	Background

OSC, which does not have in-house contracting staff, has an agreement  with ARC, an office within Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt, to provide  contracting support for a fee. Order for Organizational Assessment Did Not Comply with Rules

In contracting with MPRI for the organizational assessment, several  required steps were not taken:  competition was not sought among Schedule vendors, and there was no  convincing demonstration of why a sole-source order was necessary,  the determination of the reasonableness of MPRI’s price was not   OSC officials performed duties normally done by contracting officer’s  representatives without authorization or training and, further,  performed other duties that should have been reserved for the  contracting officer. ARC contracting officials did not question or validate OSC’s justification,  but told us they relied to a great extent on OSC’s input in justifying the sole- source order. They said that they are now paying closer attention to  requests from customer agencies, including OSC, for sole-source orders. ARC officials told us that they relied on OSC to conduct the price  reasonableness assessment by reviewing a breakout of MPRI’s price by  skill mix, number of hours, and rates for each labor category. OSC officials said that ARC, as their  contracting office, never told them they were not following proper  contracting practices. Tasks Specified for OSC-Appointed Intermittent Employee Were Consistent with OPM Criteria

The tasks specified in the statement of work for the consultant that OSC  hired on March 17, 2004, and that he completed before his departure were  consistent with OPM criteria for appropriate uses of expert and consultant  appointments. The employee, who was employed on an intermittent basis,  was tasked with two major lines of work related to efficiency and  curriculum development. OSC management expressed confidence in his  qualifications and used its discretion to both hire him and set his  compensation rate. OSC employees who  believe that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred may seek redress  from OSC. When an employee raises a prohibited  personnel practice allegation against the Special Counsel, addressing such  an allegation within OSC becomes unworkable because, OSC officials  stated, all OSC employees ultimately report to the Special Counsel. Other Agencies with Redress Roles Have Addressed Procedures for Complaints Against Them by Their Own Employees

Two other agencies in the executive branch with major roles in ensuring  the protection of employee rights, the MSPB and EEOC, have taken steps  to address potential conflicts of interest when their own employees use  their agencies’ respective redress processes. Additional Redress Options Could Be Made Available to OSC Employees

Steps can be taken to ensure that OSC employees have alternative avenues  of recourse when their prohibited personnel practice allegations involve  the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel. Potential options are  discussed below. Steps could be  taken to ensure that OSC employees, who cannot effectively obtain the  services of OSC in addressing allegations of prohibited personnel practices,  have alternative avenues of redress. These means could  include establishing (1) a right to an external investigation through an  independent entity, where the entity would forward its findings to the  President, who would decide the appropriate action, as is done when OSC  handles allegations of prohibited personnel practices against Senate- confirmed presidential appointees; or (2) an expansion of the personnel  actions that could be the basis for an appeal directly to the MSPB.
Why GAO Did This Study

In January 2005, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) implemented a plan, in part, to address a backlog of pending cases. This report discusses actions related to the development of this plan, including whether required practices and procedures were followed in contracting for the services of a management consulting company and in hiring an intermittent employee as a consultant. Also, the report identifies avenues of redress available to OSC employees for filing prohibited personnel practice allegations against OSC, and other redress options that could be made available.

What GAO Found

At OSC's request, the Administrative Resource Center (ARC), an office within the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt which provides OSC with contracting support for a fee, issued a $140,000 sole-source task order for an organizational assessment to a consulting firm, Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). In doing so, several required steps were not taken: competition was not sought among Schedule vendors and there was no convincing demonstration of why a sole-source order was necessary; the determination of the reasonableness of MPRI's price was not documented; and OSC officials performed duties normally done by contracting officer's representatives without authorization or training and, further, performed other duties that should have been reserved for the contracting officer. ARC officials told us they relied largely on OSC's input in justifying the sole-source order and determining MPRI's price to be reasonable and that they were unaware that the OSC officials had performed contracting-related duties. They told us that they are now paying particular attention to requests from their customers, including OSC, for sole-source orders. OSC officials said that they relied on ARC's expertise, as their contracting office, to ensure that proper contracting procedures were followed. The tasks specified in the statement of work for the consultant that OSC hired as an intermittent employee and that he completed before his departure were consistent with Office of Personnel Management criteria for appropriate uses of expert and consultant appointments. The intermittent employee was tasked with two major lines of work related to efficiency and curriculum development. OSC management expressed confidence in the individual's qualifications and was within its discretion to both hire him and set his level of compensation. While OSC employees, like other federal employees, are protected against prohibited personnel practices and may seek redress from OSC in making such allegations, this option becomes unworkable because of potential conflicts of interest when an OSC employee raises such an allegation of a prohibited personnel practice against either of the two top OSC officials. Two other federal agencies with redress roles, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have taken steps to address potential conflicts of interest when their own employees use their agency's respective redress processes. Steps could be taken to ensure that OSC employees have alternative avenues of recourse; for example, they could have an external investigation conducted through an independent body or broader appeal rights to the MSPB. OSC could not independently implement these options, and would need to be given authority to do so.