Also, under the FWRA, buyout recipients who were obligated to repay their buyouts could do so after an agency hired them. “(1) performance on site; (2) the principal tools and equipment are furnished by the government; (3) the services are applied directly to the integral effort of agencies or agency components to further their assigned function or mission; (4) the performance of comparable services and the meeting of comparable needs in the same or similar agencies using civil service personnel; (5) the need for the type of service provided can reasonably be expected to last beyond 1 year; (6) the requirement of government direction or supervision of contractor employees because of the inherent nature of the service, or the manner in which it is provided, in order to adequately protect the government’s interest, retain control of the function involved, or retain full personal responsibility for the function supported in a duly authorized federal officer or employee.”
The FAR also states that the key question to consider in determining whether a personal services contract exists is the following: Will the government exercise relatively continuous supervision and control over the contract personnel performing the contract? We asked the OIGs whether the buyout recipients had returned to federal employment and, if so, whether they had repaid the buyout or met DOD’s reemployment policy. The remaining 12 cases were not violations, but they were identified in the CPDF because of inaccurate data. In addition, OPM found FWRA repayment provision violations in two other research efforts it undertook, but it is unclear whether these violations are in addition to the violations that we found. Selected Agencies Found Nine Cases Violated the Repayment Provision, and Two Cases Violated DOD’s Reemployment Policy

The 9 federal agencies identified in the CPDF data as employing the 23 buyout recipients provided information showing that a violation of FWRA’s repayment provision or DOD’s policy had occurred in 11 of the 23 cases. The agencies reported that in 9 of the 11 cases, FWRA’s repayment provision was violated. Selected Agencies Lacked Adequate Internal Control Procedures to Help Ensure Compliance With the FWRA Repayment Provision

Federal agencies have an obligation to ensure that the FWRA repayment provision is met when buyout recipients are reemployed as civil servants, or when they work under contract expressly identified or administered as personal services contracts for the government. However, none of the 9 agencies that we asked to provide the status of the 23 buyout recipient cases had adequate internal control procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that the FWRA repayment provision was met. Such certification was not required by the other 8 agencies from which we requested information on the 23 buyout recipient cases. The Department of Justice and Treasury Did Not Have Internal Control Procedures

Neither the Department of Justice nor Treasury had internal control procedures to help ensure that buyout recipients who return to federal employment comply with the FWRA repayment provision. OPM is also conducting these checks through the Central Personnel Data File.”

	For Buyout Recipients Returning as Contract Employees

“Review agency’s contract agreements. Comments From the Office of Personnel Management

The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Personnel Management’s letter dated August 15, 1997. Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed whether: (1) the 23 buyout recipients returned to federal employment and, if so, whether they repaid the buyout or met the Department of Defense (DOD) reemployment policy; and (2) the 9 agencies that were identified as employing these 23 buyout recipients and other selected agencies, which may have buyout recipients under contract, had internal procedures in place to help ensure that buyout recipients repay buyouts when required to do so.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the information provided to GAO by the appropriate agencies' Office of Inspector General (OIG) and personnel office showed that a violation of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (FWRA) repayment provision or the DOD reemployment policy occurred in 11 of 23 cases; (2) the FWRA repayment provision was violated in 9 of the 11 cases, and the DOD reemployment policy was violated in the 2 other cases; (3) the remaining 12 cases were not violations, although they had originally appeared to be questionable because of discrepancies between agency reports and data in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), which GAO used as a source of information; (4) in addition, while researching 1 of the 23 cases, an agency OIG found that the agency employed an additional buyout recipient who had not repaid the buyout; (5) regarding internal control procedures, none of the 9 agencies that GAO contacted for information on the 23 buyout recipient cases had adequate internal control procedures in place to provide reasonable assurance that the FWRA repayment provision was met; (6) two other agencies notified their personnel officers of the FWRA repayment provision; however, only one component of each agency developed additional procedures to help ensure compliance with the provision; (7) in addition to buyout recipients who return directly to federal employment, some buyout recipients work under contract for the federal government; (8) some of these contract personnel are employed under contracts that are expressly identified as personal services contracts and, thus, are subject to the FWRA repayment provision; and (9) in addition to these personnel, other contract personnel who are subject to relatively continuous supervision and control by agency officials are, in effect, working under personal services contracts and are subject to the FWRA repayment provision.