As a result, from a  conceptual standpoint, we strongly support the need to expand broad  banding approaches and pay for performance-based systems in the federal  government. However, moving too quickly or prematurely at DOD or  elsewhere can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also  serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more  performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a  whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link  employee pay to performance across the federal government, how it is  done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done can make all the  difference in whether or not such efforts are successful. In our view, one  key need is to modernize performance management systems in executive  agencies so that they are capable of adequately supporting more  performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. Unfortunately,  based on GAO’s past work, most existing federal performance appraisal  systems, including a vast majority of DOD’s systems, are not designed to  support a meaningful performance-based pay system. Specifically, an agency  would have to demonstrate, and OPM would have to certify, that a  modern, effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance  management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable  transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, is in place to  support more performance-based pay and related personnel decisions,  before the agency could implement a new system. Defense civilian personnel, among other things, develop policy, provide  intelligence, manage finances, and acquire and maintain weapon systems. NSPS is intended to be a major component of DOD’s efforts to more  strategically manage its workforce and respond to current and emerging  challenges. The NSPS would include provisions intended to ensure collaboration with  employee representatives in the planning, development, and  implementation of a human resources management system. As discussed  at the Civil Service and Agency Organization Subcommittee, Committee on  Government Reform hearing on Tuesday, direct employee involvement in  the development of the NSPS legislative proposal has thus far been  limited. The NSPS proposal would provide DOD with a number of broad  authorities related to rightsizing and organizational alignment. Concluding Observations

In summary, many of the basic principles underlying DOD’s civilian human  capital proposals have merit and deserve serious consideration. The DOD proposal has significant precedent-setting  implications for the human capital area in government in general, and for  OPM in particular. The DOD civilian human capital proposal raises several critical questions  both for DOD as well as for governmentwide policies and approaches. Should DOD and/or other federal agencies be granted broad-based  exemptions from existing law, and if so, on what basis? Does DOD have  the institutional infrastructure in place to make effective use of the new  authorities? Our work has shown that while progress is being made,  additional efforts are needed by DOD to integrate its human capital  planning process with the department’s program goals and mission. As I have suggested, Congress should consider providing governmentwide  broad banding and pay for performance authorities that DOD and other  federal agencies can use provided they can demonstrate that they have a  performance management system in place that meets certain statutory  standards and can be certified to by a qualified and independent party,  such as OPM. Congress should also consider establishing a  governmentwide fund whereby agencies, based on a sound business case,  could apply for funds to modernize their performance management  systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to  prevent abuse. This would serve as a positive step to promote high- performing organizations throughout the federal government while  avoiding further fragmentation within the executive branch in critical  human capital policies and approaches.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD is in the midst of a major transformation effort including a number of initiatives to transform its forces and improve its business operations. DOD's legislative initiative would provide for major changes in civilian and military human capital management, make major adjustments in the DOD acquisition process, affect DOD's organization structure, and change DOD's reporting requirements to Congress, among other things. DOD's proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) would provide for wide-ranging changes in DOD's civilian personnel pay and performance management, collective bargaining, rightsizing, and a variety of other human capital areas. The NSPS would enable DOD to develop and implement a consistent DOD-wide civilian personnel system. This testimony provides GAO's preliminary observations on aspects of DOD's legislative proposal to make changes to its civilian personnel system and discusses the implications of such changes for governmentwide human capital reform. This testimony summarizes many of the issues discussed in detail before the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives on April 29, 2003.

What GAO Found

Many of the basic principles underlying DOD's civilian human capital proposal have merit and deserve serious consideration. The federal personnel system is clearly broken in critical respects--designed for a time and workforce of an earlier era and not able to meet the needs and challenges of our current rapidly changing and knowledge-based environment. DOD's proposal recognizes that, as GAO has stated and the experiences of leading public sector organizations here and abroad have found, strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any serious government transformation effort. More generally, from a conceptual standpoint, GAO strongly supports the need to expand broad banding and pay for performance-based systems in the federal government. However, moving too quickly or prematurely at DOD or elsewhere, can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link employee pay and other personnel decisions to performance across the federal government, how it is done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the difference in whether or not we are successful. One key need is to modernize performance management systems in executive agencies so that they are capable of supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. Unfortunately, based on GAO's past work, most existing federal performance appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not currently designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay system. The critical questions to consider are: should DOD and/or other agencies be granted broad-based exemptions from existing law, and if so, on what basis? Do DOD and other agencies have the institutional infrastructure in place to make effective use of any new authorities? This institutional infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human capital planning process that integrates the agency's human capital policies, strategies, and programs with its program goals and mission, and desired outcomes; the capabilities to effectively develop and implement a new human capital system; and, importantly, a set of adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms to ensure the fair, effective, and credible implementation of a new system. In GAO's view, as an alternative to DOD's proposed approach, Congress should consider providing governmentwide broad banding and pay for performance authorities that DOD and other federal agencies can use provided they can demonstrate that they have a performance management system in place that meets certain statutory standards, that can be certified to by a qualified and independent party, such as OPM, within prescribed timeframes. Congress should also consider establishing a governmentwide fund whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, could apply for funding to modernize their performance management systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. This approach would serve as a positive step to promote high-performing organizations throughout the federal government while avoiding further human capital policy fragmentation.