Agency Oversight – Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com Helping feds meet their mission. Fri, 01 Jul 2022 20:27:51 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cropped-icon-512x512-1-60x60.png Agency Oversight – Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com 32 32 USPS meets financial health goal, falls short on delivery, CX targets in FY 2021 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/07/usps-meets-financial-health-goal-falls-short-on-delivery-cx-targets-in-fy-2021/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/07/usps-meets-financial-health-goal-falls-short-on-delivery-cx-targets-in-fy-2021/#respond Fri, 01 Jul 2022 20:27:51 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4132927 The Postal Service’s regulator said the agency met its financial health target last fiscal year, the latest sign that USPS’ long-term financial situation is improving.

However, the Postal Regulatory Commission, in its analysis of USPS’ fiscal 2021 annual performance report, found USPS fell short on most of its delivery performance and customer service targets.

The report finds USPS fell short on seven delivery targets, meeting only its targets for marketing mail and periodicals, even after lowering the targets in light of the pandemic’s expected impact on service.

USPS fell short of most of its FY 2021 performance targets, despite lowering those scores anywhere from 2.81% to more than 26%.

“While it is important that targets not be so aspirational as to be unachievable, it is equally important that they serve to inspire improvement, and that they are not set so low as to be unreasonable for purposes of evaluating whether the high-quality service performance goal was achieved,” the commission wrote.

https://www.prc.gov/docs/122/122180/FY%202021%20Report%20FY%202022%20Plan.pdf
USPS fell short on seven delivery targets, meeting only its targets for marketing mail and periodicals, even after lowering the targets in light of the pandemic’s expected impact on service (Source: Postal Regulatory Commission)

The commission’s public representative noted this marks the fourth year in a row that USPS has declined across every category.

USPS said its performance in fiscal 2021 came down to poor peak season performance, employee absenteeism, reduced supplier capacity, and weather and natural disaster disruptions.

Other reports show USPS has shown improvement since FY 2021. The agency’s inspector general’s office recently found that earlier than usual preparations for the FY 2022 holiday season improved overall performance.

USPS said its level of service in FY 2021 “was undeniably impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and service performance improved over the course of the fiscal year.

USPS noted that across its 50 districts, 13 processing divisions, 13 logistics divisions and headquarters, 22 units had a least one month in FY 2021 where employee availability fell below 70%.

USPS said employee availability was greater for mail processing personnel than for delivery services or customer service employees.

The agency said its 10-Year strategic plan has put the agency on a path to overcoming its long-standing financial, service and operational challenges.

Despite failing to achieve most of its targets, the Postal Service highlighted its prioritization of election and mail-in ballots in FY 2021.

The commission praised USPS for taking what the agency has referred to as “extraordinary measures,” such as allowing extra transportation and overtime, to ensure the on-time delivery of mail-in ballots.

“These efforts were undertaken notwithstanding the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, in furtherance of the vital role the Postal Service plays in the American democratic process,” the commission wrote.

The commission notes performance indicators began to show improvement in the second quarter of fiscal 2021, but said it remains to be seen “whether this represents real year-over-year improvement or simply a return to the pattern of seasonal variation that was typical prior to the outreach of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The commission urges USPS to implement the inspector general office’s recommendations to better recruit truck drivers and increase the efficiency of truck trips.

It also recommends that USPS reduces critically late trips in districts with the highest concentrations of them, and to develop more effective, quantifiable ways to measure improvements to service.

USPS missed six of eight customer experience performance targets, and only met targets for its business service network and its customer care center.

“The commission commends the Postal Service for its efforts to keep up with private sector and other federal agencies by engaging with customers on social media and using social media to evaluate CX and obtain other insights,” the commission wrote.

“The Postal Service’s efforts to respond to customer inquiries on social media in FY 2021 are commendable given the small number of staff available to address customer questions and issues.”

The commission recommends USPS hire more customer experience employees and deploy automation tools to address challenges.

The commission said USPS customer experience targets are reasonable for fiscal 2022.

USPS met its total accident rate target for the third year in a row, but missed survey response rate targets.

If the survey response rate continues to decline in FY 2022, the commission recommends USPS investigate and address the root cause of the declining rate of employees filling out its Postal Pulse survey.

 

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/07/usps-meets-financial-health-goal-falls-short-on-delivery-cx-targets-in-fy-2021/feed/ 0
Agencies aren’t always capable of investigating their own whistleblower complaints https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-arent-always-capable-of-investigating-their-own-whistleblower-complaints/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-arent-always-capable-of-investigating-their-own-whistleblower-complaints/#respond Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:22:36 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4130059 var config_4130484 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/063022_Tobias_web_c5ru_e3be3f37.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=92e663d2-88be-4543-8259-0f55e3be3f37&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Agencies aren’t always capable of investigating their own whistleblower complaints","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4130484']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em>Apple Podcast<\/em>s<\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnFederal employee whistleblower complaints are often investigated by the agency itself, rather than by the Office of Special Counsel. This can speed up resolutions or end up with complaints going nowhere or even suppressed. Bob Tobias, a professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University, has looked into this question. He joined the\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><strong><em>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> with some perspective.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>And, Bob, it seems that there is no one perfect way to deal with whistleblowers but having the agency do it internally doesn't always work out, does it?nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> It does not. Former President Trump in 2017 argued in an executive order that the Department of Veteran Affairs should be allowed to investigate the whistleblower complaints internally, in the interest of resolving them faster and more efficiently. And then the executive order was later turned into a statute. But that approach, I think, runs into the real challenge of what it means to investigate internally. Because what it requires is a focused attention and support a political appointees who are willing to hear bad news, see bad news published in newspapers and on social media, accept responsibility for the bad news, and then take action to turn the bad news to good news.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>But let me just ask this: In some agencies, it is the inspector general's office that looks at whistleblower complaints. And we've seen that even at VA, and so therefore, you do have some independence there. And the inspector general doesn't care if the news is bad.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> Well, yes, theoretically, Tom, but when we do have a recent evidence of the [Department of Homeland Security] inspector general, who suppressed over 10,000 DHS employee sexual assault complaints, and when it was discovered, Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas created a new, centralized process for processing employee complaints. But I ask in the long term, will that work because maybe the next secretary of DHS will use the idea of centralized decision-making to suppress those complaints in the future?nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>Right, so then having an external body like the Office of Special Counsel, you run into the issue of just sheer workload, sheer time it takes and as we've seen so many adjudicative types, or investigative types of processes by federal agencies internally or externally just take so long.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> Well, I think the answer to that, Tom, is to beef up the Office of Special Counsel, rather than to depend on the long term, on political appointees meeting that high bar of allowing themselves to look bad. While there may be individual political appointees who accept responsibility for the failure of those they lead, and more importantly, for their own failures, we can't depend on every political appointee over the long term, to meet that bar.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>We're speaking with Bob Tobias, professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University. And I guess it's understandable why some politicals would want to avoid this. There was a administrator of the GSA a number of years ago, I think, early in the Obama administration, and I remember the scandal of the expensive Las Vegas conferences that GSA was doing. And it was a scandal. And you had a crooked bunch running this thing, and taking junkets paid for out to Las Vegas to check the venue, three or four times. And there was the famous picture of the guy with the wine glass in the bathtub and all of this. But it was the administrator that took the fall, even though this all occurred entirely before she even arrived at the agency. And so her career was sullied and her reputation to some degree, even though she had literally nothing to do with it.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> Well, that's true. Because what can happen in that kind of a situation is a culture of noncompliance can develop. And in a culture of noncompliance, the people in charge suppress any complaints and continue to behave as you just described. So in my view, the only way of managing and as in the case, you pointed out, someone who was innocent, but took the hit is to encourage an outside investigative authority like the Office of Special Counsel to do its work, but do it faster.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>Right, because really, it was not fair for this person to take the hit for that and she exposed it and said, we really made a big mistake here. Which was gracious of her but it really wasn't that person's mistake. And so that, again, you're saying mitigates in favor of external look at these events entirely.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> I think so, Tom, I think so. There isn't any evidence anywhere over the long term of successful looking internally at oneself by political appointees, finding fault and fixing that fault.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>But I want to get back to the inspector general question because, yes, IG's are also politically appointed. But their purpose in life is to have this external, or at least objective, outside-of-the-agency chain of command view of things, no matter how bad they might be. So why can't IG's step up more here?nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> They can, and they should. But it only provides for me proof of the fact that no, we can't depend on every political appointee to be fault free. And the only way we can make sure that it doesn't occur is to have, not only is to have the Office of Special Counsel be able to investigate problems in IG offices as well.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>Well, that question I think is probably going to be resolved not for quite a while because the whistleblower complaints come in. And I think this is going to be something we were going to deal with for a while.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> Well, I think it is. But I think it's also true that when you have a over-2-million-person workforce, there are going to be people who fail to follow the laws, rules and regulations, to make sure that these complaints get surfaced and an employee's career is not damaged for surfacing these problems.nn<strong>Tom Temin:\u00a0<\/strong>All right, Bob Tobias is a professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University. Thanks so much.nn<strong>Bob Tobias:<\/strong> Thank you, Tom.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

Federal employee whistleblower complaints are often investigated by the agency itself, rather than by the Office of Special Counsel. This can speed up resolutions or end up with complaints going nowhere or even suppressed. Bob Tobias, a professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University, has looked into this question. He joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin with some perspective.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: And, Bob, it seems that there is no one perfect way to deal with whistleblowers but having the agency do it internally doesn’t always work out, does it?

Bob Tobias: It does not. Former President Trump in 2017 argued in an executive order that the Department of Veteran Affairs should be allowed to investigate the whistleblower complaints internally, in the interest of resolving them faster and more efficiently. And then the executive order was later turned into a statute. But that approach, I think, runs into the real challenge of what it means to investigate internally. Because what it requires is a focused attention and support a political appointees who are willing to hear bad news, see bad news published in newspapers and on social media, accept responsibility for the bad news, and then take action to turn the bad news to good news.

Tom Temin: But let me just ask this: In some agencies, it is the inspector general’s office that looks at whistleblower complaints. And we’ve seen that even at VA, and so therefore, you do have some independence there. And the inspector general doesn’t care if the news is bad.

Bob Tobias: Well, yes, theoretically, Tom, but when we do have a recent evidence of the [Department of Homeland Security] inspector general, who suppressed over 10,000 DHS employee sexual assault complaints, and when it was discovered, Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas created a new, centralized process for processing employee complaints. But I ask in the long term, will that work because maybe the next secretary of DHS will use the idea of centralized decision-making to suppress those complaints in the future?

Tom Temin: Right, so then having an external body like the Office of Special Counsel, you run into the issue of just sheer workload, sheer time it takes and as we’ve seen so many adjudicative types, or investigative types of processes by federal agencies internally or externally just take so long.

Bob Tobias: Well, I think the answer to that, Tom, is to beef up the Office of Special Counsel, rather than to depend on the long term, on political appointees meeting that high bar of allowing themselves to look bad. While there may be individual political appointees who accept responsibility for the failure of those they lead, and more importantly, for their own failures, we can’t depend on every political appointee over the long term, to meet that bar.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with Bob Tobias, professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University. And I guess it’s understandable why some politicals would want to avoid this. There was a administrator of the GSA a number of years ago, I think, early in the Obama administration, and I remember the scandal of the expensive Las Vegas conferences that GSA was doing. And it was a scandal. And you had a crooked bunch running this thing, and taking junkets paid for out to Las Vegas to check the venue, three or four times. And there was the famous picture of the guy with the wine glass in the bathtub and all of this. But it was the administrator that took the fall, even though this all occurred entirely before she even arrived at the agency. And so her career was sullied and her reputation to some degree, even though she had literally nothing to do with it.

Bob Tobias: Well, that’s true. Because what can happen in that kind of a situation is a culture of noncompliance can develop. And in a culture of noncompliance, the people in charge suppress any complaints and continue to behave as you just described. So in my view, the only way of managing and as in the case, you pointed out, someone who was innocent, but took the hit is to encourage an outside investigative authority like the Office of Special Counsel to do its work, but do it faster.

Tom Temin: Right, because really, it was not fair for this person to take the hit for that and she exposed it and said, we really made a big mistake here. Which was gracious of her but it really wasn’t that person’s mistake. And so that, again, you’re saying mitigates in favor of external look at these events entirely.

Bob Tobias: I think so, Tom, I think so. There isn’t any evidence anywhere over the long term of successful looking internally at oneself by political appointees, finding fault and fixing that fault.

Tom Temin: But I want to get back to the inspector general question because, yes, IG’s are also politically appointed. But their purpose in life is to have this external, or at least objective, outside-of-the-agency chain of command view of things, no matter how bad they might be. So why can’t IG’s step up more here?

Bob Tobias: They can, and they should. But it only provides for me proof of the fact that no, we can’t depend on every political appointee to be fault free. And the only way we can make sure that it doesn’t occur is to have, not only is to have the Office of Special Counsel be able to investigate problems in IG offices as well.

Tom Temin: Well, that question I think is probably going to be resolved not for quite a while because the whistleblower complaints come in. And I think this is going to be something we were going to deal with for a while.

Bob Tobias: Well, I think it is. But I think it’s also true that when you have a over-2-million-person workforce, there are going to be people who fail to follow the laws, rules and regulations, to make sure that these complaints get surfaced and an employee’s career is not damaged for surfacing these problems.

Tom Temin: All right, Bob Tobias is a professor in the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University. Thanks so much.

Bob Tobias: Thank you, Tom.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-arent-always-capable-of-investigating-their-own-whistleblower-complaints/feed/ 0
IRS backlog metrics ‘don’t translate’ into workforce efforts, commissioner says https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/irs-commissioner-history-will-be-very-polite-to-agencys-pandemic-response/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/irs-commissioner-history-will-be-very-polite-to-agencys-pandemic-response/#respond Wed, 29 Jun 2022 21:55:34 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4128820 The IRS needs more consistent funding from Congress to dig out from pandemic-era challenges, replenish its workforce and modernize its IT, an advisory panel told Congress.

The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC), in its annual report to Congress, urges lawmakers to provide the agency with “flexible, sustainable, predictable, multi-year funding.”

The report found the IRS experienced over 100 continuing resolutions since 2001, and that funding uncertainty forces the agency to opt for “more expensive, less effective, short-term solutions.”

“They spend resources to keep outdated legacy systems running. They use temporary staff over permanent staff and typically suspend hiring during times of budget uncertainty,” the report states.

Congress gave the IRS a $12.6 billion budget as part of the fiscal 2022 omnibus spending deal that passed this March, the agency’s largest budget increase in decades.

But lawmakers have yet to act on the IRS’ request for multi-year funds that would allow it to make meaningful progress on a long-term IT modernization effort

Congress does, however, appear willing to incrementally increase the agency’s annual budget after decades of staff attrition and diminished spending power.

The House Appropriations Committee also advanced a fiscal 2023 spending bill last week that would give the IRS a $1 billion increase to its topline budget.

The committee, citing the IRS’ challenges with paper tax returns and historic backlogs since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, also urges the IRS to modernize the electronic filing process for taxpayers.

IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig, whose five-year term ends in November, told the committee the IRS workforce went to extraordinary lengths over the past two years to deliver $1.5 trillion in financial relief to the public through Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) and tax refunds.

“I think that history will be very polite to the Internal Revenue Service, and to everybody who’s helped the Internal Revenue Service during this period of time,” Rettig said Wednesday.

Rettig said the IRS’ shift into new lines of work, which made the agency more of a public benefits provider and not just a tax enforcement agency, went a long way to helping individuals who became unemployed, lost businesses or experienced food insecurity for the first time during the pandemic.

“It’s not like the EIPs got them out of the food bank line,” Rettig said, “But what pit] did is it showed these people that this country cared.”

While Rettig praised the agency’s work throughout the pandemic, he acknowledged some taxpayers are still waiting for their tax refunds.

The agency announced last week it finished processing the backlog of individual paper tax returns it received in 2021.

“When you’re in the middle of it, somebody who hasn’t yet got their refund, it’s hard for them to accept things went well,” Rettig said.

Response metrics ‘don’t translate’ to workforce’s dedication

The IRS has faced scrutiny over the past few years for a low response rate to taxpayer phone calls and a backlog of unprocessed tax returns, but Rettig said those metrics don’t reflect the hard work of IRS employees.

“I want you to know that the people at the IRS gave so much, so often, and I don’t want that lost in translation. Inventory amounts don’t translate into a lack of desire, dedication and the workarounds that had to occur with your help,” he said.

Rettig said the IRS workforce has been his “highest priority” as commissioner, and applauded employees for responding to a range of pandemic-era challenges.

“It’s no secret we’ve got some people that are doing 10 different jobs. We should have 12 people doing those 10 jobs, as in the private sector,” Rettig said.

The IRS plans to hire 10,000 additional employees and expects to make half of those hires this year.

ETAAC Chairwoman Courtney Kay-Decker, a former director of the Iowa Department of Revenue, said this year’s 31-page report takes a streamlined approach compared to previous years.

“We took a step back and said, in light of everything that’s happening in the world around us, let’s look at tax administration from a holistic sort of 30,000-foot approach, and figure out what it is that would mean most to the taxpayer experience,” Kay-Decker said.

The report, recognizing a historic mismatch between the budgets the IRS requests and what Congress approves, found that appropriate funding for IRS initiatives often comes down to four factors — collaboration, modern technology, prioritization of projects and a balance between machines and people.

ETAAC member Kimberly Pederzani, the compliance manager for the employee cloud business unit at Toast, said the IRS is focused on taxpayer service that tools with increased functionality over time, based on taxpayer needs.

“There has never been such a need for governmental turn-on-a-dime innovation as there has been during and following the facilitation of varying forms of relief stemming from the COVID 19 pandemic,” Pederzani said.

The IRS, in recent years, received more than 90% of all tax returns electronically, but the volume of paper tax returns received has led to complications and processing backlogs.

The report finds that at least half of paper tax returns were prepared using commercial software, and that challenges prevented taxpayers from filing their returns electronically.

Prior to the pandemic, about 5% of total returns filed went into error resolution. During the 2021 filing season, the rate of returns sent to the IRS Error Resolution System (ERS) was about 20% of returns filed.

That uptick in tax returns that needed to go through a manual review process created substantial delays in processing tax returns.

Tax returns filed during the tax season 2021 that required manual review often led to tax refund delays of 90 to 120 days, or even longer.

The committee found that congressional changes to the tax code in the middle of filing seasons contributed to an uptick in tax returns flagged as having errors. Pandemic aid programs also required some individuals to file a tax return who might not otherwise need to.

The IRS however, after the filing season of 2021, put together a program called “Fix ERS” to troubleshoot the volume of errors sent to error resolution.

The team developed an automation solution in April 2022 that significantly shortens the time needed to process tax returns that have errors in them.

The tool resolved about two-thirds of the returns coming through the ERS system, minimizing human intervention for those returns and bringing returns to the ERS queue back to the pre-pandemic levels of around 5%

Prior to the pandemic, an IRS agent could process about 100 returns per employee per day. With the new automation tool in place, an employee can process about 5,000 returns per day.

“A true strength of the IRS is making sure that the highest volume workflows are successful. This means prioritizing resources to ensure that forms with high volume can be filed,” said ETAAC member Jihan Jude, an attorney and counselor at law with the Davey Law Group.

Committee member Latryna Carlton, president of Committed Citizens of Waverly, Florida, said that while call volumes increased astronomically during the pandemic, the IRS has not been able to hire enough staff to keep up.

“The IRS folks who answer the phones are typically often the same people who open the mail and the other processing tests as well,” Carlton said, adding that in a typical year, 55% of a customer service representative’s time is spent on the phone.

Carlton said the IRS has deployed some tools, including chatbots, a callback service and secure document upload capabilities, that have improved the level of phone service for taxpayers.

ETAAC member Terri Steenblock, compliance director at the Federation of Tax Administrators, said the committee recommends restructuring the IRS’s funding to eliminate appropriation categories.

The report also recommends the IRS implement a pilot that allows the agency to retain a portion of defined amounts it collects for technology or staffing-related projects.

“We believe investing now in the future of the IRS is an important key to their long-term sustainability and success,” Steenblock said.

The report states that the IRS workforce and hiring challenges are significant, but warns that simply adding new hires “is an expensive, unsustainable, and largely ineffective way to solve what ails the IRS.”

“The IRS cannot meet taxpayers’ service expectations without a healthy balance between technology and human capital investments. By optimizing technology in the right places, the IRS can provide high-quality customer service through a leaner, more agile workforce,” the report states.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/irs-commissioner-history-will-be-very-polite-to-agencys-pandemic-response/feed/ 0
The military is working on hypersonic weapons, but will it be able to defend against them? https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/the-military-is-working-on-hypersonic-weapons-but-will-it-be-able-to-defend-against-them/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/the-military-is-working-on-hypersonic-weapons-but-will-it-be-able-to-defend-against-them/#respond Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:55:42 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4128052 var config_4127896 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062922_Sawyer_web_cku3_18eb531d.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=58946984-e41b-4fee-8ace-cf4c18eb531d&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"The military is working on hypersonic weapons, but will it be able to defend against them?","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4127896']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnEven as the armed forces develop hypersonic missiles, the Missile Defense Agency pursues a project to develop measures to counteract enemies' hypersonics. But the program is having significant <a href="https:\/\/www.gao.gov\/products\/gao-22-105925" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oversight problems and technical risks<\/a>. For details, the\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><strong><em>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> turns to the acting director for contracting and national security acquisitions issues at the Government Accountability Office, John Sawyer.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Mr. Sawyer, good to have you on.nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Thank you.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Let's talk about this program at the MDA. Is it something that is completely in the research stage? Do they have products they're delivering to the military? Or is this something that is kind of in post? Where does it stands at this point?nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>All of the above. The agency is responsible for acquiring and developing defense capabilities for threats. So at any point in time, they are delivering assets. They are performing testing, they are acquiring, developing anywhere throughout that acquisition process. So the answer is all of the above.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Now they have countermeasures that I guess are more mature for missiles that don't go so fast that might be coming from an enemy. Where does the hypersonic defense stand? It looks from reporters if they have been able to develop glide interceptors that kind of catch these things in mid-flight?nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Yes, sir. They have and hypersonic, hypersonic weapon, as you just alluded, really relates to weapons that can travel really fast, five times or greater than the speed of sound. That is one of the characteristics, not only just ballistic missiles but hypersonic. Another thing interesting about a hypersonic missile is that it is able to travel at lower altitudes than a ballistic missile. And the third thing that would distinguish a hypersonic is that it has the ability to maneuver during flight. In other words, it's almost like a baseball pitch, that curveball where you think that curveball is going one direction, but it has the ability to maneuver during flight. And that is the challenge that the Missile Defense Agency has in fielding a capability that can outperform the threat. And that is where they are with their hypersonic defense.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And is this something that is developed entirely by the government or are there contractors involved in the countermeasure development?nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>This is something that is developed with the government being the overseer of the project. However, the government, DoD, the Missile Defense Agency, does rely on contractors, contractors to assist with the development, product development, the technology development, currently with the glide phase interceptor, you have Lockheed Martin is involved, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, they are all, they have contracts and they are looking at concept design and risk reduction. There's also another effort that is used for hypersonic or being considered for hypersonic defense and that is the hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor. HBTSS is what is a called, and you also have contractors involved in that process. L3Harris and Northrop Grumman, are two contractors that I can think of that are involved in assisting the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency in fielding capabilities to protect our homeland, our allies abroad.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We're speaking with John Sawyer, he's acting director for contracting and national security acquisition issues at the Government Accountability Office. So it sounds like the agency then is developing sensor capabilities. There must be tons of software assessment and processing that happens here. And in the case of the glide interceptor, that's kind of a form of a missile itself, correct?nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Correct. Correct. The glide interceptor is just that. It is a missile designed to intercept a hypersonic weapon. As I mentioned earlier, in order to defeat a hypersonic weapon, you need to field a capability that is four or five steps ahead or able to outperform that threat. And that is exactly what the glide phase interceptor is being designed to accomplish. It is a missile that is designed to intercept a threat.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And in looking at this program, then I guess, maybe it's a collection of sub-programs. What were your main findings? Because it seems like you were concerned a lot about whether there is technical oversight from an independent point of view that is really needed here.nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Our main findings and in our review our assessment, this is the 19th year that we have performed the assessment of the Missile Defense Agency with a specific emphasis on assessing what progress has been made in achieving delivery and testing goals, what progress has been made in delivering assets and meeting their testing goals. And the second thing that we looked at was just what we've just talked about, the hypersonic counter weapons. Our main findings this year, that was consistent with prior years, that each year MDA plans to deliver certain assets, they plan to perform certain testing, but they were unable to meet their goals. On average, over the past five years, the MDA agency has been able to meet, like 52% of its testing goals. And we believe that additional attention should be given to that area, because those are areas that that are funded and budgeted for. But they have demonstrated a history of being unable to meet those goals. Some of those goals or some of those delays or are acceptable. But we just believe in an area like this, where you are constantly fielding capability capabilities to mitigate threats, that you you need to have the most accurate information available, accurate information as it relates to costs, as it relates to risk to enable you to go fast. And that's one of the terms used, to go fast in order to meet the warfighters' requirements.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Because the hypersonic enemy situation itself is sort of a moving situation, because they're developing greater and different capabilities all the time. So it sounds like they need some flexibility. And to do that you need that testing capability.nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Absolutely. Absolutely. That is exactly what testing is designed to do. Testing is that key tool that is designed to assist decision makers with demonstrating system performance. How are our programs able to perform in certain scenarios, integrated together, the the one of the goals that makes the system work is that they integrate the elements or programs and testing is all the more important to give management that information to assist in better informed decisions.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Well, then let's just summarize your main recommendations, then.nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>In this report, we issued three recommendations. Our recommendations are really centered on ensuring that management performed or did what it needed to do, the recommendations were directed to the Secretary of Defense. And what we asked was that ensure that the agency performs the cost estimates and independent cost estimate to know what it will cost to really field or to acquire these these programs that you're trying to acquire. We also felt that there was a need for an independent technical risk assessment, which all of these things according to best practices, leading practices, these items should be performed before product development to assist management in making better informed decisions. And then lastly, we have a recommendation that as it relates to the HBTSS, which is a sensor that is, that involves space, that there are also other agencies involved in space work. And we believe that there should be better coordination, a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the Department of Defense, MDA has a plan in place to manage duplication and overlap. You want to make sure that the agencies leverage what other agencies may be doing, and not to, to duplicate or overlap what they are doing. Those were the recommendations in our report. We have also summarized recommendations that we have issued in the past 10 years since 2010. GAO has issued 61 recommendations to help improve missile defense acquisitions. While MDA has made considerable progress in implementing those recommendations, 23 of them remain open and we will continue to monitor the corrective actions that the Defense Department and MDA will put in place to address those recommendations so that we can give the agency credit and properly identify those recommendations as closed.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And just a detail question before we close that might or might not be within the scope of what you looked at when calling for independent technical assistance. And I think that's something the MDA promised it would do and still needs to do on hypersonic defense. Is the industry in hypersonics mature enough that there is someone they could turn to for independent technical evaluation?nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Thank you. That is a good question. That is something that our report did not address, but there are offices, there are departments within the Defense Department who have responsibility for overseeing and performing these independent technical risk assessments. And I believe that the department has a process designed that would effectively give them the information needed to assist in these decisions.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>John Sawyer is acting director for contracting and national security acquisition issues at the Government Accountability Office. Thanks so much for joining me.nn<strong>John Sawyer: <\/strong>Thank you, Tom.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

Even as the armed forces develop hypersonic missiles, the Missile Defense Agency pursues a project to develop measures to counteract enemies’ hypersonics. But the program is having significant oversight problems and technical risks. For details, the Federal Drive with Tom Temin turns to the acting director for contracting and national security acquisitions issues at the Government Accountability Office, John Sawyer.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: Mr. Sawyer, good to have you on.

John Sawyer: Thank you.

Tom Temin: Let’s talk about this program at the MDA. Is it something that is completely in the research stage? Do they have products they’re delivering to the military? Or is this something that is kind of in post? Where does it stands at this point?

John Sawyer: All of the above. The agency is responsible for acquiring and developing defense capabilities for threats. So at any point in time, they are delivering assets. They are performing testing, they are acquiring, developing anywhere throughout that acquisition process. So the answer is all of the above.

Tom Temin: Now they have countermeasures that I guess are more mature for missiles that don’t go so fast that might be coming from an enemy. Where does the hypersonic defense stand? It looks from reporters if they have been able to develop glide interceptors that kind of catch these things in mid-flight?

John Sawyer: Yes, sir. They have and hypersonic, hypersonic weapon, as you just alluded, really relates to weapons that can travel really fast, five times or greater than the speed of sound. That is one of the characteristics, not only just ballistic missiles but hypersonic. Another thing interesting about a hypersonic missile is that it is able to travel at lower altitudes than a ballistic missile. And the third thing that would distinguish a hypersonic is that it has the ability to maneuver during flight. In other words, it’s almost like a baseball pitch, that curveball where you think that curveball is going one direction, but it has the ability to maneuver during flight. And that is the challenge that the Missile Defense Agency has in fielding a capability that can outperform the threat. And that is where they are with their hypersonic defense.

Tom Temin: And is this something that is developed entirely by the government or are there contractors involved in the countermeasure development?

John Sawyer: This is something that is developed with the government being the overseer of the project. However, the government, DoD, the Missile Defense Agency, does rely on contractors, contractors to assist with the development, product development, the technology development, currently with the glide phase interceptor, you have Lockheed Martin is involved, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, they are all, they have contracts and they are looking at concept design and risk reduction. There’s also another effort that is used for hypersonic or being considered for hypersonic defense and that is the hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor. HBTSS is what is a called, and you also have contractors involved in that process. L3Harris and Northrop Grumman, are two contractors that I can think of that are involved in assisting the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency in fielding capabilities to protect our homeland, our allies abroad.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with John Sawyer, he’s acting director for contracting and national security acquisition issues at the Government Accountability Office. So it sounds like the agency then is developing sensor capabilities. There must be tons of software assessment and processing that happens here. And in the case of the glide interceptor, that’s kind of a form of a missile itself, correct?

John Sawyer: Correct. Correct. The glide interceptor is just that. It is a missile designed to intercept a hypersonic weapon. As I mentioned earlier, in order to defeat a hypersonic weapon, you need to field a capability that is four or five steps ahead or able to outperform that threat. And that is exactly what the glide phase interceptor is being designed to accomplish. It is a missile that is designed to intercept a threat.

Tom Temin: And in looking at this program, then I guess, maybe it’s a collection of sub-programs. What were your main findings? Because it seems like you were concerned a lot about whether there is technical oversight from an independent point of view that is really needed here.

John Sawyer: Our main findings and in our review our assessment, this is the 19th year that we have performed the assessment of the Missile Defense Agency with a specific emphasis on assessing what progress has been made in achieving delivery and testing goals, what progress has been made in delivering assets and meeting their testing goals. And the second thing that we looked at was just what we’ve just talked about, the hypersonic counter weapons. Our main findings this year, that was consistent with prior years, that each year MDA plans to deliver certain assets, they plan to perform certain testing, but they were unable to meet their goals. On average, over the past five years, the MDA agency has been able to meet, like 52% of its testing goals. And we believe that additional attention should be given to that area, because those are areas that that are funded and budgeted for. But they have demonstrated a history of being unable to meet those goals. Some of those goals or some of those delays or are acceptable. But we just believe in an area like this, where you are constantly fielding capability capabilities to mitigate threats, that you you need to have the most accurate information available, accurate information as it relates to costs, as it relates to risk to enable you to go fast. And that’s one of the terms used, to go fast in order to meet the warfighters’ requirements.

Tom Temin: Because the hypersonic enemy situation itself is sort of a moving situation, because they’re developing greater and different capabilities all the time. So it sounds like they need some flexibility. And to do that you need that testing capability.

John Sawyer: Absolutely. Absolutely. That is exactly what testing is designed to do. Testing is that key tool that is designed to assist decision makers with demonstrating system performance. How are our programs able to perform in certain scenarios, integrated together, the the one of the goals that makes the system work is that they integrate the elements or programs and testing is all the more important to give management that information to assist in better informed decisions.

Tom Temin: Well, then let’s just summarize your main recommendations, then.

John Sawyer: In this report, we issued three recommendations. Our recommendations are really centered on ensuring that management performed or did what it needed to do, the recommendations were directed to the Secretary of Defense. And what we asked was that ensure that the agency performs the cost estimates and independent cost estimate to know what it will cost to really field or to acquire these these programs that you’re trying to acquire. We also felt that there was a need for an independent technical risk assessment, which all of these things according to best practices, leading practices, these items should be performed before product development to assist management in making better informed decisions. And then lastly, we have a recommendation that as it relates to the HBTSS, which is a sensor that is, that involves space, that there are also other agencies involved in space work. And we believe that there should be better coordination, a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the Department of Defense, MDA has a plan in place to manage duplication and overlap. You want to make sure that the agencies leverage what other agencies may be doing, and not to, to duplicate or overlap what they are doing. Those were the recommendations in our report. We have also summarized recommendations that we have issued in the past 10 years since 2010. GAO has issued 61 recommendations to help improve missile defense acquisitions. While MDA has made considerable progress in implementing those recommendations, 23 of them remain open and we will continue to monitor the corrective actions that the Defense Department and MDA will put in place to address those recommendations so that we can give the agency credit and properly identify those recommendations as closed.

Tom Temin: And just a detail question before we close that might or might not be within the scope of what you looked at when calling for independent technical assistance. And I think that’s something the MDA promised it would do and still needs to do on hypersonic defense. Is the industry in hypersonics mature enough that there is someone they could turn to for independent technical evaluation?

John Sawyer: Thank you. That is a good question. That is something that our report did not address, but there are offices, there are departments within the Defense Department who have responsibility for overseeing and performing these independent technical risk assessments. And I believe that the department has a process designed that would effectively give them the information needed to assist in these decisions.

Tom Temin: John Sawyer is acting director for contracting and national security acquisition issues at the Government Accountability Office. Thanks so much for joining me.

John Sawyer: Thank you, Tom.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/the-military-is-working-on-hypersonic-weapons-but-will-it-be-able-to-defend-against-them/feed/ 0
Supreme Court rejects challenge to higher USPS rates, but regulator review ongoing https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-higher-usps-rates-but-regulator-review-ongoing/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-higher-usps-rates-but-regulator-review-ongoing/#respond Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:31:32 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4126509 A challenge to the Postal Service’s authority to set market-dominant mail prices above the rate of inflation won’t get a hearing from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition from the National Postal Policy Council to review a federal appeal’s court ruling on the matter.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last November found the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) struck a careful balance when it allowed USPS to set mail rates higher than the pace of inflation.

Steve Kearney, executive director of the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said it is “disappointing that the unnecessary and harmful above-inflation rate increase authority will continue.”

The PRC, however, is reexamining its decision to grant greater pricing flexibility to USPS. As part of this review, the commission is gathering public feedback for a congressionally mandated study on postal rates, and will accept comments through July 31.

Congress in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2022, said the PRC’s rate-setting changes didn’t account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including higher package revenue and $10 billion in emergency COVID funds that Congress gave USPS.

The spending bill directs the PRC to study these factors and report to lawmakers within 270 days on how these factors should impact the rate increases proposed by USPS.

The House version of the fiscal 2023 spending bill would also press the commission to study the impact of planned postage increases.

The current version of the bill, passed by the House Appropriations Committee last week, directs the PRC to specifically consider the impact of higher package revenue, emergency COVID funding, and the Postal Service Reform Act’s impact on USPS finances.

The FY 2023 spending bill, which now heads to the House floor for a vote, also outlines a wide array of requirements for USPS.

The bill, in its current form, directs USPS to work with the PRC on steps it can take to “minimize or reverse any further degradations to service standards for market-dominant products,” such as first-class mail.

USPS last October implemented a new service standard that would slow 40% of first-class mail by a day or two, especially for mail that travels the furthest for delivery.

This early version of the FY 2023 spending bill directs USPS to provide a comparison of delivery service performance data from before and after the new service standard went into effect.

The House version of the spending bill also prohibits USPS from using appropriated funds to consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices.

“The Postal Service shall take into consideration the importance of providing consistent and on-time delivery to all Americans, including those in rural and mountainous areas,” the spending bill states.

The bill also directs USPS to review the impact that closing processing centers has had on its level of mail service.

The committee-mandated study would also require USPS to consider the feasibility of reopening closed facilities. USPS would submit its report within 180 days of the spending bill passing.

“In recent decades, USPS has closed hundreds of processing facilities. The committee is concerned that these closures have contributed to reduced service,” the spending bill states.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy recently unveiled plans to realign its network of processing facilities and improve the route structure its carriers rely on to deliver to 161 million addresses every day.

The spending bill in its current form doesn’t give direct funding to USPS for electric vehicles, but does give the General Services Administration $100 million to fund electric vehicles governmentwide, including at USPS.

The committee expects USPS to consult with GSA on the effective use of that funding to increase its investment in electric vehicles.

The committee requests that USPS track the fuel consumption and emissions portfolio of all vehicles managed or contracted by USPS, as well as its plan for reducing fleet fuel costs and emissions in the future.

The spending bill would give USPS $6 million to carry out postal banking pilot programs in at least five rural ZIP codes.

The bill would also require USPS to modernize its current postal banking services, “including surcharge-free automated teller machines, wire transfers, check cashing, and bill payment to the fullest extent permitted under current statutory authority.”

The committee directs USPS, in collaboration with the USPS inspector general’s office to provide an update on its postal banking pilot within a year of the bill being passed into law.

The PRC, meanwhile is scrutinizing the agency’s rollout of a postal banking pilot, and is looking to determine whether USPS has the legal authority to administer these financial services.

The commission, in a filing last month, said it seeks information to determine whether the USPS pilot launched last exceeded its legal authority.

“The commission seeks the information to determine whether the Pilot Program has changed the nature of the competitive product at issue … to the degree that the gift cards price category (or an undefined sub-component) may be categorized as a non-postal product,” the PRC wrote.

The pilot allows customers to exchange payroll and business checks for gift cards.

“A finding that the price category, product, or subcomponent is a non-postal product that would require its termination,” the commission states.

In fiscal 2014, the commission allow USPS to sell gift cards as a product that was “likely to be mailed, similar to greeting cards and stationery,” and was involved in the sale of other postal retail products, including greeting cards.

USPS at the time told the commission that it did not intend to use the filing “as a step into offering banking services, and if any USPS proposal should ever offer banking services, “such proposals would be done in a separate filing.”

USPS said it based its pilot based in part on a 2019 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on household use of banking and financial services, as well as USPS inspector general reports on potential postal financial services.

The Postal Service told the commission it has for many years cashed or redeemed salary checks or money orders in a limited number of circumstances.

USPS, the commission notes, has issued money orders since the Civil War, and for the past 50 years, USPS has cashed USPS-issued salary checks and money orders at no charge.

The Postal Service also noted that in the last 10 years, and “in cooperation with the United States Treasury, the Postal Service has cashed Treasury checks for a nominal fee.”

USPS told the commission that “no new products or services are involved,” but the commission notes that the pilot is targeted specifically at a market looking for financial services.

The commission notes that none of the transactions in the pilot have led to the sale of other postal products.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-higher-usps-rates-but-regulator-review-ongoing/feed/ 0
DoD’s acting IG is in his position unlawfully, GAO finds https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dods-acting-ig-is-in-his-position-unlawfully-gao-finds/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dods-acting-ig-is-in-his-position-unlawfully-gao-finds/#respond Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:11:54 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4126702 The Pentagon’s acting inspector general is serving in that role without legal authorization, and hasn’t been entitled to hold the job since last November, according to a new legal opinion by the Government Accountability Office.

In the ruling, GAO found the same official, Sean O’Donnell, also served in the position unlawfully for nine-and-a-half months during a separate period at the end of the Trump administration.

GAO made the findings Tuesday in its role as arbiter over the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a complex and often ambiguous legal regime Congress originally created to limit how long political appointees can serve without earning Senate confirmation. The most recent version was passed in 1998.

In general, the rule is that no appointee can hold an “acting” title for longer than 210 days, though that timeframe can be extended in some circumstances. One of them is when there’s a presidential transition: under a new president, appointees get an extra 90 days, for a total of 300. Under GAO’s interpretation of the statute, Biden’s re-appointment of O’Donnell as acting IG expired on Nov. 15, 2021.

A spokeswoman for the IG’s office said its staff was aware of the GAO ruling and was still reviewing how it would respond.

But the ruling itself indicates the OIG’s interpretation of the Vacancies Act is different from GAO’s. The OIG believed that the law allowed O’Donnell to serve as acting IG under a different exception to the Vacancies Act: one that allows officials to serve in acting capacities while the Senate is considering a different person as their permanent replacement.

And that was the case here: President Biden nominated Robert Storch to be the permanent IG on the same day the 300-day clock expired, and his nomination is still stuck on the Senate floor.

But GAO found the “pending nomination” exception doesn’t apply because of another quirk in the Vacancies Act: it puts the time restrictions on hold the first and second time a president tries to nominate someone to the same position, but after the Senate’s rejected a nomination twice — no matter who the president was — the 210-day clock starts ticking again, and from there, the clock is all that matters.

The OIG’s interpretation appears to have been that the entire process should have reset once a new president took office, giving Biden two more chances to stop the clock by nominating a permanent official. But GAO says that concept simply isn’t in the statute. There hasn’t been a Senate-confirmed DoD IG since January of 2016, and GAO says former President Obama’s two unsuccessful attempts to nominate former acting IG Glenn Fine to the permanent job count toward the two-nomination total.

But the OIG didn’t pull its interpretation out of thin air, said Anne Joseph O’Connell, a Stanford University law professor who has studied and written extensively about the Vacancies Act.

“Most commentators, myself included, and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, thought that everything restarted with the new presidential administration,” she said,  “I can’t think of any court case, GAO violation letter or published opinion that takes the position GAO took today. And if you look at executive practice, the practice has also not followed what the GAO ruled today. It’s always thought of the new administration as restarting the vacancy.”

Former President Trump withdrew Fine’s second nomination in February 2017, leaving him with the title of “performing the duties of the inspector general” until May 2020. Fine resigned from his DoD OIG position when Trump fired him from a separate board Congress created to oversee pandemic relief spending.

Shortly thereafter, Trump appointed O’Donnell as the new acting IG. But Tuesday’s ruling found that appointment was invalid, since the 210-day clock that started ticking the last time a previous nomination attempt failed had already run out.

“We recognize the concerns raised by DoD OIG regarding this conclusion, specifically that it means that past nominations may disadvantage a newly inaugurated president by limiting the period acting officials may serve in the new administration,” wrote Edda Emmanuelli Perez, GAO’s general counsel. “But these concerns cannot override the plain meaning of the Vacancies Act’s provisions. Reading the statute as a whole, if Congress intended a restart of the count for nominations … it could have so provided as it did by expressly extending the timeframe for presidential transition periods.”

The upshot of the GAO ruling is that O’Donnell was unlawfully in the position for more than nine months during the Trump administration, then held it completely legally once the clock reset at the start of the Biden administration, and then became an unlawful appointee once again when the clock expired last November.

It was unclear Tuesday what the practical consequences of the legal finding would be. Under the law, GAO is required to report to Congress whenever it finds violations of the Vacancies Act, which GAO said it has now done. But Congress has no clear way to enforce those violations.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the most common enforcement mechanism is lawsuits by private parties who were harmed by a decision an unlawfully-appointed official made. In the case of the DoD IG, it’s not immediately clear who would be in a position to bring such a lawsuit — it’s not obvious that anyone was harmed by the technical disagreement over whether O’Donnell  should have had to step down last fall.

But O’Connell said GAO’s new interpretation of the law could create problems for other agencies, now that there’s a clear legal guideline.

“If the executive branch continues its practice of allowing two new nominations in agencies where there might be more litigation risk, then you could potentially get issues,” she said.

Something similar happened when GAO ruled in 2020 that Chad Wolf was never properly appointed as acting secretary of Homeland Security. The Trump administration openly defied the ruling and left Wolf in place, pointing out, correctly, that GAO’s opinion wasn’t legally binding.

But litigants who’ve had wide ranges of disagreements with DHS over decisions Wolf made during that  have been able to leverage the GAO opinion in their own court cases, arguing that since he was not properly appointed, whatever actions he took that were adverse to their interests should be invalidated.

“That GAO decision in and of itself didn’t change anything: Chad Wolf continued on as acting secretary of Homeland Security,” O’Connell said. “But there is now a whole slew of lawsuits against DHS that cite to the GAO decision as an authority. It’s not going to bind what the executive branch does, but it could create litigation risk. And given what happened there, I could see a strategic decision to follow the GAO opinion here, even though it is not binding on the agencies.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dods-acting-ig-is-in-his-position-unlawfully-gao-finds/feed/ 0
Why the National Security Agency overpaid contractors during the height of the pandemic https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/why-the-national-security-agency-overpaid-contractors-during-the-height-of-the-pandemic/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/why-the-national-security-agency-overpaid-contractors-during-the-height-of-the-pandemic/#respond Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:47:28 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4126067 var config_4126012 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062822_Hall_web_9abj_5ebcd67b.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=6580a809-0f29-4fd7-874a-83a05ebcd67b&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Why the National Security Agency overpaid contractors during the height of the pandemic","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4126012']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnRemember the CARES Act, enacted at the height of the pandemic? Among other things, it let agencies reimburse contractors to pay employees unable to work at an approved federal site or to telework. At the National Security Agency, lack of controls led to millions of dollars in improper payments under the CARES Act. That's <a href="https:\/\/oig.nsa.gov\/Portals\/71\/Documents\/AU-20-0008%20Unclassified%20Audit%20of%20the%20Implementation%20of%20the%20CARES%20Act%20Final%20Report%2020220622.pdf?ver=Kahw5ZhbMuk5tNJi2lEOLw%3d%3d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to an audit<\/a> by the NSA's Office of Inspector General. Joining the\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><strong><em>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> with more, the assistant IG for audits, Jamal Hall.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Mr. Hall, good to have you on.nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Thank you, Tom, good to be here.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And what did you look at here? Basically, the entire program of payments to contractors that the NSA made under the CARES Act?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Yes. So we took a look at the entire payment program, we looked at the period from March to the end of August 2020. And we were really looking for, you know, variances between kind of what was provided for CARES reimbursement, versus kind of the data and evidence that we had available at the time. And what we did find was a lot of really good sort of questionable items to come out of it, and variances that cause additional questions in the future.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>All right, and your methodology was to take 25 sample invoices, or did you have a bigger base of information than that?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Oh, yes, we did take a sample of 25 invoices at the time, and we did it based almost on the sort of the category and it was out of like 2,145 invoices that we had available. So a lot of times from an audit and Yellowbook standpoint, what we do is we select the sample size based on the amount of testing that we do the extent of that testing, so it dictates the sample size. So in this case, we knew we couldn't do you know 50%, because we were really going to get into the details here. So what we did was we took a look at the labor categories, the different contract categories for the contract. So we selected between time and materials cost for our fixed price. And we took sort of a weighted sample of those different contract types to kind of formulate a 25 sample invoices.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>But you do feel that the results are projectable across the entire 2,145 population of those invoices?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Only predictable from the process standpoint, I would say. So the processes were systemic. And that's what we found. We wouldn't necessarily project sort of the dollar figure the 16.4 question cost against the overall total number of invoices. So we are always a little, a little gun shy of doing that.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And we should say, too, that the NSA did jump on this because by the 31st, I believe it is of March of that year, they had guidance out to contractors on how they should submit invoices under the CARES Act so that the agency was quick to get on board. Correct?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Correct. NSA was extremely aggressive and implementing this putting out guidance, saying on the 27th of March was the start of the period to make this happen. And of course, the director of National Intelligence was also extremely aggressive in ensuring that the intelligence community participate in this program for its flexibilities. But definitely NSA was extremely aggressive. And one of the things if I may kind of give the agency credit here was that they did set up guardrails immediately to try to make sure that they had control of this. They did things like make sure that the word CARES appeared in the invoice number or that the contractors had to submit, you know, when they submit a CARES invoice, they also have to submit a certification memorandum which basically said that they did not receive reimbursement from other coronavirus programs. And then they also had to submit an hours tracker, which basically, you know, it gets into details, but it's basically a spreadsheet that lines up individuals with the hours worked and the CARES hours so they can better do tracing themselves. So they were aggressive about implementing this, but I have to give him credit, they did try to set up some guardrails to kind of get their hands around it.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We are speaking with Jamal Hall, he is assistant inspector general for audits at the National Security Agency. But nevertheless, you found there were bills for employees that you couldn't find on the base of employees for that contract, non-existent, possibly. You found discrepancies in hours and rates. So give us the top line of what you found that maybe didn't go so well.nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>You know, we found issues where individuals were billed to the agency that were not necessarily associated with NSA contracts. And from that we found a few of those, we found instances where individuals exceeded the hours that they were supposed to work. So if you're supposed to work a 40 hour average work week, which is understandable under a reimbursement program that we had folks that actually submitted a request for over those 40 hours. We also had where folks exceeded their labor rates. So labor rates are sort of established in the contract. But when the reimbursement requirements came back in you had these individuals that exceeded those labor rates. So a lot of varying sort of issues across the board that we found there.nnWe did also, I mean, I talked about sample at 25. I gotta say we also did a sample of 20, because one things that we wanted to do was in we tried to be as thorough as we can with these projects, right? We took a look at you know, for invoices that were submitted for a period of service before and after the CARES period, which I think I mentioned started 27th of March, but also ended like Sept. 30. So we found one instance where there was an invoice submitted and then went to March 11, which is before the CARES period and tried to figure out what happened there. And when we asked agency contract offer representatives offered that, hey, this is, you know, partly due to the changing policies. We did another one where we found where, you know, a request was put in and the period was after. And what we had there was just honestly, just bad tracking, and that sort of understanding of the hours that are supposed to be recorded and against, you know, kind of verifying the number of hours that they were supposed to go over. So we found a lot of different issues across the board, which you kind of say was, you would expect an unprecedented sort of response that the agency took like this.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Sure. And so was this basically, because of the speed and the amount of manual checking required? Or is there some sort of basic controls that should be in their system now that were not in place?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>I must say that what you said was definitely dead on output. That is, number one, right? The fact that this is unprecedented, the fact that it was immediate, but it also kind of borne out some things as well. So first off, one of the things that happened was the guidance was constantly evolving. You had 10 memos come out during the period from DoD, director of National Intelligence and OMB (Office of Management and Budget). You had 25 guidance documents come from the agency, right, you had six different versions of the certification memo template, and four different versions of our tracker spreadsheet that I mentioned, right? I can imagine that'd be very difficult for a COR (contracting officer representative) who was processing and going through these invoices to make sure that we're using the most up to date guidance. Another factor was immediacy, there was also reduced staffing, which is also a thing that affected a lot of federal agencies. And because of that reduced staffing, you had CORs that sometimes had to approve contracts that they weren't as familiar with. And when we talked to some of these CORs, they felt uncomfortable applying cares requirements against those invoices. And this is something else that kind of came up. That borne out. You know, we did a report back here that released unclassified in 20 Oct. of last year, 2021. And what we found was that this generally just over reliance on contractor provided support, and this kind of borne out as well, this is what we saw in some of our results. For this audit, when we talked to 20 CORs, four of them kind of shared that they relied on the contractors' word and provided a document to verify the accuracy of the invoices, which is not something that you would expect, you expect it to be some sort of independent verification, right. And then also, you know, previously, and this is kind of just the timing of this, from that prior audit that we've done of cost reimbursement contracts, we also found that the fact that COR oversight was not as mature as it should have been. So we found, you know, vague and effective CORroles, responsibilities and oversight procedures that the agency was still working on due to the audit. So a lot of those things kind of came up around the same time.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Sometimes I think the contracting officer representative might be one of the toughest jobs in government. But is it possible, then, to know the total number of hours that were involved here that were paid improperly? Or the total dollars that went out that should not have? Are you able to sum that up?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>So one of the things that we did not do and it wasn't actually part of the scope, because we're looking further at the the veracity invoices was go do and run background to look at how they calculated the total. Right? So from an IG standpoint, I can't necessarily say verify, with assurance, the total number of hours is approximately $117 million, the number of hours the agency is working back, and they provided the number of hours but we did not verify that either. So that's one of the things that we were gonna go back and you know, kind of just maybe take a look at in the future say, OK, well, you know, generally, how was this total number sort of calculated, but it wasn't necessarily within the scope of the project.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And this might also be out of the scope. But can the agency get that money back, either by just reimbursement checks from the contractors, or simply deducting it from future invoices if that's even legal or possible under federal accounting?nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>That I do not know. And I shouldn't say that during the interview, right? But one of the things I do know is that we are tracking how they recover it, because we do put out recommendations were specifically for the cost that we questioned the 16.4 million, we're asking them to go back, go to the contract and make sure that they collect that additional evidence to ensure the accuracy of the hours, the rates and the contractor status. We're also not just for the invoices that we questioned. But for the ones that we didn't question the broader sense, we're asking them to do a risk assessment, we're recommending that they do a risk assessment for all the invoices and determine the level of testing that's needed to identify where the unsupported payments are, where these problems are, and then of course, perform that testing and recover that cost. So through our follow up process, we are tracking to make sure that if something is deemed unsupportable, that they are unable to get the you know, the evidence to support those costs, that they actually recover.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Sure, because it's not as if they paid ransomware to some outfit in Romania. These are companies that are still dealing with and working with day by day.nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Exactly. And these are relationships that I assume they want to maintain as well, right?nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And there is a billion dollars at stake almost and so, that's not chump change even for the NSA.nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Exactly.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Jamal Hall is assistant inspector general for audits at the National Security Agency. Hey, thanks so much for joining me.nn<strong>Jamal Hall: <\/strong>Thanks a lot, Tom. It's been a pleasure.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

Remember the CARES Act, enacted at the height of the pandemic? Among other things, it let agencies reimburse contractors to pay employees unable to work at an approved federal site or to telework. At the National Security Agency, lack of controls led to millions of dollars in improper payments under the CARES Act. That’s according to an audit by the NSA’s Office of Inspector General. Joining the Federal Drive with Tom Temin with more, the assistant IG for audits, Jamal Hall.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: Mr. Hall, good to have you on.

Jamal Hall: Thank you, Tom, good to be here.

Tom Temin: And what did you look at here? Basically, the entire program of payments to contractors that the NSA made under the CARES Act?

Jamal Hall: Yes. So we took a look at the entire payment program, we looked at the period from March to the end of August 2020. And we were really looking for, you know, variances between kind of what was provided for CARES reimbursement, versus kind of the data and evidence that we had available at the time. And what we did find was a lot of really good sort of questionable items to come out of it, and variances that cause additional questions in the future.

Tom Temin: All right, and your methodology was to take 25 sample invoices, or did you have a bigger base of information than that?

Jamal Hall: Oh, yes, we did take a sample of 25 invoices at the time, and we did it based almost on the sort of the category and it was out of like 2,145 invoices that we had available. So a lot of times from an audit and Yellowbook standpoint, what we do is we select the sample size based on the amount of testing that we do the extent of that testing, so it dictates the sample size. So in this case, we knew we couldn’t do you know 50%, because we were really going to get into the details here. So what we did was we took a look at the labor categories, the different contract categories for the contract. So we selected between time and materials cost for our fixed price. And we took sort of a weighted sample of those different contract types to kind of formulate a 25 sample invoices.

Tom Temin: But you do feel that the results are projectable across the entire 2,145 population of those invoices?

Jamal Hall: Only predictable from the process standpoint, I would say. So the processes were systemic. And that’s what we found. We wouldn’t necessarily project sort of the dollar figure the 16.4 question cost against the overall total number of invoices. So we are always a little, a little gun shy of doing that.

Tom Temin: And we should say, too, that the NSA did jump on this because by the 31st, I believe it is of March of that year, they had guidance out to contractors on how they should submit invoices under the CARES Act so that the agency was quick to get on board. Correct?

Jamal Hall: Correct. NSA was extremely aggressive and implementing this putting out guidance, saying on the 27th of March was the start of the period to make this happen. And of course, the director of National Intelligence was also extremely aggressive in ensuring that the intelligence community participate in this program for its flexibilities. But definitely NSA was extremely aggressive. And one of the things if I may kind of give the agency credit here was that they did set up guardrails immediately to try to make sure that they had control of this. They did things like make sure that the word CARES appeared in the invoice number or that the contractors had to submit, you know, when they submit a CARES invoice, they also have to submit a certification memorandum which basically said that they did not receive reimbursement from other coronavirus programs. And then they also had to submit an hours tracker, which basically, you know, it gets into details, but it’s basically a spreadsheet that lines up individuals with the hours worked and the CARES hours so they can better do tracing themselves. So they were aggressive about implementing this, but I have to give him credit, they did try to set up some guardrails to kind of get their hands around it.

Tom Temin: We are speaking with Jamal Hall, he is assistant inspector general for audits at the National Security Agency. But nevertheless, you found there were bills for employees that you couldn’t find on the base of employees for that contract, non-existent, possibly. You found discrepancies in hours and rates. So give us the top line of what you found that maybe didn’t go so well.

Jamal Hall: You know, we found issues where individuals were billed to the agency that were not necessarily associated with NSA contracts. And from that we found a few of those, we found instances where individuals exceeded the hours that they were supposed to work. So if you’re supposed to work a 40 hour average work week, which is understandable under a reimbursement program that we had folks that actually submitted a request for over those 40 hours. We also had where folks exceeded their labor rates. So labor rates are sort of established in the contract. But when the reimbursement requirements came back in you had these individuals that exceeded those labor rates. So a lot of varying sort of issues across the board that we found there.

We did also, I mean, I talked about sample at 25. I gotta say we also did a sample of 20, because one things that we wanted to do was in we tried to be as thorough as we can with these projects, right? We took a look at you know, for invoices that were submitted for a period of service before and after the CARES period, which I think I mentioned started 27th of March, but also ended like Sept. 30. So we found one instance where there was an invoice submitted and then went to March 11, which is before the CARES period and tried to figure out what happened there. And when we asked agency contract offer representatives offered that, hey, this is, you know, partly due to the changing policies. We did another one where we found where, you know, a request was put in and the period was after. And what we had there was just honestly, just bad tracking, and that sort of understanding of the hours that are supposed to be recorded and against, you know, kind of verifying the number of hours that they were supposed to go over. So we found a lot of different issues across the board, which you kind of say was, you would expect an unprecedented sort of response that the agency took like this.

Tom Temin: Sure. And so was this basically, because of the speed and the amount of manual checking required? Or is there some sort of basic controls that should be in their system now that were not in place?

Jamal Hall: I must say that what you said was definitely dead on output. That is, number one, right? The fact that this is unprecedented, the fact that it was immediate, but it also kind of borne out some things as well. So first off, one of the things that happened was the guidance was constantly evolving. You had 10 memos come out during the period from DoD, director of National Intelligence and OMB (Office of Management and Budget). You had 25 guidance documents come from the agency, right, you had six different versions of the certification memo template, and four different versions of our tracker spreadsheet that I mentioned, right? I can imagine that’d be very difficult for a COR (contracting officer representative) who was processing and going through these invoices to make sure that we’re using the most up to date guidance. Another factor was immediacy, there was also reduced staffing, which is also a thing that affected a lot of federal agencies. And because of that reduced staffing, you had CORs that sometimes had to approve contracts that they weren’t as familiar with. And when we talked to some of these CORs, they felt uncomfortable applying cares requirements against those invoices. And this is something else that kind of came up. That borne out. You know, we did a report back here that released unclassified in 20 Oct. of last year, 2021. And what we found was that this generally just over reliance on contractor provided support, and this kind of borne out as well, this is what we saw in some of our results. For this audit, when we talked to 20 CORs, four of them kind of shared that they relied on the contractors’ word and provided a document to verify the accuracy of the invoices, which is not something that you would expect, you expect it to be some sort of independent verification, right. And then also, you know, previously, and this is kind of just the timing of this, from that prior audit that we’ve done of cost reimbursement contracts, we also found that the fact that COR oversight was not as mature as it should have been. So we found, you know, vague and effective CORroles, responsibilities and oversight procedures that the agency was still working on due to the audit. So a lot of those things kind of came up around the same time.

Tom Temin: Sometimes I think the contracting officer representative might be one of the toughest jobs in government. But is it possible, then, to know the total number of hours that were involved here that were paid improperly? Or the total dollars that went out that should not have? Are you able to sum that up?

Jamal Hall: So one of the things that we did not do and it wasn’t actually part of the scope, because we’re looking further at the the veracity invoices was go do and run background to look at how they calculated the total. Right? So from an IG standpoint, I can’t necessarily say verify, with assurance, the total number of hours is approximately $117 million, the number of hours the agency is working back, and they provided the number of hours but we did not verify that either. So that’s one of the things that we were gonna go back and you know, kind of just maybe take a look at in the future say, OK, well, you know, generally, how was this total number sort of calculated, but it wasn’t necessarily within the scope of the project.

Tom Temin: And this might also be out of the scope. But can the agency get that money back, either by just reimbursement checks from the contractors, or simply deducting it from future invoices if that’s even legal or possible under federal accounting?

Jamal Hall: That I do not know. And I shouldn’t say that during the interview, right? But one of the things I do know is that we are tracking how they recover it, because we do put out recommendations were specifically for the cost that we questioned the 16.4 million, we’re asking them to go back, go to the contract and make sure that they collect that additional evidence to ensure the accuracy of the hours, the rates and the contractor status. We’re also not just for the invoices that we questioned. But for the ones that we didn’t question the broader sense, we’re asking them to do a risk assessment, we’re recommending that they do a risk assessment for all the invoices and determine the level of testing that’s needed to identify where the unsupported payments are, where these problems are, and then of course, perform that testing and recover that cost. So through our follow up process, we are tracking to make sure that if something is deemed unsupportable, that they are unable to get the you know, the evidence to support those costs, that they actually recover.

Tom Temin: Sure, because it’s not as if they paid ransomware to some outfit in Romania. These are companies that are still dealing with and working with day by day.

Jamal Hall: Exactly. And these are relationships that I assume they want to maintain as well, right?

Tom Temin: And there is a billion dollars at stake almost and so, that’s not chump change even for the NSA.

Jamal Hall: Exactly.

Tom Temin: Jamal Hall is assistant inspector general for audits at the National Security Agency. Hey, thanks so much for joining me.

Jamal Hall: Thanks a lot, Tom. It’s been a pleasure.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/why-the-national-security-agency-overpaid-contractors-during-the-height-of-the-pandemic/feed/ 0
Imagine an award program where people can nominate friends and then vote on whether they get the money https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/imagine-an-award-program-where-people-can-nominate-friends-and-then-vote-on-whether-they-get-the-money/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/imagine-an-award-program-where-people-can-nominate-friends-and-then-vote-on-whether-they-get-the-money/#respond Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:04:18 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4124274 var config_4123832 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062722_Espinoza_web_rfsf_a22f2b51.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=24ab6993-5906-4f0e-83b5-9980a22f2b51&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Imagine an award program where people can nominate friends and then vote on whether they get the money","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4123832']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><i>Apple Podcasts<\/i><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnThe Postal Service handed out millions of dollars in employee awards in a program that lacked solid controls. People nominated one another and then voted on whether they got the money. A few people even approved their own bonuses. For more, the\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><em><strong>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/strong><\/em><\/a> spoke with the deputy assistant inspector general for audit, Wilvia Espinoza.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Tell us about the program you were looking at, this awards and recognition program for postal employees give us the scope of it. And you know how many people are involved in the kind of dollars involved every year.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>So for background purposes, the recognition and awards program is intended to recognize employees who have demonstrated outstanding performance, superior competence and have other significant contributions. So with the exception of three high level awards that were processed manually, basically all the awards that are over $100, whether they're non-tangible or cash are processed through the E-Awards system, Postal Service's award system. So what we did was we reviewed recognition and awards data from October 2017 through September 2021. And during this time frame, the Postal Service presented over 133,000 awards, totaling over 76.8 million. And these awards range from a letter of recognition to about $12,500 in cash.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Oh, yeah, so someone can get real money. And this is available to everyone from letter carriers to people in management? Got it. And so what did you find with respect to management of the program? It sounds like not everybody that got an award was deserving.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>We found that overall postal service management could improve controls to effectively manage its recognition and awards program. Specifically, we had three points overall relating to the program that we wanted to highlight. First off, postal service management did not always exercise segregation of duties when submitting and approving awards. So for reference, the award system allows employees at various levels to both submit and approve awards. So we found we wanted to highlight that especially the numbers in the amount of awards have been increasing over the last four years, it's essentially doubled. So from an internal controls perspective, we felt it was very judicious in us to highlight.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> It sounds like the potential for someone to say, well, I'll give you an award if you give me one was kind of rampant here?nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Yes, that actually leads to our next topic that we found that employees were giving reciprocating awards to each other. So while it was not as rampant, we felt it was an additional control we needed to highlight as well. Second, we also found that management approved about 69% of the 53,000 award justifications we reviewed, despite them being inadequate, and having insufficient justification for purposes of that award.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> So that's about what 60% of them are so almost, I could call it a rubber stamp, you probably would not call it that. But it sounds like maybe out of band for what you would expect.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Right.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> And this idea of people giving awards to one another. How is that possible? I mean, maybe tell us more about the system. That is to say, where you submit these things electronically? That sounds like there are not enough rules built into that system to prevent things from moving up the ranks to be judged.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Yes. And that was something that we definitely wanted to highlight. As part of this report, we actually did find six individuals who were able to submit and approve awards for themselves, which Postal Service did take corrective actions. They did take immediate actions with regard to that specific control. However, we still had a large amount of people submitting and approving awards for other people in the system as well.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> You had 254 employees submitted 598 reciprocating awards for one another. And it was close to a million dollars.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Yes. Although in the grand scheme of things, from an overall perspective, it's a little bit minor. But we did want to highlight it as a control related issue in that system, unfortunately, doesn't have the controls in place to not allow that.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Right. In other words, it shouldn't even have gotten to the point of where someone could pass judgment on it. It should not have been submitted in gone through the system in the first place.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Yes, I do want to clarify, though, that we did rely on the information entered into the award system to perform our audit. We did not review each award and make a determination as to whether or not it should not have been awarded. So we specifically wanted to highlight potential system and internal controls issues as it relates to the overall award system. So the perception alone of Postal Service improperly awarding employees could lead to larger scale issues like employee morale and retention, which is very important in this environment.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> And if you add it all up, what do you suspect or what do you estimate was the value of the awards that were undeserved that went out?nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>So as a part of this audit, we questioned around $32.8 million in question costs over the four year period.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Yeah, so that's real money.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Correct.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> And how does the Postal Service react when presented with this information?nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>It was a mixed bag. They acknowledged and agreed to take corrective action to two of the four recommendations. However, the largest one at least in from our stance, with regard to segregation of duties they did not agree to. So we do intend on following up with them through the our formal audit resolution process to see what postal service can do to help with this issue.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Yeah, tell us more about that issue. What is it they specifically don't want to do that you recommended?nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>So from Postal Service stance, they believe that there can be certain individuals that are given the authority to both submit and approve awards, and they believe that that is OK, as a part of their own function and mission. From our perspective, though, it kind of does not tie into the importance of segregation of duties, internal controls, and it could lead to appearance issues, or even fraudulent issues as well.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Or favoritism.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Right.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> So in other words, your view is that the person submitting should not be the person ever deciding.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>Yes, agree. And that's fundamental to any critical business function, any financial transaction, there should be at least two people involved. One person submitting and another approving.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Yeah, because I think even in a standard management situation, if you want to give an employee a bonus, outside of formal awards program, you would still need your boss to make sure it's OK. I've never seen a situation where someone can arbitrarily grant it without third party, the controller, or the supervisor of the supervisor having a say in other words.nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>And another thing that we did was we conducted a survey to obtain management's impressions of and satisfaction of the recognition and awards program. And we found that the survey identified that 53% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, that guidance for an award is clear and easy to follow. So that we felt provided additional insight as to what the Postal Service could do to improve from that to improve the program overal.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Right. So the people involved at the lower levels feel the whole thing is kind of foggy. And since 21, which is the final zone of when you had data for, have they made some changes in the meantime?nn<strong>Wilvia Espinoza: <\/strong>The only corrective action that they did make was the immediate one as we were performing the audit was the one issue that we identified where individuals submitted and approved awards for themselves.nn<strong>Tom Temin:<\/strong> Wilvia Espinoza is deputy assistant inspector general for audit at the U.S. Postal Service.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

The Postal Service handed out millions of dollars in employee awards in a program that lacked solid controls. People nominated one another and then voted on whether they got the money. A few people even approved their own bonuses. For more, the Federal Drive with Tom Temin spoke with the deputy assistant inspector general for audit, Wilvia Espinoza.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: Tell us about the program you were looking at, this awards and recognition program for postal employees give us the scope of it. And you know how many people are involved in the kind of dollars involved every year.

Wilvia Espinoza: So for background purposes, the recognition and awards program is intended to recognize employees who have demonstrated outstanding performance, superior competence and have other significant contributions. So with the exception of three high level awards that were processed manually, basically all the awards that are over $100, whether they’re non-tangible or cash are processed through the E-Awards system, Postal Service’s award system. So what we did was we reviewed recognition and awards data from October 2017 through September 2021. And during this time frame, the Postal Service presented over 133,000 awards, totaling over 76.8 million. And these awards range from a letter of recognition to about $12,500 in cash.

Tom Temin: Oh, yeah, so someone can get real money. And this is available to everyone from letter carriers to people in management? Got it. And so what did you find with respect to management of the program? It sounds like not everybody that got an award was deserving.

Wilvia Espinoza: We found that overall postal service management could improve controls to effectively manage its recognition and awards program. Specifically, we had three points overall relating to the program that we wanted to highlight. First off, postal service management did not always exercise segregation of duties when submitting and approving awards. So for reference, the award system allows employees at various levels to both submit and approve awards. So we found we wanted to highlight that especially the numbers in the amount of awards have been increasing over the last four years, it’s essentially doubled. So from an internal controls perspective, we felt it was very judicious in us to highlight.

Tom Temin: It sounds like the potential for someone to say, well, I’ll give you an award if you give me one was kind of rampant here?

Wilvia Espinoza: Yes, that actually leads to our next topic that we found that employees were giving reciprocating awards to each other. So while it was not as rampant, we felt it was an additional control we needed to highlight as well. Second, we also found that management approved about 69% of the 53,000 award justifications we reviewed, despite them being inadequate, and having insufficient justification for purposes of that award.

Tom Temin: So that’s about what 60% of them are so almost, I could call it a rubber stamp, you probably would not call it that. But it sounds like maybe out of band for what you would expect.

Wilvia Espinoza: Right.

Tom Temin: And this idea of people giving awards to one another. How is that possible? I mean, maybe tell us more about the system. That is to say, where you submit these things electronically? That sounds like there are not enough rules built into that system to prevent things from moving up the ranks to be judged.

Wilvia Espinoza: Yes. And that was something that we definitely wanted to highlight. As part of this report, we actually did find six individuals who were able to submit and approve awards for themselves, which Postal Service did take corrective actions. They did take immediate actions with regard to that specific control. However, we still had a large amount of people submitting and approving awards for other people in the system as well.

Tom Temin: You had 254 employees submitted 598 reciprocating awards for one another. And it was close to a million dollars.

Wilvia Espinoza: Yes. Although in the grand scheme of things, from an overall perspective, it’s a little bit minor. But we did want to highlight it as a control related issue in that system, unfortunately, doesn’t have the controls in place to not allow that.

Tom Temin: Right. In other words, it shouldn’t even have gotten to the point of where someone could pass judgment on it. It should not have been submitted in gone through the system in the first place.

Wilvia Espinoza: Yes, I do want to clarify, though, that we did rely on the information entered into the award system to perform our audit. We did not review each award and make a determination as to whether or not it should not have been awarded. So we specifically wanted to highlight potential system and internal controls issues as it relates to the overall award system. So the perception alone of Postal Service improperly awarding employees could lead to larger scale issues like employee morale and retention, which is very important in this environment.

Tom Temin: And if you add it all up, what do you suspect or what do you estimate was the value of the awards that were undeserved that went out?

Wilvia Espinoza: So as a part of this audit, we questioned around $32.8 million in question costs over the four year period.

Tom Temin: Yeah, so that’s real money.

Wilvia Espinoza: Correct.

Tom Temin: And how does the Postal Service react when presented with this information?

Wilvia Espinoza: It was a mixed bag. They acknowledged and agreed to take corrective action to two of the four recommendations. However, the largest one at least in from our stance, with regard to segregation of duties they did not agree to. So we do intend on following up with them through the our formal audit resolution process to see what postal service can do to help with this issue.

Tom Temin: Yeah, tell us more about that issue. What is it they specifically don’t want to do that you recommended?

Wilvia Espinoza: So from Postal Service stance, they believe that there can be certain individuals that are given the authority to both submit and approve awards, and they believe that that is OK, as a part of their own function and mission. From our perspective, though, it kind of does not tie into the importance of segregation of duties, internal controls, and it could lead to appearance issues, or even fraudulent issues as well.

Tom Temin: Or favoritism.

Wilvia Espinoza: Right.

Tom Temin: So in other words, your view is that the person submitting should not be the person ever deciding.

Wilvia Espinoza: Yes, agree. And that’s fundamental to any critical business function, any financial transaction, there should be at least two people involved. One person submitting and another approving.

Tom Temin: Yeah, because I think even in a standard management situation, if you want to give an employee a bonus, outside of formal awards program, you would still need your boss to make sure it’s OK. I’ve never seen a situation where someone can arbitrarily grant it without third party, the controller, or the supervisor of the supervisor having a say in other words.

Wilvia Espinoza: And another thing that we did was we conducted a survey to obtain management’s impressions of and satisfaction of the recognition and awards program. And we found that the survey identified that 53% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, that guidance for an award is clear and easy to follow. So that we felt provided additional insight as to what the Postal Service could do to improve from that to improve the program overal.

Tom Temin: Right. So the people involved at the lower levels feel the whole thing is kind of foggy. And since 21, which is the final zone of when you had data for, have they made some changes in the meantime?

Wilvia Espinoza: The only corrective action that they did make was the immediate one as we were performing the audit was the one issue that we identified where individuals submitted and approved awards for themselves.

Tom Temin: Wilvia Espinoza is deputy assistant inspector general for audit at the U.S. Postal Service.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/imagine-an-award-program-where-people-can-nominate-friends-and-then-vote-on-whether-they-get-the-money/feed/ 0
For OPM’s Ahuja, ‘strong human capital leadership’ crucial to federal workforce reform https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/for-opms-ahuja-strong-human-capital-leadership-crucial-to-federal-workforce-reform/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/for-opms-ahuja-strong-human-capital-leadership-crucial-to-federal-workforce-reform/#respond Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:32:10 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4117941 var config_4119113 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062422_Drew_web_vk67_1a32e839.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=8516544d-b0e0-44df-be97-117c1a32e839&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"For OPM\u2019s Ahuja, \u2018strong human capital leadership\u2019 crucial to federal workforce reform","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4119113']nnRebuilding the federal workforce and positioning the government as a model employer are top of mind for Kiran Ahuja, who just reached the one-year mark as director of the Office of Personnel Management.nnAhuja\u2019s anniversary is the first time a <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/workforce\/2021\/08\/for-opms-ahuja-rebuilding-the-federal-workforce-takes-on-many-forms\/">confirmed OPM director<\/a> has hit a year in office since 2015. She said the milestone spotlights some long-standing staffing issues for the agency.nn\u201cI think it speaks to the challenges the agency has had over the past number of years and the importance of having good solid leadership in these positions,\u201d Ahuja said in a discussion with reporters on June 23. \u201cIt's so important, especially as we manage a post-pandemic work environment, to have a very strong human capital leader in the federal government.\u201dnnAs OPM looks to the future of work, a big piece for Ahuja is flexibility. Employee engagement and satisfaction <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/workforce\/2022\/04\/two-years-into-the-pandemic-federal-employee-engagement-drops-in-2021-fevs\/">dropped in the 2021 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey<\/a>, likely because OPM administered the survey during a tumultuous time, Ahuja said, when many feds felt unhappy about their agencies\u2019 return-to-office plans.nn\u201cWe're really working hard to send the message that this is an administration that wants to be responsive and values the federal workforce. A big part of understanding that is to hear directly from them,\u201d Ahuja said.nnThe 2022 iteration of FEVS is currently out for federal employees to take the survey, as OPM works to get back on the normal survey schedule, which has been delayed for the past two years due to the pandemic.nn\u201cThe FEVS in 2022 has some specific DEIA questions. It's focused on resilience, innovation and other ways to gauge engagement,\u201d Ahuja said. \u201cComing back onto the regular cycle and having a much more robust survey will give us a clearer sense of where our folks are under this administration.\u201dnnOPM is prioritizing telework flexibilities not only to support the current federal workforce, but also to boost recruitment of younger employees to the civil service. Ahuja pointed to the statistic that just about 7% of the federal workforce is under the age of 30. The agency has taken some steps over the last year to address ongoing early-career recruitment challenges.nn\u201cWe've done a big push here internally, around promoting our Presidential Management Fellows program,\u201d Ahuja said. \u201cWe have also issued two new hiring authorities, passed last fall, that we know our agencies are using, which is making it a lot easier to bring in post-secondary students and recent college graduates.\u201dnnBeyond early-career recruitment, OPM is also focused on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal workforce. The agency recently released guidance to help agencies use <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/hiring-retention\/2022\/05\/how-agencies-can-recruit-better-job-candidates-with-skills-based-approach\/">skills-based hiring<\/a>, focused more on the skills applicants have and not as much on their education, which is one way to improve DEIA in federal hiring.nnTo measure progress, OPM created a dashboard for federal hiring managers to use, and called on agencies to identify a chief diversity officer in their senior level staff.nnMore work is coming, though. OPM plans to establish a Chief Diversity Officer Council later this summer to help agencies improve internal diversity best practices.nn\u201cWe want to know where we started and where we need to go. We need to adopt more of the best practices that are in other sectors,\u201d Ahuja said. \u201cWe have to really <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/hiring-retention\/2022\/04\/opm-dol-to-use-data-early-career-pathways-to-advance-hiring-equity\/">become much more data-driven<\/a>. What I mean by that is, we are going to be supporting agencies around how to do barrier analyses [and] pay equity analyses. All those things are the muscles we need to build inside the federal government.\u201dnnAhuja said the way agencies hire is \u201chaphazard and inconsistent,\u201d for both recruitment and outreach to communities.nn\u201cThat is an area that I would like to build out personally,\u201d she said. \u201cWe are working very diligently to continue to <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/hiring-retention\/2022\/05\/opms-ahuja-says-agencies-need-to-balance-speed-with-doing-it-right-for-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-hiring\/">create hiring paths<\/a> [and] modernize the functionality of the USA Jobs [website],\u201d Ahuja said.nnSimilar to many past OPM directors, Ahuja said she\u2019s also working on modernizing retirement services. The goal is something that has often fallen to the side while focusing on other challenges, such as the previously administration\u2019s proposed merger with General Services Administration.nnOPM has made some advancements, Ahuja said, and the agency is continuing to build staff and resources for retirement services. That\u2019s as OPM is working through an unprecedented surge in retiring feds and a retirement backlog from the pandemic.nn\u201cWe've got small projects in place around piloting an online retirement application, we are also working toward an online calculator for prospective retirees. We are also putting together an 18-month modernization plan,\u201d Ahuja said. \u201c[That] is really I think where we've been successful, is to take the small pieces and tackle them.\u201dnnEarly in her tenure, Ahuja said she would push a mixed agenda of both regulatory and legislative priorities. After moving forward on the regulatory side, she said she\u2019s now adding more focus to <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/hiring-retention\/2022\/04\/senate-legislation-seeks-to-expand-early-career-pipeline-for-federal-service\/">partnerships on Capitol Hill<\/a>.nn\u201cWe're still continuing on the regulatory piece. But we absolutely need to need to be proactive. OPM in the past has been very reactive to legislation,\u201d Ahuja said. \u201cOur team has great ideas. We just need to be able to build the resources and carve out the time to be able to push those forward.\u201dnnEstablishing the federal government as a model employer has been a priority for Ahuja since stepping into the role \u2014 that means improving work-life balance, federal union partnerships and flexible leave policies.nn\u201cWe have focused on bringing in top talent [and] bringing in diverse talent to the federal government, and ensuring that we are set up as a competitive employer and really a workforce of the future,\u201d Ahuja said."}};

Rebuilding the federal workforce and positioning the government as a model employer are top of mind for Kiran Ahuja, who just reached the one-year mark as director of the Office of Personnel Management.

Ahuja’s anniversary is the first time a confirmed OPM director has hit a year in office since 2015. She said the milestone spotlights some long-standing staffing issues for the agency.

“I think it speaks to the challenges the agency has had over the past number of years and the importance of having good solid leadership in these positions,” Ahuja said in a discussion with reporters on June 23. “It’s so important, especially as we manage a post-pandemic work environment, to have a very strong human capital leader in the federal government.”

As OPM looks to the future of work, a big piece for Ahuja is flexibility. Employee engagement and satisfaction dropped in the 2021 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, likely because OPM administered the survey during a tumultuous time, Ahuja said, when many feds felt unhappy about their agencies’ return-to-office plans.

“We’re really working hard to send the message that this is an administration that wants to be responsive and values the federal workforce. A big part of understanding that is to hear directly from them,” Ahuja said.

The 2022 iteration of FEVS is currently out for federal employees to take the survey, as OPM works to get back on the normal survey schedule, which has been delayed for the past two years due to the pandemic.

“The FEVS in 2022 has some specific DEIA questions. It’s focused on resilience, innovation and other ways to gauge engagement,” Ahuja said. “Coming back onto the regular cycle and having a much more robust survey will give us a clearer sense of where our folks are under this administration.”

OPM is prioritizing telework flexibilities not only to support the current federal workforce, but also to boost recruitment of younger employees to the civil service. Ahuja pointed to the statistic that just about 7% of the federal workforce is under the age of 30. The agency has taken some steps over the last year to address ongoing early-career recruitment challenges.

“We’ve done a big push here internally, around promoting our Presidential Management Fellows program,” Ahuja said. “We have also issued two new hiring authorities, passed last fall, that we know our agencies are using, which is making it a lot easier to bring in post-secondary students and recent college graduates.”

Beyond early-career recruitment, OPM is also focused on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal workforce. The agency recently released guidance to help agencies use skills-based hiring, focused more on the skills applicants have and not as much on their education, which is one way to improve DEIA in federal hiring.

To measure progress, OPM created a dashboard for federal hiring managers to use, and called on agencies to identify a chief diversity officer in their senior level staff.

More work is coming, though. OPM plans to establish a Chief Diversity Officer Council later this summer to help agencies improve internal diversity best practices.

“We want to know where we started and where we need to go. We need to adopt more of the best practices that are in other sectors,” Ahuja said. “We have to really become much more data-driven. What I mean by that is, we are going to be supporting agencies around how to do barrier analyses [and] pay equity analyses. All those things are the muscles we need to build inside the federal government.”

Ahuja said the way agencies hire is “haphazard and inconsistent,” for both recruitment and outreach to communities.

“That is an area that I would like to build out personally,” she said. “We are working very diligently to continue to create hiring paths [and] modernize the functionality of the USA Jobs [website],” Ahuja said.

Similar to many past OPM directors, Ahuja said she’s also working on modernizing retirement services. The goal is something that has often fallen to the side while focusing on other challenges, such as the previously administration’s proposed merger with General Services Administration.

OPM has made some advancements, Ahuja said, and the agency is continuing to build staff and resources for retirement services. That’s as OPM is working through an unprecedented surge in retiring feds and a retirement backlog from the pandemic.

“We’ve got small projects in place around piloting an online retirement application, we are also working toward an online calculator for prospective retirees. We are also putting together an 18-month modernization plan,” Ahuja said. “[That] is really I think where we’ve been successful, is to take the small pieces and tackle them.”

Early in her tenure, Ahuja said she would push a mixed agenda of both regulatory and legislative priorities. After moving forward on the regulatory side, she said she’s now adding more focus to partnerships on Capitol Hill.

“We’re still continuing on the regulatory piece. But we absolutely need to need to be proactive. OPM in the past has been very reactive to legislation,” Ahuja said. “Our team has great ideas. We just need to be able to build the resources and carve out the time to be able to push those forward.”

Establishing the federal government as a model employer has been a priority for Ahuja since stepping into the role — that means improving work-life balance, federal union partnerships and flexible leave policies.

“We have focused on bringing in top talent [and] bringing in diverse talent to the federal government, and ensuring that we are set up as a competitive employer and really a workforce of the future,” Ahuja said.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/for-opms-ahuja-strong-human-capital-leadership-crucial-to-federal-workforce-reform/feed/ 0
Agencies need customer experience ‘quarterback’ and scorecard to track progress, experts say https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-need-customer-experience-quarterback-and-scorecard-to-track-progress-experts-say/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-need-customer-experience-quarterback-and-scorecard-to-track-progress-experts-say/#respond Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:10:39 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4117572 The Biden administration is calling on agencies to improve customer experience across government, but former government officials say a federal chief customer officer and scorecard are needed to track and encourage progress.

The administration made customer experience improvements a priority in an executive order last year and in the President’s Management Agenda. Congress, meanwhile, passed the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) more than three years ago to set a higher bar for online services from agencies.

But to demonstrate progress on these efforts, former General Services Administration executive Martha Dorris, the founder of Dorris Consulting International, said agencies need a customer experience scorecard to make consistent improvements.

Dorris said Congress could either tack a customer experience category on the existing Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) scorecard or create a standalone scorecard.

“The government has unique challenges when implementing customer experience, due to the large and diverse population we serve, quantifying the benefits of customer experience, including increased efficiency, employee engagement, voluntary compliance with government mandates, simplifying the lives of Americans and building trust in government,” Dorris said.

Committee Ranking Member Rob Portman (R-Ohio)  expressed an interest in implementing a customer experience scorecard, adding that tracking progress has been hard to quantify up until this point.

“I don’t know how to measure it very well. Our team has had some issues on that. There’s this FITARA measurement that is not related as much to the customer service, generally, but to IT improvements,” Portman said.

Portman said many elements of the 21st Century IDEA, a bill he introduced in the Senate, remain unimplemented, and that he’s been overall “disappointed in the implementation.”

The Office of Management and Budget, he added, has not yet issued guidance for agencies to implement the legislation.

“Until that guidance is issued, it’s very difficult to get the agencies to implement this integrated digital experience legislation,” Portman said.

Matt Lira, former special assistant to the president for Innovation Policy and Initiatives in the Office of American Innovation under the Trump administration, now a partner at Hangar Capital, said he supports the idea of a scorecard, adding that the FITARA scorecard has led to consistent improvements to IT modernization in government.

“It’s tangible, it’s binary, it’s quantitative. And I will say firsthand, being on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, it was an incredibly useful tool, the FITARA scorecard, in driving agency deliverables,” Lira said.

Mike Hettinger, the president of Hettinger Strategy and a former staff director for the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, told Federal News Network that a scorecard could standardize customer experience improvements the same way that FITARA put a spotlight on IT modernization.

“You hope that we could get out ahead of this, and not wait 20 years until we see that CX implementation has been inconsistent across the government,” Hettinger said.

Dorris also called on Congress to pass legislation that would create a federal chief customer officer “responsible for establishing the vision and strategy for improving the end-to-end customer experience.”

Dorris said agencies start to improve customer experience by making it a priority at all levels of government.

“Once you have it as a priority, then you can figure out how do you put the customer at the center.  How do you have outside-in thinking, rather than inside-out thinking?” she said.

Lira said agencies often run into logistical challenges when it comes to improving customer experience, including obtaining the authority to operate new technologies and overcoming procurement challenges. He said agencies that best overcome these challenges have a “leadership spine,” or a core team of executives leading customer experience changes.

“It wasn’t enough simply to have a well-motivated CTO. You needed to have an equally well-motivated procurement officer and equally well-motivated counsel so that you can manage the process of getting an agency to move forward. Rarely, if it all, it was a technology problem,” Lira said.

Dorris also told the committee that each of the 35 agencies and programs designated as High-Impact Service Providers should also have an executive in charge of customer-focused initiatives who reports to the agency’s leadership.

Federal Chief Information Officer and Technology Modernization Fund Chairwoman Clare Martorana has led many of the governmentwide CX transformation efforts. Martorana recently announced the TMF will invest $100 million in customer experience improvement projects.

“You really don’t have anyone whose sole responsibility is taking care of those issues. We really need like a CX quarterback,” Hettinger said.

The private sector has embraced the concept of chief customer experience officers, as have several federal agencies. However, Lira told the committee that the level of customer experience between the public and private sectors is growing.

“We live in a time of exponential change. And far too often, agencies are making linear progress over time. This means even as meaningful progress has made, the gap between a customer’s expectation and the experiences is getting worse,” Lira said.

Several agencies have elevated customer experience within their organizational structure. The IRS stood up a Taxpayer Experience Office as part of the Taxpayer First Act, and the VA created its Veterans Experience Office in response to veterans waiting to receive health care.

Hettinger said those agency-level examples demonstrate the need for someone to coordinate customer experience governmentwide.

“You look at that and you say, ‘Well let’s just raise that up a level,'” Hettinger said.

Committee Chairman Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said agencies face an uphill battle “restoring decades of lost faith” in government providing a high level of service to the public.

“Rebuilding trust in our government is essential, and we can help restore the public’s confidence in the federal government by continuing to strengthen its ability to deliver critical services,” Peters said

William Eggers, the executive director for Deloitte’s Center for Government Insights, said that while the overall level of trust in government has been declining, public satisfaction with individuals varies greatly, and agencies with greater interaction with the public generally score higher.

“We can’t address the issue of trust and confidence issues in the federal government with a one-size-fits-all approach,” Eggers said.

Peters and Portman both raised concerns about the General Services Administration’s rollout of SAM.gov, the governmentwide registration system for federal contracts.

“Businesses have had real trouble getting paid for work they did for the government, or had agencies stop working with them because the website’s system for registration renewal was not working,” Portman said.

Peters said he recently spoke with GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan, and that the agency’s Technology Transformation Service has addressed many of the initial setbacks of the site’s launch.

Lira said that agencies are generally relying more on off-the-shelf commercial technologies and services to improve customer experience, rather than developing those solutions in-house.

“We are dealing with major programs that touch, in some cases, hundreds of millions of Americans. And it’s very unlikely that a small team and an agency could ever scale to the size of the problem,” Lira said.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/agencies-need-customer-experience-quarterback-and-scorecard-to-track-progress-experts-say/feed/ 0
USCIS sets ambitious hiring, processing goals to shrink massive immigration case backlog https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/uscis-sets-ambitious-hiring-processing-goals-to-shrink-massive-immigration-case-backlog/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/uscis-sets-ambitious-hiring-processing-goals-to-shrink-massive-immigration-case-backlog/#respond Wed, 22 Jun 2022 21:52:50 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4115563 var config_4123834 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062722_Amelia_web_vh4j_3793d272.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=5078ada9-95c9-4a16-86c1-caa43793d272&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"USCIS sets ambitious hiring, processing goals to shrink massive immigration case backlog","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4123834']nnThe public\u2019s liaison to the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s lead immigration agency has one primary focus in this year\u2019s annual report to Congress: reducing the backlog of cases and its impacts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services\u2019 backlog has nearly 5.2 million cases and approximately 8.5 million cases are pending, according the CIS Ombudsman Phyllis Coven.nnBy comparison, the backlog was around 2.7 million in July 2019. On a call with USCIS leadership Wednesday, Coven said the affirmative asylum backlog is worst of all.nn\u201cWe're hyper focused on all backlogs, but there are some impacts beyond just the time loss. That's of great concern to us. We're examining things like how customers can request, expedite and advance parole, which snowball because of the backlogs,\u201d Coven said. \u201cWe looked at needed solutions, including digital ones to encourage the agency to take bolder steps. And we're also trying to give due credit where it's due such as the approach of dealing with the U visa [for nonimmigrant victims of certain crimes] backlog that the agency has undertaken by developing the [Bona Fide Determination] process.\u201dnn[caption id="attachment_4119162" align="alignleft" width="918"]<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Screenshot-101.png"><img class="wp-image-4119162 size-full" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Screenshot-101.png" alt="" width="918" height="691" \/><\/a> The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman shared the status of the agency's immigration case backlog - as of March 2022 - on June 22, 2022. Source: USCIS[\/caption]nnUSCIS struggles to hire enough staff to address the case backlog, even after hiring freezes in fiscal 2019 and 2020 lifted. In fiscal 2020, the average time to onboard a new adjudicator was 97 to 118 days after the date of a hiring decision, according to the CIS Obudsman\u2019s office.nnDan Renaud, senior counselor to the USCIS director, said that when social distancing measures were in place, staff used video interviews and biometrics to continue processing cases. He also said the agency leveraged appropriations to cover overtime for adjudicators.nn\u201cOur first round of hiring has favored more towards supervisory roles, which has meant additional internal promotions and an HR infrastructure that's ready to support an increase in new staff. We're glad that we've been able to promote those career civil servants committed to our mission,\u201d he said.nnUSCIS plans to hire more than 4,000 employees by the end of this calendar year, and set new, more aggressive \u201ccycle time\u201d goals for fiscal 2023. Renaud said these are an internal management metric comparable to median processing time.nn[caption id="attachment_4119153" align="aligncenter" width="1520"]<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/CycleTimeGoals2_0_USCIS.jpg"><img class="wp-image-4119153 size-full" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/CycleTimeGoals2_0_USCIS.jpg" alt="" width="1520" height="800" \/><\/a> U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shared new cycle time goals for certain visa processing as of March 29, 2022. Source: USCIS[\/caption]nnTimesaving accommodations were made for certain applicants. Doug Rand, senior advisor to the USCIS director, said individuals in the health care and child care industries who are renewing their work authorizations can request an expedited review and completion of their employment authorization document renewals. The work permit validity period also increased from one to two years for certain \u201cadjustment of status\u201d and humanitarian applicants.nnMeanwhile, back in March, USCIS published a final rule to effectively expand premium processing services for cases, which is an additional fee applicants can pay to expedite their forms. But this expedited service is still handled by human beings, and Rand said there is a limit to how many cases employees can process at once.nn\u201cOne needs extra human beings to be able to do a faster turnaround time. So we understand and appreciate the fact that a lot of folks out there would be paying for premium processing for a lot of these ones right now, if they could,\u201d Rand said. \u201cWe really want to satisfy that demand. We wish we could, we could just flip a switch and turn it on for everybody, but that's not really operationally possible.\u201dn<h2>Fee-for-service model leaves USCIS underfunded, understaffed<\/h2>nAlthough the CIS Ombudsman\u2019s annual report to Congress is due by June 30, Coven\u2019s office already issued two formal recommendations on March 31 and June 15. One was to amending USCIS\u2019 funding model which relies <a href="https:\/\/www.dhs.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2022-06\/CIS%20OMBUDSMAN_2022_FEE_FOR_SERVICE_RECOMMENDATION_FINAL.pdf">almost entirely on fees-for-service<\/a>, a long-running obstacle for the agency to tackle its backlog.nnUSCIS\u2019 workforce of more than 20,000 people and 200-plus offices and facilities have an annual budget averaging above $4 billion since 2018, 97% of which comes from fees-for-service. The federal review and public comment process for adjusting fees <a href="https:\/\/www.migrationpolicy.org\/news\/uscis-severe-budget-shortfall">takes several years<\/a>, and the agency has never adjusted those fees for inflation \u2013 which reached an annual rate of 8.6% in May, <a href="https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/pdf\/cpi.pdf">the highest in 41 years<\/a>.nnBut that\u2019s not all.nnThe drop in services performed by USCIS during the pandemic, various humanitarian disasters that occur at unforeseen times, and cuts to nonpayroll expenses in order to avoid a massive COVID-related furlough compounded to reveal the inadequacy of USCIS\u2019 funding model, the ombudsman wrote. The recommendations included dedicated appropriations to tackle case backlogs, and to cover humanitarian and asylum services which are not fee-based yet paid for at the expense of applicants for other immigration needs.nn\u201cWe recommend that USCIS seek legislative or regulatory action to: Reengineer the agency\u2019s biennial fee review process, particularly its associated staffing allocation models, to ensure it fully and proactively projects the staffing levels needed to meet targeted processing time goals for future processing as well as backlog adjudications \u2026 [and] Authorize and establish a financing mechanism, through the auspices of the Department of the Treasury, that USCIS may draw upon to address unexpected revenue shortfalls and unfunded policy shifts and to maintain adequate staffing to meet its performance obligations to its customers and Congress,\u201d the report said.nnAlthough, researchers pointed out in 2020, <a href="https:\/\/www.migrationpolicy.org\/news\/uscis-severe-budget-shortfall">when USCIS requested emergency funding<\/a>, \u201cAs a fee-funded agency, USCIS has been largely exempt from customary congressional oversight,\u201d and the reason it was made a self-standing agency was to \u201cstrengthen the benefit-granting functions of the immigration system and sever them from [congressional] enforcement missions.\u201dn<h2>\u2018Efficiency at the expense of equity\u2019<\/h2>nThe second recommendation was to <a href="https:\/\/www.dhs.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2022-03\/CIS%20OMBUDSMAN_I-129_BENEFICIARY_RECOMMENDATION_fnl_03-2022_508.pdf">improve the notification process<\/a> for Form I-129 beneficiaries. Form I-129 is a petition filed by an employer to extend, amend or change the status of their nonimmigrant worker. Currently, USCIS only notifies employers of actions and status changes for the application, but does not notify the workers who would in fact benefit from the I-129 petition. According to the CIS Ombudsman, this means those workers reply on their employers for all information, which could leave them without status documentation and make them susceptible to abuse. The report called this \u201cadministrative efficiency at the expense of equity,\u201d echoing several of the Biden administration\u2019s directives for improving customer experience and the federal workforce as a whole.nnAs of now, eligible nonimmigrant workers are supposed to receive a tear-off Form I-94 from their employer, which they carry around at all times. Employers keep a copy, but USCIS will not send the form to workers themselves.nnProposed solutions included notifying beneficiaries by mail or online; allowing beneficiaries to track their status online; and for USCIS to collaborate with Customs and Border Protection so that applicants can check their Form I-94 status online using passport information."}};

The public’s liaison to the Department of Homeland Security’s lead immigration agency has one primary focus in this year’s annual report to Congress: reducing the backlog of cases and its impacts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ backlog has nearly 5.2 million cases and approximately 8.5 million cases are pending, according the CIS Ombudsman Phyllis Coven.

By comparison, the backlog was around 2.7 million in July 2019. On a call with USCIS leadership Wednesday, Coven said the affirmative asylum backlog is worst of all.

“We’re hyper focused on all backlogs, but there are some impacts beyond just the time loss. That’s of great concern to us. We’re examining things like how customers can request, expedite and advance parole, which snowball because of the backlogs,” Coven said. “We looked at needed solutions, including digital ones to encourage the agency to take bolder steps. And we’re also trying to give due credit where it’s due such as the approach of dealing with the U visa [for nonimmigrant victims of certain crimes] backlog that the agency has undertaken by developing the [Bona Fide Determination] process.”

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman shared the status of the agency’s immigration case backlog – as of March 2022 – on June 22, 2022. Source: USCIS

USCIS struggles to hire enough staff to address the case backlog, even after hiring freezes in fiscal 2019 and 2020 lifted. In fiscal 2020, the average time to onboard a new adjudicator was 97 to 118 days after the date of a hiring decision, according to the CIS Obudsman’s office.

Dan Renaud, senior counselor to the USCIS director, said that when social distancing measures were in place, staff used video interviews and biometrics to continue processing cases. He also said the agency leveraged appropriations to cover overtime for adjudicators.

“Our first round of hiring has favored more towards supervisory roles, which has meant additional internal promotions and an HR infrastructure that’s ready to support an increase in new staff. We’re glad that we’ve been able to promote those career civil servants committed to our mission,” he said.

USCIS plans to hire more than 4,000 employees by the end of this calendar year, and set new, more aggressive “cycle time” goals for fiscal 2023. Renaud said these are an internal management metric comparable to median processing time.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shared new cycle time goals for certain visa processing as of March 29, 2022. Source: USCIS

Timesaving accommodations were made for certain applicants. Doug Rand, senior advisor to the USCIS director, said individuals in the health care and child care industries who are renewing their work authorizations can request an expedited review and completion of their employment authorization document renewals. The work permit validity period also increased from one to two years for certain “adjustment of status” and humanitarian applicants.

Meanwhile, back in March, USCIS published a final rule to effectively expand premium processing services for cases, which is an additional fee applicants can pay to expedite their forms. But this expedited service is still handled by human beings, and Rand said there is a limit to how many cases employees can process at once.

“One needs extra human beings to be able to do a faster turnaround time. So we understand and appreciate the fact that a lot of folks out there would be paying for premium processing for a lot of these ones right now, if they could,” Rand said. “We really want to satisfy that demand. We wish we could, we could just flip a switch and turn it on for everybody, but that’s not really operationally possible.”

Fee-for-service model leaves USCIS underfunded, understaffed

Although the CIS Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress is due by June 30, Coven’s office already issued two formal recommendations on March 31 and June 15. One was to amending USCIS’ funding model which relies almost entirely on fees-for-service, a long-running obstacle for the agency to tackle its backlog.

USCIS’ workforce of more than 20,000 people and 200-plus offices and facilities have an annual budget averaging above $4 billion since 2018, 97% of which comes from fees-for-service. The federal review and public comment process for adjusting fees takes several years, and the agency has never adjusted those fees for inflation – which reached an annual rate of 8.6% in May, the highest in 41 years.

But that’s not all.

The drop in services performed by USCIS during the pandemic, various humanitarian disasters that occur at unforeseen times, and cuts to nonpayroll expenses in order to avoid a massive COVID-related furlough compounded to reveal the inadequacy of USCIS’ funding model, the ombudsman wrote. The recommendations included dedicated appropriations to tackle case backlogs, and to cover humanitarian and asylum services which are not fee-based yet paid for at the expense of applicants for other immigration needs.

“We recommend that USCIS seek legislative or regulatory action to: Reengineer the agency’s biennial fee review process, particularly its associated staffing allocation models, to ensure it fully and proactively projects the staffing levels needed to meet targeted processing time goals for future processing as well as backlog adjudications … [and] Authorize and establish a financing mechanism, through the auspices of the Department of the Treasury, that USCIS may draw upon to address unexpected revenue shortfalls and unfunded policy shifts and to maintain adequate staffing to meet its performance obligations to its customers and Congress,” the report said.

Although, researchers pointed out in 2020, when USCIS requested emergency funding, “As a fee-funded agency, USCIS has been largely exempt from customary congressional oversight,” and the reason it was made a self-standing agency was to “strengthen the benefit-granting functions of the immigration system and sever them from [congressional] enforcement missions.”

‘Efficiency at the expense of equity’

The second recommendation was to improve the notification process for Form I-129 beneficiaries. Form I-129 is a petition filed by an employer to extend, amend or change the status of their nonimmigrant worker. Currently, USCIS only notifies employers of actions and status changes for the application, but does not notify the workers who would in fact benefit from the I-129 petition. According to the CIS Ombudsman, this means those workers reply on their employers for all information, which could leave them without status documentation and make them susceptible to abuse. The report called this “administrative efficiency at the expense of equity,” echoing several of the Biden administration’s directives for improving customer experience and the federal workforce as a whole.

As of now, eligible nonimmigrant workers are supposed to receive a tear-off Form I-94 from their employer, which they carry around at all times. Employers keep a copy, but USCIS will not send the form to workers themselves.

Proposed solutions included notifying beneficiaries by mail or online; allowing beneficiaries to track their status online; and for USCIS to collaborate with Customs and Border Protection so that applicants can check their Form I-94 status online using passport information.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/06/uscis-sets-ambitious-hiring-processing-goals-to-shrink-massive-immigration-case-backlog/feed/ 0
IRS expects to finish processing 2021 tax return backlog this week https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/irs-expects-to-finish-processing-2021-tax-return-backlog-this-week/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/irs-expects-to-finish-processing-2021-tax-return-backlog-this-week/#respond Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:57:22 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4113158 var config_4117012 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062322_Jory_web_fh35_d65fd3c6.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=e2b78eec-71c4-47d6-97e3-4b7bd65fd3c6&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"IRS expects to finish processing 2021 tax return backlog this week","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4117012']nnThe IRS is rounding the corner on its pandemic-era backlog of tax returns.nnThe agency announced Tuesday that it expects to finish processing the backlog of individual tax returns the agency received in 2021 this week.nnAs of June 10 this year, the IRS processed more than 4.5 million of the 4.7 million individual paper tax returns it received in 2021.nnThe agency said it\u2019s also successfully processed the \u201cvast majority\u201d of tax returns taxpayers filed this year. The IRS said more than 143 million returns have been processed overall, with $298 billion in refunds being issued.nn\u201cTo work to address the unprocessed inventory by the end of this year, the IRS has taken aggressive, unprecedented steps to accelerate this important processing work while maintaining accuracy,\u201d the agency said in a <a href="https:\/\/www.irs.gov\/newsroom\/irs-continues-work-on-inventory-of-tax-returns-original-tax-returns-filed-in-2021-to-be-completed-this-week">press release Tuesday.<\/a>nnThe COVID-19 pandemic and staffing limitations led to the IRS starting 2022 with a larger than usual inventory of paper tax returns and correspondence filed during 2021.nnThe IRS said it will also soon eliminate its backlog of unprocessed business paper returns filed in 2021.nnIRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig has repeatedly told Congress that the agency expects to eliminate its backlog of tax returns by the end of this calendar year, which will put the agency in a \u201chealthy\u201d state for next year\u2019s filing season.nnRettig told members of the House Appropriations Committee\u2019s financial service and general government subcommittee last month that the IRS has used annual appropriations and American Rescue Plan funds to put more employees on processing tax returns and implement new technologies.nn\u201cWe need to do more,\u201d Rettig said during the May 18 subcommittee hearing. \u201cWe know it and you know it.\u201dnnThe IRS said it continues to work on the few remaining 2021 individual tax returns that have processing issues or require additional information from the taxpayer, and that employees continue to process tax returns filed in the order received.nnThe IRS said that at this point in the calendar year, the agency has more than twice as many returns that await processing, compared to a typical year. However, the agency has also processed nearly a million more returns than it normally would at this point in a typical year.nnThe IRS said it\u2019s also improved the process for taxpayers whose paper or electronic returns were suspended for manual review and correction.nnLast filing season, an IRS tax examiner could correct an average of 70 tax returns with errors per hour. New IRS technology implemented this filing season, however, has allowed tax examiners to correct 180 to 240 returns per hour.nnAs of June 10 this year, the IRS had 360,000 returns awaiting correction \u2014 down from 8.9 million tax returns in error resolution in June 2021.nnThe IRS said a greater percentage of this year\u2019s inventory awaiting process is comprised of original returns, which generally take less time to process than amended returns.nnRettig said in a statement Tuesday that the IRS remains focused on doing everything possible to expedite the processing of tax returns, and that the IRS is continuing its hiring efforts this summer.nn\u201cIRS employees have been working tirelessly to process these tax returns as quickly as possible and help people who are waiting on refunds or resolution of an account issue,\u201d Rettig said. \u201cCompleting the individual returns filed last year with no errors is a major milestone, but there is still work to do.nnThe IRS continues to rely on overtime for staff to get a handle on the backlog. The agency has also deployed \u201csurge teams\u201d of IRS employees from other divisions, and has temporarily assigned them to work on the backlog.nnThe IRS announced earlier this month it\u2019s looking to hire more than 4,000 contact representative positions at several agency offices across the country. Contact representatives assist taxpayers over the phone, through written correspondence or in person.nnRettig said that sustained funding increases for the IRS will help the IRS add more employees to process tax returns and answer phones, as well as overhaul its legacy IT.nn\u201cMost every commissioner over the past few decades has stated that inconsistent funding is among the most frustrating experience that they can have. Americans deserve a fully functioning, successful Internal Revenue Service," Rettig told the subcommittee last month.nnThe House Appropriations Committee is calling for giving the IRS a $1 billion increase to its topline budget for fiscal 2023.nnThe IRS in this proposal would see the biggest spending increase in its enforcement and taxpayer service operations.nnThe committee\u2019s draft financial services and general government spending bill, released last week demonstrates a willingness from some lawmakers to gradually restore the IRS\u2019 budget through annual appropriations. The subcommittee <a href="https:\/\/appropriations.house.gov\/news\/press-releases\/appropriations-subcommittee-approves-fiscal-year-2023-financial-services-and">approved the draft spending plan last Thursday.<\/a>"}};

The IRS is rounding the corner on its pandemic-era backlog of tax returns.

The agency announced Tuesday that it expects to finish processing the backlog of individual tax returns the agency received in 2021 this week.

As of June 10 this year, the IRS processed more than 4.5 million of the 4.7 million individual paper tax returns it received in 2021.

The agency said it’s also successfully processed the “vast majority” of tax returns taxpayers filed this year. The IRS said more than 143 million returns have been processed overall, with $298 billion in refunds being issued.

“To work to address the unprocessed inventory by the end of this year, the IRS has taken aggressive, unprecedented steps to accelerate this important processing work while maintaining accuracy,” the agency said in a press release Tuesday.

The COVID-19 pandemic and staffing limitations led to the IRS starting 2022 with a larger than usual inventory of paper tax returns and correspondence filed during 2021.

The IRS said it will also soon eliminate its backlog of unprocessed business paper returns filed in 2021.

IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig has repeatedly told Congress that the agency expects to eliminate its backlog of tax returns by the end of this calendar year, which will put the agency in a “healthy” state for next year’s filing season.

Rettig told members of the House Appropriations Committee’s financial service and general government subcommittee last month that the IRS has used annual appropriations and American Rescue Plan funds to put more employees on processing tax returns and implement new technologies.

“We need to do more,” Rettig said during the May 18 subcommittee hearing. “We know it and you know it.”

The IRS said it continues to work on the few remaining 2021 individual tax returns that have processing issues or require additional information from the taxpayer, and that employees continue to process tax returns filed in the order received.

The IRS said that at this point in the calendar year, the agency has more than twice as many returns that await processing, compared to a typical year. However, the agency has also processed nearly a million more returns than it normally would at this point in a typical year.

The IRS said it’s also improved the process for taxpayers whose paper or electronic returns were suspended for manual review and correction.

Last filing season, an IRS tax examiner could correct an average of 70 tax returns with errors per hour. New IRS technology implemented this filing season, however, has allowed tax examiners to correct 180 to 240 returns per hour.

As of June 10 this year, the IRS had 360,000 returns awaiting correction — down from 8.9 million tax returns in error resolution in June 2021.

The IRS said a greater percentage of this year’s inventory awaiting process is comprised of original returns, which generally take less time to process than amended returns.

Rettig said in a statement Tuesday that the IRS remains focused on doing everything possible to expedite the processing of tax returns, and that the IRS is continuing its hiring efforts this summer.

“IRS employees have been working tirelessly to process these tax returns as quickly as possible and help people who are waiting on refunds or resolution of an account issue,” Rettig said. “Completing the individual returns filed last year with no errors is a major milestone, but there is still work to do.

The IRS continues to rely on overtime for staff to get a handle on the backlog. The agency has also deployed “surge teams” of IRS employees from other divisions, and has temporarily assigned them to work on the backlog.

The IRS announced earlier this month it’s looking to hire more than 4,000 contact representative positions at several agency offices across the country. Contact representatives assist taxpayers over the phone, through written correspondence or in person.

Rettig said that sustained funding increases for the IRS will help the IRS add more employees to process tax returns and answer phones, as well as overhaul its legacy IT.

“Most every commissioner over the past few decades has stated that inconsistent funding is among the most frustrating experience that they can have. Americans deserve a fully functioning, successful Internal Revenue Service,” Rettig told the subcommittee last month.

The House Appropriations Committee is calling for giving the IRS a $1 billion increase to its topline budget for fiscal 2023.

The IRS in this proposal would see the biggest spending increase in its enforcement and taxpayer service operations.

The committee’s draft financial services and general government spending bill, released last week demonstrates a willingness from some lawmakers to gradually restore the IRS’ budget through annual appropriations. The subcommittee approved the draft spending plan last Thursday.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/irs-expects-to-finish-processing-2021-tax-return-backlog-this-week/feed/ 0
DHS ‘centralizing’ disciplinary processes following 45-day review https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/dhs-centralizing-disciplinary-processes-following-45-day-review/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/dhs-centralizing-disciplinary-processes-following-45-day-review/#respond Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:52:27 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4112469 The Department of Homeland Security is moving to centralize and standardize disciplinary processes for serious misconduct after unpublished reports showed cases of sexual harassment, domestic violence and other misconduct being overlooked at DHS law enforcement components.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced the changes in a statement last week. They follow a 45-day review led by DHS General Counsel Jonathan Meyer.

“Based on the results of that review, I have directed the department to implement significant reforms to our employee misconduct discipline processes, including centralizing the decision-making process for disciplinary actions and overhauling agency policies regarding disciplinary penalties,” Mayorkas said in the statement.

Mayorkas ordered the review after the The New York Times and the Project on Government Oversight published draft findings from the DHS inspector general’s office. POGO’s report included an unpublished draft of a sexual misconduct review, as well as findings from a report on DHS’s handling of domestic violence that were ultimately removed from the final document released in November 2020.

The unpublished reports have also led lawmakers to question DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari about his office removing damaging findings from the reviews.

In his latest statement, Mayorkas called the reports “deeply concerning” and said they underscored the need for action to address harassment and other misconduct at DHS.

“Centralizing disciplinary processes will ensure that allegations of serious misconduct are handled by a dedicated group of well-trained individuals, who are not the employees’ immediate supervisors, at each DHS component agency,” Mayorkas said.

The DHS head also said the department would be reforming its policies around disciplinary penalties, “including by providing more specific guidance, will promote accountability and ensure consequences are consistent and appropriate based on the severity of the misconduct.”

Mayorkas said the reforms are “already underway.”

“As it proceeds through the coming months, DHS will continue to engage with the labor organizations representing our employees to ensure the continued protection of employees’ due process rights,” he added.

DHS did not respond to a reporter’s email seeking more information about the new policies and the timeline for implementing them across the department’s components.

In April, POGO published draft DHS OIG reports focused on misconduct within Customs and Border Protection, the Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration.

An unpublished sexual misconduct review obtained by POGO shows more than 10,000 employees from the four law enforcement components said they have experienced sexual harassment or misconduct in the workplace, representing over one-third of the 28,000 employees who responded to a survey conducted as part of the evaluation.

POGO also obtained draft findings that were removed from a 2020 DHS OIG report that found cases in which DHS internal affairs substantiated domestic abuse allegations against law enforcement personnel, but they “received little or no discipline and remained a law enforcement officer with access to a firearm.”

In a statement, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) applauded DHS’s announcement of new misconduct policies. She also referenced an investigation by the committee into CBP’s handling of 60 employees who participated in an offensive Facebook group mocking migrants and lawmakers.

“CBP reduced discipline for dozens of agents and allowed them to continue working with migrants — including vulnerable children — despite violent and offensive Facebook posts,” Maloney said. “The department’s announcement takes steps to correct failures uncovered by the committee, and I applaud Secretary Mayorkas for his efforts to reform CBP’s deeply flawed disciplinary process.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/06/dhs-centralizing-disciplinary-processes-following-45-day-review/feed/ 0
Four years into DoD financial audits, IG says progress has stalled https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2022/06/four-years-into-dod-financial-audits-ig-says-progress-has-stalled/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2022/06/four-years-into-dod-financial-audits-ig-says-progress-has-stalled/#respond Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:56:29 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4106687 var config_4106693 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/podone.noxsolutions.com\/media\/1130\/episodes\/061522_OnDoD_DoDIG-Audit_Fullshow_Mixdown_r14o.mp3"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/OnDoD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Five years into DoD financial audits, progress has stalled","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4106693']nnThe Defense Department and its components are now into their fifth consecutive year of having their financial statements scrutinized by independent auditors. In the first few years, there were some very promising signs that DoD was on the path to eventually earning a clean opinion, as every other federal agency has already done.nnBut in the assessment of the department\u2019s inspector general \u2014 the office with overall responsibility for auditing the financial statements \u2014 it\u2019s getting more difficult to find clear signs of widespread financial improvement. To be sure, Defense components are still finding and fixing a lot of individual problems. But as of 2021, there was little to suggest the department was making significant headway against the systemic problems that are holding it back from a clean audit.nnThat\u2019s at least one of the biggest takeaways from the latest edition of a <a href="https:\/\/www.dodig.mil\/reports.html\/Article\/3037332\/understanding-the-results-of-the-audit-of-the-fy-2021-dod-financial-statements\/#:~:text=On%20November%2015%2C%202021%2C%20the,significant%20deficiencies%20in%20FY%202021." target="_blank" rel="noopener">plain-language summary<\/a> the OIG publishes each year to summarize the billion dollar-per-year audit effort.nnMarcus Gullett, the deputy assistant inspector general for audit, financial management and reporting, said the scale of the DoD audit effort is massive, and in the OIG\u2019s view, still a completely worthwhile endeavor, but that DoD leadership needs to do more to ensure those efforts bear fruit.nn\u201cWe\u2019re talking about over $900 billion in appropriations. Fifty-four percent of total government assets are in the DoD, and this involves over 1,200 auditors across 26 standalone audits. So it\u2019s worth commending the efforts that the audit teams and the components put in year in and year out,\u201d he said in a wide-ranging interview discussing the results on Federal News Network\u2019s <em>On DoD<\/em>. \u201cBut 17 of those 26 standalone audits have disclaimers of opinion, which basically just means that there's not enough audit evidence available to conclude that the financial statements are fairly presented. So the theme for FY 2021, frankly, is that the progress has stalled.\u201dnnWhile the audit is a vast enterprise and DoD has had some successes, the overall statistics do tend to suggest the department is treading water.nnThis year\u2019s financial statements showed the military departments and Defense agencies managed to solve 808 distinct problems \u2014 called notices of findings and recommendations (NFRs), in audit parlance. But auditors reissued another 2,678 NFRs that had already been identified in past years\u2019 audits, and added another 690 to the pile this year.nnAnother way of looking at the problem is to measure DoD\u2019s number material weaknesses: broad categories of problems that are so serious that they could lead to meaningful misstatements about, for example, the department\u2019s spending in a particular area, the valuation of its assets, or the inventory it has on hand.nnIn 2021, there were 28 of them, two more than the previous year, and 25 were repeats from the 2020 audit. In 2020, there were 17 DoD components that hadn\u2019t yet earned an individual clean opinion. The number was still the same as of 2021.nn\u201cOne way to think about this is that when we issue NFRs, management agrees with us. We have over 90% concurrence rates, and they\u2019re developing corrective action plans,\u201d Gullett said. \u201cThere\u2019s a cadence there of being willing to address a specific issue.\u201dnnThe harder part seems to be getting DoD financial management leaders to see the forest for the trees \u2014 and take serious steps to resolve the much harder underlying challenges that many of those NFRs point toward.nn\u201cWe\u2019ve been pretty consistent in messaging over the last few years that this effort needs to lead to developing sustainable business processes,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat we might see, for example, is in the IT realm. One particular system may have an access control issue, so the auditor issues an NFR. And next year, the component addresses the issue in System A. But then, the auditor comes back and says, \u2018Okay, the issue is fixed in System A, but System B has the same exact access control issue this year.\u2019 So that's the type of enterprisewide thinking we need to see before the components are able to move toward addressing the material weaknesses that flow from all of those NFRs.\u201dnnBut the OIG thinks there\u2019s reason for optimism on that front. During the first few years of audits, many of the politically-appointed leadership positions critical to that enterprisewide view were vacant or led by acting officials. That\u2019s no longer the case. DoD\u2019s top two financial management positions are now held by Senate-confirmed officials. The Army and Air Force also have Senate-confirmed leaders in their respective comptroller\/CFO seats.nnIn the early days of the audit effort, DoD ordered each of its components to draw up credible \u201croadmaps\u201d for how that component could achieve a clean opinion. Now that those positions are filled, there\u2019s a good opportunity for the Pentagon to not just hold the components to their plans, but for DoD as a whole to draw up one of its own.nn\u201cThe roadmaps are oftentimes inconsistent across components. They also have sort of vague measures of success,\u201d Gullett said. \u201cSo one of the things we\u2019re focused on in developing measurable goals is taking a top down approach from the DoD comptroller level: sort of pushing down their expectations for these roadmaps.\u201dnnAnd asked whether DoD\u2019s \u201cstalled\u201d progress means it\u2019s time to reassess the overall audit effort, Gullett said the answer is clearly no.nnAfter all, most of the 800 NFRs the department managed to close over the past year really were financial management weaknesses that should have been solved anyway, even if the audit weren't the driving factor behind them. And the more DoD can do to communicate the operational impact of fixing its finances, the better.nn\u201cEach year the auditors identify something tangible, it kind of highlights [that's] important,\u201d Gullett said. \u201cThis past year, the Navy highlighted that its inventory records showed [less than what it had]. At another Defense Logistics Agency site, DLA wasn\u2019t measuring certain metals accurately. We have example after example, and the risk here is that if you don't know what you have and where you have it, your ability to accomplish your mission can be hampered. I\u2019d also point to contingencies. Ukraine, or COVID-19, or Afghanistan. Those things happen, if DoD doesn't have the controls in place to pivot to support these contingencies, that's going to have a bigger impact on the overall operating budget. So this is an opportunity to really hone in developing those sustainable solutions with clear goals, holding the components accountable, and kickstarting the audit progress again.\u201d"}};

The Defense Department and its components are now into their fifth consecutive year of having their financial statements scrutinized by independent auditors. In the first few years, there were some very promising signs that DoD was on the path to eventually earning a clean opinion, as every other federal agency has already done.

But in the assessment of the department’s inspector general — the office with overall responsibility for auditing the financial statements — it’s getting more difficult to find clear signs of widespread financial improvement. To be sure, Defense components are still finding and fixing a lot of individual problems. But as of 2021, there was little to suggest the department was making significant headway against the systemic problems that are holding it back from a clean audit.

That’s at least one of the biggest takeaways from the latest edition of a plain-language summary the OIG publishes each year to summarize the billion dollar-per-year audit effort.

Marcus Gullett, the deputy assistant inspector general for audit, financial management and reporting, said the scale of the DoD audit effort is massive, and in the OIG’s view, still a completely worthwhile endeavor, but that DoD leadership needs to do more to ensure those efforts bear fruit.

“We’re talking about over $900 billion in appropriations. Fifty-four percent of total government assets are in the DoD, and this involves over 1,200 auditors across 26 standalone audits. So it’s worth commending the efforts that the audit teams and the components put in year in and year out,” he said in a wide-ranging interview discussing the results on Federal News Network’s On DoD. “But 17 of those 26 standalone audits have disclaimers of opinion, which basically just means that there’s not enough audit evidence available to conclude that the financial statements are fairly presented. So the theme for FY 2021, frankly, is that the progress has stalled.”

While the audit is a vast enterprise and DoD has had some successes, the overall statistics do tend to suggest the department is treading water.

This year’s financial statements showed the military departments and Defense agencies managed to solve 808 distinct problems — called notices of findings and recommendations (NFRs), in audit parlance. But auditors reissued another 2,678 NFRs that had already been identified in past years’ audits, and added another 690 to the pile this year.

Another way of looking at the problem is to measure DoD’s number material weaknesses: broad categories of problems that are so serious that they could lead to meaningful misstatements about, for example, the department’s spending in a particular area, the valuation of its assets, or the inventory it has on hand.

In 2021, there were 28 of them, two more than the previous year, and 25 were repeats from the 2020 audit. In 2020, there were 17 DoD components that hadn’t yet earned an individual clean opinion. The number was still the same as of 2021.

“One way to think about this is that when we issue NFRs, management agrees with us. We have over 90% concurrence rates, and they’re developing corrective action plans,” Gullett said. “There’s a cadence there of being willing to address a specific issue.”

The harder part seems to be getting DoD financial management leaders to see the forest for the trees — and take serious steps to resolve the much harder underlying challenges that many of those NFRs point toward.

“We’ve been pretty consistent in messaging over the last few years that this effort needs to lead to developing sustainable business processes,” he said. “What we might see, for example, is in the IT realm. One particular system may have an access control issue, so the auditor issues an NFR. And next year, the component addresses the issue in System A. But then, the auditor comes back and says, ‘Okay, the issue is fixed in System A, but System B has the same exact access control issue this year.’ So that’s the type of enterprisewide thinking we need to see before the components are able to move toward addressing the material weaknesses that flow from all of those NFRs.”

But the OIG thinks there’s reason for optimism on that front. During the first few years of audits, many of the politically-appointed leadership positions critical to that enterprisewide view were vacant or led by acting officials. That’s no longer the case. DoD’s top two financial management positions are now held by Senate-confirmed officials. The Army and Air Force also have Senate-confirmed leaders in their respective comptroller/CFO seats.

In the early days of the audit effort, DoD ordered each of its components to draw up credible “roadmaps” for how that component could achieve a clean opinion. Now that those positions are filled, there’s a good opportunity for the Pentagon to not just hold the components to their plans, but for DoD as a whole to draw up one of its own.

“The roadmaps are oftentimes inconsistent across components. They also have sort of vague measures of success,” Gullett said. “So one of the things we’re focused on in developing measurable goals is taking a top down approach from the DoD comptroller level: sort of pushing down their expectations for these roadmaps.”

And asked whether DoD’s “stalled” progress means it’s time to reassess the overall audit effort, Gullett said the answer is clearly no.

After all, most of the 800 NFRs the department managed to close over the past year really were financial management weaknesses that should have been solved anyway, even if the audit weren’t the driving factor behind them. And the more DoD can do to communicate the operational impact of fixing its finances, the better.

“Each year the auditors identify something tangible, it kind of highlights [that’s] important,” Gullett said. “This past year, the Navy highlighted that its inventory records showed [less than what it had]. At another Defense Logistics Agency site, DLA wasn’t measuring certain metals accurately. We have example after example, and the risk here is that if you don’t know what you have and where you have it, your ability to accomplish your mission can be hampered. I’d also point to contingencies. Ukraine, or COVID-19, or Afghanistan. Those things happen, if DoD doesn’t have the controls in place to pivot to support these contingencies, that’s going to have a bigger impact on the overall operating budget. So this is an opportunity to really hone in developing those sustainable solutions with clear goals, holding the components accountable, and kickstarting the audit progress again.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/on-dod/2022/06/four-years-into-dod-financial-audits-ig-says-progress-has-stalled/feed/ 0
Lawmakers renew push to strip investigation authority from VA whistleblower office https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/lawmakers-renew-push-to-strip-investigation-authority-from-va-whistleblower-office/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/lawmakers-renew-push-to-strip-investigation-authority-from-va-whistleblower-office/#respond Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:00:49 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4105191 A whistleblower office at the Department of Veterans Affairs once again faces the possibility of a significant restructuring, only a few years into its existence.

Members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations are revisiting legislation that would eliminate the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection’s statutory authority to investigate whistleblower retaliation complaints.

A discussion draft of the bill, if passed, would cease all of OAWP’s ongoing investigations of whistleblower retaliation. Instead, the Office of Special Counsel would take on this workload.

VA employees can already file whistleblower retaliation complaints with OSC.

The bill’s discussion draft would also give OAWP its own general counsel, which oversight and whistleblower advocacy groups claim would help the office maintain more independence from the rest of the agency.

OAWP relies on VA’s general counsel to provide legal advice, but some members of the subcommittee said that arrangement creates a probable conflict of interest, because of the general counsel’s role of defending the VA from whistleblower allegations.

Subcommittee Chairman Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) said VA leadership has committed to strengthening whistleblower protections, but said the agency must do more to earn the trust of whistleblowers.

“We need to see permanent changes to policies and procedures, including through improved laws,” Pappas said.

OAWP in 2021 made 15 recommendations for disciplinary action against employees, but Pappas said VA only acted on five of those recommendations, and only one was fully implemented.

“It is clear to me that the Office has not been performing at the level Congress or the secretary should expect,” subcommittee Ranking Member Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) said. “This is a sustained reality of the office, despite different leaders and administrations.”

Maryanne Donaghy, who currently leads OAWP, said her office remains “committed to the holistic continuous improvement of whistleblower protection,” but said the VA does not need legislation to make reform possible.

“We do not believe the statutory authority is needed for making some of the important suggestions that have been made,” Donaghy said.

“I am always supportive of continuous improvement and suggestions to make that happen. But even more, the transparency to me has given this office, and me personally, excellent suggestions. I see it as my job to execute on that and I believe we’d done that,” Donaghy said.

Thursday’s hearing on reforming OAWP and strengthening its independence echoes similar hearings held in 2019 and 2021.

In 2019, the subcommittee heard testimony from three employees who suffered retaliation after blowing the whistle, including the loss of their positions at VA.

“For these three individuals, the weight for justice is measured in years,” Pappas said.

The bill would clarify some whistleblower protections, such as ensuring that senior agency employees that blow the whistle are protected. It would also clarify the scope of current training for VA employees regarding the rights and responsibilities of whistleblowers.

“There’s this desire now to sort of look at what have we learned, what has the VA learned, since those two hearings,” a committee aide told Federal News Network.

OAWP on its website states that between this January and May, it has issued 11 disciplinary recommendations against VA senior leaders for misconduct or poor performance, and six disciplinary recommendations against senior leaders and supervisors for whistleblower retaliation.

Committee Chairman Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said he believes the VA’s leadership is “trying to move in the right direction” and protect whistleblowers, but said the supports the legislation to reform OAWP.

“We are simply not where we ought to be. I’m very concerned that those retaliating against whistleblowers are not facing the consequences for their actions,” Takano said.

The current discussion draft of the bill combines two bills previously considered by subcommittee members.

Elizabeth McMurray, chief of OSC’s Retaliation and Disclosure Unit, said the VA consistently represents roughly a third of its workload. McMurray said OSC has not seen a decrease in its VA caseload since the creation of OAWP.

“We don’t have any reason to believe that the proposed legislation would impact our dockets,” she said.

The committee aide said it helps that there is a “different set of leadership that is more intent on helping us,” but said lawmakers still seek protections and protocols for OAWP that are not yet codified in law.

While no VA whistleblowers testified during Thursday’s hearing, the committee aide said that updates to whistleblower cases the committee has previously heard demonstrate the need for legislative changes.

“Those results have been inconsistent, and I think that’s concerning for us. Some of the individuals have had their cases settled, and they aren’t totally satisfied, but they got their jobs back. Some are still waiting, it’s been four years, and so the committee is very concerned about that,” the aide said.

The bill underscores the subcommittee’s frustration that the OAWP to date has not been the independent office within VA that lawmakers expected it to be when Congress passed the 2017 Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act.

“The past couple of years, we’ve seen OAWP stray away from its original mission, and it’s got this investigative function, which is largely duplicative since OSC already provides this,” the committee aide said.

The committee aide said because both OAWP and OSC currently have the authority to investigate whistleblower retaliation cases, and OSC can further enforce action through the now fully staffed Merit Systems Protection Board “it makes sense to remove the duplicative powers.”

Previous OAWP leaders told the subcommittee at last year’s hearing that they’ve made progress since 2019, when the VA inspector general said the office failed to protect whistleblowers and often misinterpreted its statutory mission.

The Senior Executives Association, in a letter to the subcommittee, said it supports several provisions of the legislation, including eliminating OAWP’s investigatory functions.

SEA Executive Director Gregory Brooks wrote that OAWP’s current investigatory authority is “entirely duplicative of the VA OIG and OSC functions.”

“At best, these duplicative complaints unnecessarily expend taxpayer dollars. At worst, the complaints may result in conflicting investigatory outcomes and either create a bureaucratic paralysis or require further investigation to resolve the conflicts,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks said SEA also supports a provision of the legislation that provides whistleblower protection parity for VA senior executives.

“Because Senior Executives have broader purview and responsibility at the highest agency levels, they are better able to identify and expose the most serious agency wrongdoing than lower-level employees. But making those kinds of whistleblower disclosures is a risky endeavor for any employee,” Brooks wrote.

However, SEA also seeks clarity on what the bill specifies for OSC’s role in VA personnel actions, calling the language “confusing and unclear” on its intent.

Brooks clarified in the letter that the association opposes any language that would authorize OSC to unilaterally stay VA personnel actions.

Congress has never authorized OSC to be able to issue a binding decision for relief, nor has it required MSPB or an employing agency to enforce a unilateral decision of the OSC. Congress has limited OSC to functioning as an investigative and prosecutorial agency. MSPB is the adjudicative agency within the Title 5 framework, not OSC,” Brooks wrote.

“No agency should have all-powerful investigatory, prosecutorial, and binding adjudicative powers over the personnel actions in another agency,” he added.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/lawmakers-renew-push-to-strip-investigation-authority-from-va-whistleblower-office/feed/ 0