management required under the CHCO Act.  In early 2013, OPM rolled out the revised HCAAF, now known as the Human Capital Framework (HCF), which reflects what we have learned over the past decade.  We hope you will find it more flexible, more practical, easier to understand, and more useful to agencies.  It will become effective when proposed changes to 5 CFR part 250 are final.

Next Step:  As part of this framework, the roles and responsibilities of CHCOs and other leaders, hiring managers, and HR professionals will be reassessed in relation to shared responsibility for the revised HCAAF and its implementation.

2. Setting Goals and Planning

Under the GPRA Modernization Act, each agency prepares a strategic plan with the first full budget in a new term of an administration along with an annual performance plan that sets two-year priority goals.  Every agency will be developing a new Strategic Performance Plan and Annual Performance Plan for release with the FY 2015 Budget and delivering it to Congress in February 2014, which, recognizably, is an aggressive timeline.  In the future, we envision a framework where agency CHCOs will work with their Chief Operating Officers, Performance Improvement Officers (PIOs), and program managers to incorporate human capital strategies needed to accelerate progress on the agency’s performance goals.

In addition, future agency GPRA plans should identify priority HR improvements through a review of current HR processes and practices; results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey; findings from customer surveys about agency HR services; key HR data such as hiring manager satisfaction scores and retention rates across offices; and predictions of future agency HR trends such as expected retirement and retention patterns.  Examples of such agency-wide HR strategies might include large departments and agencies consolidating HR functions; implementation of specific career pathway programs; retraining to align talent to new mission requirements; recruitment and learning activities to fill critical skills gaps; efforts to improve Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey scores in areas of weakness; and retention strategies where high separation rates create problems.

OPM is currently crafting a proposal to amend the regulatory language at 5 CFR part 250 to integrate agencies’ strategic human capital plans within their strategic and annual performance plans.  OPM intends to propose elimination of the requirement for agencies to submit separate Strategic Human Capital Plans in time for the preparation of the next agency strategic plans that will be released with the FY 2015 budget.  Pursuant to that proposal, OPM would instead expect agencies to integrate human capital planning into agency strategic and performance plans, and into HRStat meetings, described below.  We anticipate that proposed revisions to 5 CFR part 250 would also facilitate updating the HCAAF in future years so it remains responsive to the needs of Federal agencies.

Next Step:  Assuming the regulations are actually amended in the manner proposed, further guidance on the transition plan toward this full integration of human capital strategy with GPRA Modernization Act requirements will be developed over the course of 2013 in collaboration with agency PIOs, CHCOs, and other leadership.

3. Data-Driven Performance Reviews

Internal Reviews

The GPRA Modernization Act requires that the Chief Operating Officer (COO) with support from the PIO conduct quarterly data-driven reviews of agency performance.  They are to engage the program managers responsible for the goals under discussion and focus on determining what the performance data reveals about agency progress toward priority and other performance goals, problems impeding progress, and root causes contributing to problems. They also review, discuss, and decide actions planned for future improvement.

To assure that human capital is fully integrated into these quarterly reviews, CHCOs should work with their PIOs and COOs to ensure participation in quarterly and annual internally-driven performance reviews on agency priority and other performance goals.

As a complement to these COO-led reviews of progress on agency goals, OPM is pilot testing a new approach to quarterly reviews of agency human capital progress called “HRStat.”  Under HRStat, CHCOs convene quarterly reviews on key human capital goals. The HRStat sessions allow for review of key human capital metrics relevant to an agency’s general HR goals and in-depth analysis of HR problems for the goals that are the subject of the COO’s quarterly performance reviews.  The quarterly HRStat meetings are intended to enable quick course correction, if needed, to assure progress is being made.

OPM is currently partnering with 16 agencies to design and pilot test the HRStat process, starting with agency identification of a few priority HR goals.  HRStat is a three-phased initiative.  Phase-One pilot agencies completed their quarterly reviews at the end of FY 2012.   OPM has launched HRStat 2.0 by evaluating the pilot program for refinement and replication throughout FY 2013.  OPM expects to implement HRStat Governmentwide in Calendar Year 2014 with the launch of HRStat 3.0.

Public Reporting

The GPRA Modernization Act also requires COOs to report publicly each quarter on progress toward meeting agency priority goals.  Additionally, agencies will post annual performance results on an OMB public web site.  Public reporting will focus on Governmentwide metrics, including measures taken from survey results such as the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or Managers’ Satisfaction Survey, or Governmentwide metrics determined through collaboration with agencies and the CHCO Council.  Beginning with the FY 2015 Annual Performance Report, agencies will also begin to review annually their progress on their strategic objectives, as outlined in section 6 of OMB Circular A-11.

Next Step:  Agencies that agreed to pilot the HRStat process will use this method as a substitution for the annual Human Capital Management Reporting requirement for FY 2012.  All other agencies are required to submit their final Human Capital Management Report for FY 2012, and will be expected to begin implementing HRStat following guidelines issued by OPM in FY 2013.  Going forward, OPM will work with CHCOs to develop public reporting through Performance.gov.  OPM, in conjunction with the CHCO Council, plans to develop internal benchmarks to define key strategic operational HR metrics all agencies will collect and share.  More details on this process will be forthcoming from OPM including specific legislative and regulatory proposals needed to implement these reporting changes.

4. Modernizing and Reducing Human Capital Reporting

The President’s Executive Order 13583 on Diversity directed OPM to “review applicable directives to agencies related to the development or submission of agency human capital and other workforce plans and reports in connection with recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices, and develop a strategy for consolidating such agency plans and reports where appropriate and permitted by law.…”

To respond to this direction and reduce the burden associated with HR reporting to enable use of resources for strategic priorities, OPM has partnered with the CHCO Council to review all current human capital reporting.  Criteria for recommending steps to pursue elimination includes assessment of the data’s value of strategic human capital management at the agency and Governmentwide level, and the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) system’s ability to automatically capture reliable and valid data provided in existing reports.  Based on this review and stakeholder input, OPM has developed a list of 12 reports proposed for elimination.  The full list of these reports and the recommendations for each are listed in the attachment.

OPM’s EHRI Office is conducting a comprehensive review with program owners to identify data from the reports proposed for elimination that is considered valuable for strategic human capital management. Agencies are required to participate actively in assuring EHRI produces complete, accurate, reliable and valid data that the Federal human capital community can use to analyze, plan for, and support the Federal workforce.

Next Step:  OPM and OMB will continue to work with CHCOs and PIOs to clarify and refine these requirements and guidelines referenced above.  The EHRI data elements may be phased in to ensure agencies have adequate lead time to provide reliable and accurate data, and that OPM has identified the necessary data to retain to provide comprehensive information about the Federal workforce.

Attachment:  http://www.chcoc.gov/files/requirementDocuments_34500.pdf

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared prescription drug abuse an epidemic, with more people dying from unintentional drug overdoses, primarily driven by prescription drug abuse, than in motor vehicle crashes.  Approximately 20,000 people per year are dying from prescription drug overdoses.  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 6.1 million Americans abused prescription drugs in 2011.  Furthermore, 71 percent of people abusing prescription pain relievers got them through friends or relatives the most recent time they used them, a statistic that includes raiding the family medicine cabinet. For these reasons, proper drug disposal is an important element of the Administration’s Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan, and is a challenge that each of us can help tackle, starting at home. 

Americans participating in the DEA’s fifth National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day on September 29, 2012, turned in an astounding 488,395 pounds of unwanted or expired medications for safe and proper disposal at the 5,263 take-back sites in all 50 states and U.S. territories.  When added to the collections from DEA’s previous four Take-Back events, more than 2 million pounds of prescription medications have been removed from circulation. 

One of OPM’s top priorities is to ensure the health and well-being of Federal employees.  We encourage you to join this commitment to improving our public health and safety by participating and inviting others – friends, family, and neighbors – to take part in the National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day on April 27, 2013.

Thank you for your assistance in developing this standard. Any questions may be sent to pathways@opm.gov.

Attachment:  http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-schedule-qualification-standards/#url=GS-PIP