U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–599 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 109–927

CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1 OF

THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

JENNIFER H. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

THERESA PRYCH, Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government Management, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Minority Senior Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TYREE, Minority Counsel, Oversight of Government Management, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

Hon. Gordon England, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, accompanied by Mary Lacey, NSPS Program Executive Officer, U.S. Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 2

Hon. Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ......... 7

Lieutenant General Terry L. Gabreski, Vice Commander, Air Force Materiel 

Command, U.S. Air Force .................................................................................... 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

England, Hon. Gordon: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Gabreski, Lieutenant General Terry L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Springer, Hon. Linda M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. England ...................................................................................................... 41

Ms. Springer ..................................................................................................... 54

General Gabreski .............................................................................................. 56

Darryl Perkinson, National President, Federal Managers Association, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 58

United Department of Defense Workers Coalition (UDWC), prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 62

(1)

CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1 

OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY 

PERSONNEL SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. Good afternoon. Today, the Committee holds 

its third hearing to examine the design and implementation of the 

National Security Personnel System. We will focus on the conversion of approximately 11,000 employees that began earlier this 

year. 

The pay-for-performance systems underway at the Departments 

of Defense and Homeland Security represent the most significant 

change in Federal employees’ supervision and compensation methods since the General Schedule was introduced in 1949. When fully 

implemented, the new pay-for-performance systems will cover approximately one-half of the Federal civilian workforce. 

Debate on the National Security Personnel System for the Department of Defense’s civilian workforce started in 2003, when the 

Department initially submitted a proposal that many of us believed 

went too far and failed to provide important provisions to protect 

good employees. Since then, considerable progress has been made. 

I want to commend Secretary England for his continued commitment during the past 3 years to ensuring that the new system is 

credible and that it appropriately reflects congressional intent to 

reward high performers and avoid unfair consequences. I am very 

impressed that Secretary England has stayed personally involved 

in this project, despite having the tremendous responsibility of 

being Deputy Secretary. 

Despite the Department’s efforts to provide a robust training program for its employees and their supervisors, I continue to hear 

concerns from employees and their representatives that show their 

lack of confidence in the new system. 

I have had, for example, employees from the Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, express to me concerns about whether 

2

1The prepared statement of Mr. England appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

their managers will be fair in their evaluations and whether they 

will know how to do their evaluations. There is not a resistance to 

evaluation per se. In fact, most employees tell me they welcome a 

good evaluation system where their pay is tied to their performance. But many of them say to me, quite frankly, ‘‘I do not think 

my manager is going to be able to do this in a way that is fair.’’ 

I believe we have a real challenge to build confidence in the new 

system. 

Secretary England has previously testified that, ‘‘A key to the 

success of NSPS is to ensure that employees perceive the system 

as fair with trust between employees and supervisors.’’ I think that 

really sums up the challenge before us. I look forward to learning 

how the Department is building that trust that is absolutely critical to achieve a successful implementation of the new program. If 

there is not employee buy-in, if employees do not view NSPS as a 

fair system that will truly reward good performers, then the Department is going to be met with continued resistance and opposition. After all, the real test of NSPS begins next month, when Spiral 1.1 employees receive their first written performance evaluations from their supervisors. 

Implementation of the new system will, of course, require honest, 

accurate, and actionable evaluation and will continue to be dependent, as I have indicated, on good management, proper execution, 

and effective training. Each of those factors requires adequate resources. I am, therefore, also interested in hearing what kinds of 

improvements are planned to ensure that future employee conversions are properly funded so that managers and supervisors can 

make the proper judgment calls. 

Whether the system set forth in the final regulation will achieve 

the Committee’s goal of helping the Department recruit, reward, 

and retain a highly skilled workforce and ensuring that employees 

are recognized for their contributions to the mission remains to be 

seen. As the Department moves forward, this Committee will continue to scrutinize the system and to assist to determine if it meets 

the goal of supporting the best possible Federal workforce. And 

that really is the goal that unites all of us. 

I know that Senator Voinovich, who asked me to conduct this 

hearing, is very eager to hear the Secretary’s remarks. It is my understanding that he is on the way, so I am going to ask that the 

Secretary proceed with his statement, and with your permission, 

when Senator Voinovich arrives, I will interrupt you and defer to 

him for his opening comments. 

Secretary England, we are delighted to have you here today. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. GORDON ENGLAND,1 DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

MARY LACEY, NSPS PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator Collins, thank you, Madam Chairman, 

and it is a delight to be here. I do thank you for the opportunity 

to be here. I know you are extraordinarily busy in the Senate as 

you get to the end of the session, so it is very gracious of you, 

3

frankly, to hold this hearing today. Thank you for your comments 

about my personal involvement, and let me reciprocate. We appreciate your personal involvement because it has been most helpful, 

and we do appreciate your steadfast support and your help and assistance and suggestions as we have gone along. So I do thank you. 

It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer. She is our 

very close partner at OPM. And here is Senator Voinovich, so 

maybe I will——

Chairman COLLINS. We will break, and I will ask you to withhold. 

Senator Voinovich, you have perfect timing. You did not have to 

listen to my opening statement, but you did not miss Secretary 

England’s. I would say that was good timing. So, Senator 

Voinovich, I was explaining that the idea for this hearing originated with you and that we have worked very closely on a variety 

of human capital challenges, and I would like to give you an opportunity to make some opening comments before the Secretary proceeds. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. As you know, this Committee has had an ongoing interest in the National Security Personnel System. If it was not for the Chairman of the Committee 

and her leadership in the conference committee, NSPS would look 

very different. While the legislation establishing NSPS did not 

come through this Committee, we have been conducting oversight 

of it ever since, haven’t we? 

I have often said that the changes underway at the Department 

are far reaching and will impact Federal workforce reform across 

the entire Executive Branch. It is the responsibility of Congress 

and this Committee to continue its oversight to ensure the implementation is progressing in a positive manner and that employees 

are benefiting from the changes embodied in NSPS. 

I am glad that Mr. England and Ms. Springer are here today to 

testify before the Committee. I appreciate the fact that we have 

had such good cooperation with you. 

Madam Chairman, I know that issuing the regulations to establish the National Security Personnel System was not an easy task, 

and it took longer than we thought. The implementation process is 

going to be even more formidable if we are to institutionalize NSPS 

at the Department of Defense. And failure is not an option. 

I want to go back to March 2001, when I Chaired the Subcommittee hearing titled ‘‘National Security Implications of the 

Human Capital Crisis.’’ The panel of witnesses that day included 

former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who was a member 

of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. 

At that time Secretary Schlesinger said, ‘‘As it enters the 21st Century, the United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government. The maintenance of 

American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take 

immediate action in the personnel area to ensure the United States 

can meet future challenges. It is the Commission’s view that fixing 

4

the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of the U.S. 

national security policy.’’

And so far this Congress and the Committee, including my Subcommittee, have held four hearings on the National Security Personnel System. The most recent was a field hearing where we examined the training for preparation of Spiral 1.1. We looked at 

what they were doing at Pearl Harbor and other military bases, 

and we were very impressed. 

In addition, my staff has met with the leaders of various components in Ohio who are preparing for implementation of Spiral 1.2. 

While approximately 100 DOD civilian employees in Ohio were 

converted to Spiral 1.1, over 3,800 Ohioans will be converted during Spiral 1.2. Department-wide, I think the total converting in 

Spiral 1.2 is about 60,000 more people, starting in October. That 

is next month. 

During this past year, I have been struck by the excitement and 

enthusiasm I have seen in senior career staff as they prepare for 

NSPS implementation. In conversations with these individuals, I 

know they understand the challenge before them, and I am committed to ensuring that they have the necessary support and resources. The Chairman and I worry about the Department having 

the resources to support NSPS. Once DOD converts the next 

60,000, are the budgets of the agencies going to be sufficient to 

train these folks to make this program successful? 

So today I restate my commitment to work with the Department, 

and make sure, Secretary England, that they have the money to 

get the job done. Too often around here—and the Chairman and I 

have talked about this—we keep asking agencies to do more. We 

give them more responsibilities, and we do not give them more 

money to get the job done. If we are going to be successful with 

this, the Department has to have the resources. 

I would hope that you let the Director of the Office of Management and Budget—Rob Portman—know what you need because 

without the support this will not be successful, it will not be institutionalized. We cannot afford to go back. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Secretary England. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator Voinovich, I was just commenting as you 

came in. The Chairman was gracious enough to thank me for staying personally involved, and I was thanking the Senator, and I also 

thank you because you have both been very supportive and extraordinarily helpful, and we enjoy and appreciate working with you on 

this very important issue. 

It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer, our partner from OPM, also Mary Lacey, our Program Executive Officer, 

and also this afternoon Lieutenant General Terry Gabreski, who is 

from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and so can discuss some onthe-ground real events with you today. 

Before I proceed, I just want to give a very brief thumbnail, but 

let me first address the issue of budgets. We do not have a budget 

issue. The components have the money they need to do the training 

to the level they need to do it, and if they need more for training, 

they will have more money. This program is vitally important for 

the Department of Defense. We know it is vitally important, and 

5

we are fully funding all aspects of this program. And that is a personal commitment. At the end of the day, I actually get to sign off 

on these budgets and approve them and make sure that projects 

are fully funded. I can assure you this program has been and will 

continue to be fully funded for training our people. So a commitment on the budget, Senator, is not going to be an issue. And if 

there is an issue, I will tell you, and you can look me directly in 

the eye, but I can tell you we are not going to have a funding issue 

in terms of training on this program. 

I do want to comment—I would like to just give you a thumbnail 

sketch because I know time is short and there is a lot in the Senate 

going on. But let me say that we are making significant progress, 

and I have been personally very pleased by the feedback. We have 

been in Spiral 1.1, as you commented, Madam Chairman. We have 

11,000 personnel in 12 different organizations in Spiral 1.1. And, 

Senator Voinovich, you are correct, we start next month. Between 

October and January, we will have 66,000 more people join NSPS. 

So we have a significant increase, and there are people from 

around the world in this next group of people, 66,000. They are 

from organizations around the world. I can tell you, supervisors are 

engaged, employees are engaged. We have open channels of communications. Our employees know what is expected. And I am delighted to tell you that the feedback—what people tell me, that this 

is the first time they have ever seen a large-scale DOD training effort focused on the leadership and our employees. This is directed 

to our civilian workforce and our military workforce who manages 

civilian employees. And so this is about improving skills, particularly improving the skills of our management personnel. And they 

are very pleased that this is happening. 

The other feedback that is very positive is people are talking 

about the mission of the Department. That is, they go in and talk 

to their supervisor. And as you know, I have felt strongly about 

this from day one. The great benefit is we can take our national 

security objectives through the Secretary of Defense and literally 

down to ‘‘the deck plate’’ and trace that through expectations, job 

objectives, and then be able to evaluate job objectives tied to our 

mission, and for the first time, I believe, widespread—people across 

the Department now in Spiral 1.1 and getting ready for 1.2, are 

talking about the mission and how we accomplish it and how we 

link job performance to the mission that we are trying to accomplish. So I am very pleased. 

Now, I will tell you, we do have a hiccup or two in the program. 

One of the hiccups, of course, is we do have a district court decision, and the district court enjoined, that is, prevented us from implementing some of the labor relations, specifically the adverse actions, appeals, and the labor relations portion itself of NSPS. So on 

three of the issues, we were enjoined by the court. We expect to 

have a decision sometime early next year, hopefully—it depends on 

the courts, but our expectation is early next year we will have a 

decision on that part of the case. 

In the meantime, we are proceeding. And, by the way, I will tell 

you there is some degree of frustration. It takes a while to do this. 

We get held up by the courts and stop and start. On the other 

hand, my view is, literally, God bless America, this is a case where 

6

the Legislative Branch passed a law, the Executive Branch is implementing it, it goes to the courts, and ultimately there will be an 

arbiter, did we do it the way that the Legislative Branch intended. 

And so that is the way the system works, and in the end we will 

end up with the right answer, and we will continue to proceed to 

implement the system. 

In the meantime, of course, we are hopeful that the courts will 

rule and resolve all this. We may, depending on what the rulings 

of the courts are, we may come back for some clarification before 

the Congress next year, specifically as the program has been delayed. This has not been dictated by the calendar. We always said 

this was going to be whatever the schedule, the appropriate 

timelines were. But, we do have built into the law an end date of 

2009. So if we are held up long periods of time, we may indeed 

come back and ask for an extension of the 2009 date. I don’t know 

if we will, but, again, just so you will not be surprised if we do next 

year, that is a possibility. 

The other thing that we may come back to you for is clarification 

regarding national level bargaining. Both the unions and ourselves 

would like to do national level bargaining. Unfortunately, it has 

been tied in now to the labor relations parts of NSPS, and now we 

are precluded from doing national level bargaining. We would like 

to separate that. We do not think that was ever the intent. So depending, again, on how the court case comes out, we may ask for 

clarification in that arena next time. But we will continue to be 

event driven. We are adapting as we go; that is, we are learning 

as we go, we are modifying as we go. The whole objective is to end 

up with an environment for our people to excel, for our Department 

to excel. We have not lost sight of what the end objective of this 

program is. 

We are committed to dialogue. We are doing that with all the 

stakeholders, and we have had a lot of communication and training, and I will let Mary Lacey talk more about that, and also Linda 

Springer. 

So I just want to tell you, we are committed. We have applied 

the resources to the program. We are making progress—not as fast 

as we would like, but, frankly, we are going to have this program 

a long time. So even if it takes us a little bit longer, it takes us 

a little bit longer. But we will get to the end, and when we get 

there, it will be a very effective program. I remain convinced that 

this will be a very effective program for our employees, for our Department, and for the country. 

And so I thank you for your support, and I thank all the people 

who have worked so hard. We have been at this now literally for 

years. A lot of people have spent a lot of time, energy, and commitment, and I thank them for that commitment and time and energy 

on behalf of our employees and our Department, and I thank this 

Committee. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I would now like to introduce the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Linda Springer. 

Ms. Springer, we are very glad to have you here today, and I 

would ask that you proceed with your statement. 

7

1The prepared statement of Ms. Springer appears in the Appendix on page 27. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator 

Voinovich. It is a privilege to testify and give you an update on 

OPM’s role with respect to the NSPS implementation. OPM has 

been very deeply involved, and our collaboration with DOD has 

been productive. It would not have occurred without DOD’s leadership, especially the senior leadership, and particularly Secretary 

England. 

The result of this collaboration is a new human resources system 

at the Department of Defense that will support our national security goals and objectives but at the same time respect the individuals that create those results. It will value their performance, their 

leadership, their commitment to public service, and really ensure 

accountability at all levels while remaining a competitive and costeffective system. 

In November, I testified before you that OPM would be involved 

and would support the Department of Defense in every way to 

make sure that it was an effective implementation. In my view, the 

Spiral 1.1 conversion has met those objectives, and OPM has 

played a very important role in that success. 

OPM leaders participate on a weekly basis, as well as in ad hoc 

and other important meetings, with the DOD project team leadership to make sure that we are involved in all aspects of the policy 

guidance with respect to the implementation. Our legal staff actively consults with the DOD leadership’s legal staff to ensure that 

we have met not only statutory requirements but also judicial restraints on NSPS. 

Our policy experts assist in the development of the implementing 

issuances. 

Our compensation experts were very heavily involved in the substance of the issuances to make sure that we have a credible payfor-performance system that rewards individual performance and 

also allows for recognition of organizational results in developing 

those rewards. 

Our performance management experts were involved in the development of the performance management aspects of the implementing issuances to make sure that managers and supervisors are 

held accountable for effectively managing the performance of the 

people for whom they are responsible and also that merit systems 

principles are not overlooked. 

Our classification experts reviewed procedures for classifying positions to ensure that the system was streamlined and simplified, 

but not at the expense of employee rights. 

Our staffing experts worked with their DOD counterparts to develop procedures for implementing such features as category rating, public notice requirements, and veterans’ preference requirements. 

All of these OPM experts—legal, policy, compensation, performance management, classification, and staffing—really covering the 

full breadth and scope of the personnel range, spent many months 

working with the Department of Defense in developing impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:42 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 030599 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30599.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8

menting issuances. Now our attention has turned to evaluating 

how well the NSPS is working, and with a particular emphasis on 

training. We have gone through all of the online training to evaluate whether or not it is in plain English, whether it is understandable, whether it is comprehensive, and the OPM experts are convinced that it is. We are going to be spending time at the on-site 

instructor-led training starting with the early October sessions. We 

will actually participate, and we will have seats in the training sessions dedicated for OPM observers. 

There are three different formal evaluations that are planned or 

already underway. The first is a review of the performance management system that will allow the Secretary to determine whether 

or not by law the NSPS system should extend beyond the original 

300,000 employees that were in the purview of the system. That assessment will particularly focus on the Spiral 1.1 conversion all the 

way through the rating process and the ultimate payout, as you 

mentioned, that would happen in January of 2007. OPM will be involved in the assessment process. 

I have included the development of the criteria for determining 

whether or not that assessment is effective in the OPM Strategic 

and Operational Plan so that OPM’s senior leaders are being held 

accountable for making sure that they are involved in the setting 

of those assessment criteria and that they really meet our standards as well as DOD’s. 

The second review is an ongoing program evaluation that DOD 

is conducting, and OPM staff meet regularly with the DOD staff on 

their evaluation. That is a routine evaluation. 

The third one is really an OPM initiative. Under our own independent statutory authority, OPM will be conducting an evaluation 

of the effectiveness of NSPS. That evaluation will be very comprehensive. We will look at all levels—managers, supervisors, employees, other executives—to make sure that as they spiral into 

NSPS, the effective training, as well as all the other aspects of the 

implementation, are happening as we would expect and have met 

our standards. So that third independent review is one that will be 

completed by May 1 of next year, and we will be happy to report 

to you on the results of that assessment. 

In sum, though, we have worked very closely with DOD on implementation, and we are now very much engaged and looking forward to our assessment efforts. And we will continue to be involved 

in that way. We appreciate from the very beginning the Senate and 

this Committee’s work to make sure that OPM does have an important role, and we take that very seriously, Madam Chairman, and 

we look forward to continuing to let you know how we are doing. 

But, in short, I would say the NSPS is providing the flexibilities 

that DOD needs to really be responsive to the ever-increasing and 

changing national security issues, which they need to meet on behalf of the American people. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to any questions that you might have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Director Springer. I 

smiled at your closing comments because as you are well aware, 

Senator Voinovich and I both felt very strongly about the need for 

OPM to be involved at every step of the way to share its considerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:42 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 030599 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30599.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9

1The prepared statement of General Gabreski appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

able expertise. I know that Secretary England always welcomed 

that involvement as well. That was not, however, true of everyone 

who was involved in this process. 

I am now very pleased to introduce Lieutenant General Terry 

Gabreski. General Gabreski is the Vice Commander of the Air 

Force Materiel Command and is stationed at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base, an installation that is near and dear to my colleague’s 

heart. She is responsible for the oversight of NSPS training and 

implementation within the Air Force Materiel Command and also 

oversaw the conversion of 2,400 employees at Tinker Air Force 

Base to NSPS earlier this year. 

General Gabreski, we are very pleased to have you here to share 

your personal experiences. 

TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TERRY L. GABRESKI,1

VICE COMMANDER, AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND, U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

General GABRESKI. Good afternoon, Chairman Collins and Senator Voinovich. I, too, want to echo an appreciation for you all taking time to focus on this important subject for us, not just in the 

Department but in Air Force Materiel Command. This afternoon I 

would like to briefly share with you some examples of how we successfully are implementing NSPS Spiral 1.1 out at Tinker Air Force 

Base in Oklahoma and give you some examples of how we dress 

for success out there. 

In particular, we worked extremely hard during the planning 

phases of NSPS to ensure that we emphasize training as well as 

communication. We continue to work those two specific areas, and 

we think that those investments are paying off. The one thing, I 

think you would agree, that separates our Armed Forces from any 

other in the world is our magnificent people, and certainly one of 

the things that makes our people great is the premium that we 

place on training. 

So just like the training we provide for any operational mission, 

it is important that we ensure that our folks are trained and the 

emphasis is placed on training in regard to NSPS. 

We have taken great care in training both our civilian and our 

military personnel in the specifics of NSPS implementation, as well 

as the soft-skill sorts of training, such as how to manage change 

in organizations. This training sets the stage for our continued success as we continue to deploy NSPS. 

Now, hand in hand with the training focus is our focus on communication. The Air Force has made clear that communication is 

critical to NSPS as we continue to implement it. We have used a 

variety of methods within Air Force Materiel Command and at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Our four-star commander has relayed the importance of NSPS in communications that he gives to 

our installations and to our individual employees. Each Air Force 

Major Air Command conducted ‘‘Spread the Word’’ briefings in 

which general officers traveled to the installations in their major 

commands underscoring the importance of this program. 

10

One of the key messages that was relayed during these briefings 

to our people is that NSPS is much more than just a new personnel 

system. It is a commander responsibility, and it must be led from 

the top. So at Tinker, as at other AFMC bases, commanders have 

informed their personnel about NSPS through commanders calls, 

weekly newspaper articles, informative websites, even down to the 

electronic marquees on the installations and talking about important facts about NSPS. 

Now, we have had the opportunity to put this training and communication to the test at Tinker as the first Air Force installation 

to deploy NSPS. Twenty-four hundred non-bargaining employees 

converted there in April of this year, but well before that implementation, we stood up at Tinker an NSPS program office. We 

have applied a programmatic approach to NSPS implementation, 

and we have charged that program office with the responsibility for 

every aspect of NSPS deployment. 

We placed in charge of that program one of our high-performing 

employees who is a non-personnelist, a person who is an expert in 

our business and someone who can show the importance of NSPS 

as not just a new personnel system. 

I visited Tinker last week personally, and I saw firsthand how 

their vigorous training and communication is paying off as I spoke 

to both employees and managers who have converted. The employees have experienced a clearer communication of performance expectations as well as a stronger linkage to the mission. 

Additionally, NSPS has provided to the leadership at Tinker the 

flexibility and responsiveness to carry out their mission. There 

have been challenges as well as lessons learned at Tinker, and we 

continue to share those across the Air Force as well as the Department. 

NSPS provides our commanders the agile human resources system they need to succeed in today’s environment. As you heard 

from Secretary England, senior leadership in the Department is 

committed to the success of this program, and I appreciate and 

thank you for your strong support. 

So I look forward to answering any of the questions you might 

have on our deployment of NSPS in Air Force Materiel Command 

and at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, General Gabreski. 

A key person in the unveiling and implementation of the program has been Mary Lacey, the Program Executive Officer for the 

National Security Personnel System. Ms. Lacey, I’d like to give you 

the opportunity for any comments you would like to make before 

we go to questions. 

Ms. LACEY. Thank you for having us here today. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Secretary England, the Department has indicated that the protection of pay pool funding would be addressed in several different 

ways. For example, the Department has stated that it would mandate the minimum composition and expenditure of pay pool funds. 

In addition, certain senior-level officials would be required to certify that the funds allocated to the performance-based pay pool 

would be used only for that purpose. 

11

I would like to ask you how the Department is going to ensure 

that, in times of tight budgets, managers do not use money that 

is intended to support the pay-for-performance program for other 

purposes. One of the fears that I hear from Department employees 

is that the pay-for-performance system is not really to reward outstanding employees with additional compensation, but rather, it is 

a means to reduce overall personnel costs. 

What is your response to that? 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator, I frankly believe we are fixing a problem 

that used to exist in that regard. It was brought to my attention 

when we started that it was not unusual in the past that if somebody was short on funds, they needed to fix a building, they fixed 

the building and, therefore, cut down on the pay pool for employees. So I believe that was a problem that existed, frankly, before 

we implemented this system. It is not a problem that exists now. 

We have strict controls in place. We identify what the pay percentages are, what the performance pay pool allotments are. We approve those so they are controlled. People do not have flexibility to 

move that money around. We work with the Comptroller to make 

sure that is the case. 

So under NSPS, I would say that we have a much stricter process in place in terms of controlling funds that they do not drift out 

of this system, and I am confident—we worked this very hard. That 

was a commitment when you passed the legislation and we started 

implementing this that we would make sure we had controls in 

place, and we do. So we approve the amount of money, we approve 

what goes in the bonus pools, and we control those within the Department. And I can tell you, that money is not going to migrate, 

and I do not believe it can migrate the way we have had the Comptroller set this up. And, Ms. Lacey, you may comment yourself because we are actually implementing this now as part of our mock 

pay pools to make sure we have those controls in place. 

Ms. Lacey, if you want to add to that? 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Lacey. 

Ms. LACEY. We have built that into policy, which has the force 

of internal regulations in the Department of Defense. So those 

floors for the amount of money available have been set in policy already. The money is set in place in the budgets. It will be there 

for the January payouts for the employees, and we will continue to 

do that year in and year out. It is institutionalized. 

Chairman COLLINS. So, Secretary England, just to close out this 

issue for the Federal employees who are watching today or who 

may read about this hearing, there is no intention on the part of 

the Department to spend less on overall pay under NSPS than 

under the old system. That is not a goal of the system. 

Mr. ENGLAND. That is not a goal. As a matter of fact, as I recall, 

Senator, I believe we are actually precluded by law from spending 

less. So, we will spend the money allocated. It will not be less than 

it would have otherwise been. I think in some cases it will be more 

because of the pay-for-performance aspect. It will not be less. More 

importantly, the money is being protected to make sure that it actually goes to pay pools for employees. So employees can feel very 

confident that under NSPS there is a defined pot of money for employee raises and for pay-for-performance. 

12

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. The reason I wanted to spend 

some time on that issue is because pay-for-performance has a hollow ring to it if, in fact, you cannot get additional compensation because the money is not there. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Right. 

Chairman COLLINS. And that is why I think that is a really important point. 

Mr. ENGLAND. You are absolutely right, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. General Gabreski, I am very interested in 

your observations as someone who has overseen the conversion of 

some 2,400 employees. What do you think needs to be improved? 

What kind of feedback can you give us, can you give the Secretary, 

Ms. Lacey, and Director Springer? 

General GABRESKI. When I was out at Tinker last week, I got 

some very up close and personal feedback from the folks that have 

converted, and several lessons come through loud and clear. One of 

them is that they really appreciated the quality and the quantity 

of training, and, if anything, they are wanting to continue that 

level of training to keep their skills sharp. But as important, as 

they go through these mock pay pools, the fact that writing objectives between supervisors and employees is harder than they 

thought it would be. So they are wanting specifically to improve 

their skills in that area so that everyone can be successful in the 

end, that they properly sit down with employees, outline the objectives and their expectations, and that they follow the process 

through in the best way. 

So those are really the two takeaways I had from last week’s 

interface and observations as we have deployed this. 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Springer, the General Accountability Office has constantly emphasized the importance of an ongoing review which incorporates lessons learned during implementation. 

How is OPM making sure that changes such as the ones that were 

just identified by General Gabreski are fed back into the system so 

that the next conversion can learn from the past conversion? 

Ms. SPRINGER. The first step is to make sure that OPM is involved, that we are actually sitting in on training courses, which 

we are doing, and that we are actually going in and using the online tools and training. Then, when we meet with individuals and 

interview them, as we will be doing during our assessment and 

independent evaluation, we can actually have a working knowledge 

of what it is that they are using. As a result of that level of involvement, when the individuals with whom we meet come back and 

say, well, this part of it needs to be enhanced or this part of it was 

more or less valuable to us, we already have an understanding and 

are able to give direction on how to incorporate those findings. It 

is not as if we will be in a learning mode. In many ways, our actual 

experience will help us to validate independently what we are 

being told. 

The notion and the observation that the objective setting is a key 

part of this is no surprise to OPM. It is similar to evaluations we 

have done of demo projects. In fact, we are making sure that the 

questions that we ask and the assessment metrics that we look at 

are very closely aligned with what we have learned are important 

from evaluating demo projects. There is a very close relationship. 

13

And that is why it was so important to make sure that these objectives were put in writing because that written exercise forces people to come to grips with a clear articulation of measurable goals. 

So that is not an unexpected observation. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Ms. Lacey, are there examples of changes that either have been 

made or will be made to Spiral 1.2 as a result of employee feedback 

from Spiral 1.1? 

Ms. LACEY. Yes, there are several. Let me start with the aperture for the conversion. With Spiral 1.1, we converted everybody on 

virtually the same day, over a period of 3 or 4 days, the personnelists working to do all the electronic conversions. That meant everybody had to be prepared and trained up by the same day. 

For Spiral 1.2, we have opened that aperture, opened that window, to do the conversion over a 4-month period. This makes it a 

lot less stressful for us to actually get people trained up and ready 

to go. And so we have done that. It also enables the commanders 

to make the final decision ‘‘my organization is ready,’’ so they do 

not have that pressure of having to go by a certain date. 

On the training, every single training class has feedback built 

right into it. We have two different kinds of feedback. We have the 

usual how did the instructor do in teaching you the material, but 

we also have a pre-test and a post-test to get a sense of how much 

learning did this employee actually get while they were sitting 

through this course. And we are using that feedback to continuously upgrade the training material so that we can ensure that employees have the opportunity to learn as deeply and richly as possible. 

So we have made those changes all along, even through some of 

the Spiral 1.2 training that has been going on. We have added several training modules and vehicles to the toolkit. We have recently 

put up online some Web-based training, Camtasia training for folks 

so that they can get a better understanding of the automated tools 

that are available on employee and managers’ desktops. We are 

adding an additional module to what we call our NSPS 101 to put 

more information in about pay pools and the performance management process. This certainly has caught the attention of our employees, and they want to know more. So we are adding more details there. 

We also have provided additional ad hoc courses on writing performance objectives for commands and organizations that wanted 

a graduate school program, if you will, as they went through that 

process. 

So we will continue to listen to that feedback and continue to do 

those things to ensure that we have the best experience. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to continue discussing how pay 

adjustments work. 

Congress passes a pay increase across the board for everyone, 

right? Then that money is allocated to the various departments, so 

they are going to get X number of dollars. In Spiral 1.1, which will 

be the first group to be paid on the basis of performance, you take 

that pool of workers and then you allocate X number of dollars differently. Is that right? 

14

Ms. LACEY. The law provides for us to do that, but from a policy 

point of view, we have chosen not to for this payout. For Spiral 

1.1’s payout, any across-the-board raises that Congress passes, we 

will make structural adjustments to employees’ pay so they will receive that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So the first Spiral will get their automatic 

pay increase, a cost-of-living increase, and then have extra money 

for those whose performances are higher. Correct? 

Ms. LACEY. Correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. So, in effect, you are spending more 

money than you would ordinarily spend. 

Ms. LACEY. Not quite. The source of that other money is money 

that we are no longer spending that used to be automatic, the within-grade pay raises that folks got. Career ladder promotions that 

went away because the bands——

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. So the extra money would come from 

where? 

Ms. LACEY. Step increases, that we would have otherwise——

Senator VOINOVICH. Step increases. 

Ms. LACEY. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The step increases are gone, so employees 

will get an across-the-board increase, then you take the funds that 

would have funded step increases to fund performance increases. Is 

that right? 

Ms. LACEY. Correct, and across the Department, the white-collar 

portion of the workforce, the GS/GM, acquisition demo equivalents, 

that number is actually 2.26 percent of salaries. That is what we 

have historically spent on within-grades that we are no longer 

going to be spending. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And there are 11,000 trained to do performance evaluations. 

Ms. LACEY. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Just to be sure I really understand this, of 

the 11,000 only a certain number of them are managers that are 

going to do performance evaluations. But you have gone beyond the 

managers in training employees to familiarize everyone with how 

NSPS is going to work. 

So 11,000 have been trained on NSPS, but the jacket, the heavy 

jacket is on the managers to write performance evaluations. Is that 

right? 

Ms. LACEY. That is correct. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Yes, Senator, that is well said. And this is a critical part of the program. You have heard a few people say that. 

You have alluded to it. This heavy training for managers and supervisors to be able to sit down with employees, literally write out 

objectives, come to agreement, and make sure those objectives 

track with what the objectives of the Department are so that we 

link these throughout the organization and that they are in sufficient clarity that you can actually then measure against the objective because at the end of the day it is pay-for-performance, so you 

have to be able to measure performance. And this is the very crucial part of the program. 

15

And, Madam Chairman, when we talked earlier about the fairness of the system, this is the crux of it, to make sure that people 

understand how to do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Right, but the fact of the matter is that the 

first real snapshot that we are going to have of the program is 

when that is done. When will that take place? 

Mr. ENGLAND. Well, we have a mock payout this fall, so we will 

have feedback from the mock payout. Now, again, that is not a real 

payout. It is a mock. It is part of the training process. But it is just 

like you go through the whole process, get evaluated for the whole 

thing, but your pay is not dependent on that evaluation. So it is 

called a mock because your pay is not going to be dependent on it. 

We want people to go through this process so we can learn ourselves and make sure we have it right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. This is an important part of a governmentwide reform bill that I have introduced. All of the managers would 

go through the training. This ought to be done anyhow just in 

terms of a management objective. People should know how they fit 

in the organization, what the organization wants to accomplish. 

Well, I am interested to see, once that happens, what kind of 

feedback you are going to get. 

General, how do you monitor the folks that you are responsible 

for? Do you hear feedback or have you developed metrics that you 

judge whether NSPS is effective? 

General GABRESKI. Absolutely, Senator. We have a variety of 

ways that we monitor how we are deploying and how well we are 

doing. One of them is at the local levels; our installations have established various forms of executive steering groups at the senior 

leadership level so that they can, on a routine basis, get feedback 

from pay pool managers, from supervisors, from their NSPS program offices. And they use metrics that measure how much training has been done versus how much needs to be done. 

For instance, at Tinker Air Force Base, they have filled 17,000 

training seats just in getting ready for their 2,400 folks who went 

into Spiral 1.1. So at the local level, we monitor all of that very 

closely. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have some kind of piece of paper that 

you get back, kind of an information sheet that the folks that have 

had the training can offer feedback. In other words, anything in 

writing right now that so you know whether the training is working or not? 

General GABRESKI. Yes, sir. As Ms. Lacey mentioned, we get the 

feedback at the end of the training, but we also ask—particularly 

useful in doing this, in asking for this back, is our website, where 

folks can tell us what they need more of or what needs to be done 

just a little bit better. And because we are in the first spiral out 

there, they are able to actually help tweak the system. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you have a paper method for employees 

to get back to you, and they get feedback through e-mail. 

General GABRESKI. You bet. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you get a lot of that from folks? 

General GABRESKI. Yes, sir, we do. Our employees are not shy, 

and the one big takeaway in terms of not being shy that I got last 

week is between the employees and the managers, they are actively 

16

engaged in working their way through what each group has to do 

to get this thing done properly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. They are sort of excited about this, aren’t 

they? 

General GABRESKI. Actually, they are. They really are. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Secretary England, when are we going 

to get to the unionized employees? 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator, I expect to wait to see what happens 

with the court case because——

Senator VOINOVICH. Does the court case preclude you from doing 

pay-for-performance for unionized employees? 

Mr. ENGLAND. No, it does not. We can do that. But it does get 

a little bit complicated because, you know, pay then gets into the 

labor system, particularly if you have an issue or a problem then 

it goes into labor relations. So it does make it somewhat complicated. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I hate to interrupt you, but would the elimination of the step increases be something that might be touchy? 

Mr. ENGLAND. I am not sure that is touchy. I will tell you where 

I have been on this, and folks, sort of our senior group, all agree 

with this, and that is, while the court case is going on, we actually 

do not want to put our employees nor the union employees in an 

uncomfortable position. There is really no rush to do this. We have 

66,000 people in Spiral 1.2. The court case will be determined early 

next year. So why put people in a difficult position? 

Senator VOINOVICH. The point is that down the road is when the 

unionized employees would be transitioned, in Spiral what? 

Mr. ENGLAND. One point three, or something. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you have time before that to get this 

court case resolved and come back to us. 

Mr. ENGLAND. You are correct, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. If NSPS is implemented with the nonunionized employees and the feedback is positive, that will be the 

best thing to allay employees’ fears. But I know there will be some 

unhappy people. How successful you are with NSPS will have a lot 

to do with whether it will continue under a new administration. 

They may have a different point of view. That is why what you are 

doing right now has got to be quality. If you want to institutionalize NSPS, how well you do is going to make the difference for 

the future of the program. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

I have no further questions for this panel, just a concluding comment for this panel. Do you have additional questions? 

Senator VOINOVICH. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. Please feel free to proceed. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Secretary England, you mentioned that you may need an extension of the date. What is the relevance of that? I am not sure I understand the relevance of it. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator, there is a sunset clause that we have to 

have a certified system, and basically we have to have—as I recall, 

the whole system has to be certified and in place by the end of 

2009. 

Now, as you know, when we started the system, that sounded 

like a long way down the road. But, also, we decided not to have 

17

a calendar-driven system but an event-driven system. That is, we 

were never going to move to the next phase—your recent comments, make absolutely certain we are doing this right and employees benefit from it, and we are confident as we go forward. Plus 

the court case has been delaying because it has been a bit disruptive to us. 

So at the end of the day, it may be that we may—and, again, I 

am not sure we will. We will wait and see where we are next year, 

but we may end up asking for an extension. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. What does the sunset mean? 

Mr. ENGLAND. We need to have a certified system of the first, I 

believe, 300,000 people before we are allowed to go forward. So it 

has to be certified before we can go beyond 300,000 people. That 

is the certification between ourselves and OPM that——

Senator VOINOVICH. So when NSPS was authorized, it was 

capped at 300,000 employees initially. You are saying you cannot 

get to 300,000 because, first of all, it took longer to develop the regulations, and I frankly think you took a lot of time with them. That 

was good. You are just saying we need more time because the 

whole system has been slowed down. Is that right? 

Mr. ENGLAND. That could indeed be the case. Again, we will decide, but we did not want you to be surprised if we came back and 

talked to you about that next year. 

Ms. LACEY. Let me add just a little bit here, sir. The specific 

piece that sunsets, according to the current legislation, pertains to 

our authority to change anything in the labor relations world. That 

is the piece that we are most concerned about because the anticipation was by then we would have had several years of run time 

under a new LR system to determine was it fair, was it credible, 

was it working, and if it wasn’t, it ought to——

Senator VOINOVICH. But you will not know because the court 

case still is pending. 

Ms. LACEY. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You might have to come back and ask for an 

extension as to that portion of the law. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. I want to get back again to the issue of 

the training because when I was out and met with the folks at 

Pearl Harbor, many of them said they were able to fold training 

into the current budget. However, they were somewhat concerned 

that when NSPS expands, they would not be able to absorb the 

costs into their regular budget process. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, you said that you were going to be watching 

that? General, you have been doing this with your regular budget, 

haven’t you? 

General GABRESKI. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You have been somehow doing it; there is no 

question about it. We did total quality management in Ohio, but 

we did ultimately have to get some more money for it. 

What is your perspective on how you are going to be able to handle that? Are you going to be able to handle the next Spiral with 

the current budget, or are you going to need more resources in 

order to do the job? 

18

General GABRESKI. Senator, we have already allocated in fiscal 

year 2007 the funds that we need to continue into this next spiral, 

and we don’t currently see any problem at all, just as the Secretary 

said. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Secretary, have you looked at the budget for future years to see if they are going to need more to get the 

job done? 

Mr. ENGLAND. Well, what happens is the services have a certain 

allocation of money, and then they have to fit lots of requirements 

in there, and this is one of the requirements. So they prioritize and 

they juggle, and at the end of the day, they make it fit. And our 

direction to them is you have to do NSPS, it is important to the 

Department, and it gets done. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Now, I want to make sure that the money 

that you use for other training does not evaporate. We often ask 

an agency to take on new responsibilities and then leave it up to 

the agency to figure out how to fund the program. Agencies then 

end up having things that really need to get done but do not because the resources have been put into some other area. 

Mr. ENGLAND. I would expect that we are like all other agencies, 

and we do not have extra money. There are always more things 

you can do. The demand is always greater than the money. That 

is just the nature of every organization. But like the nature of 

every other organization, you prioritize what needs to get done, and 

you decide that this is one of those things we need to do, it is important. Ultimately, we are all convinced that we will be more efficient and more effective with NSPS, so it is an investment. And we 

just need to invest now so we get the benefit for our employees and 

for the organization later. And our management team understands 

that, Senator, and that is the path we are on. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, General, we would like to get feedback, 

and if I do not get it from you, I am going to be out visiting your 

people, and I will get it from them. [Laughter.] 

With NSPS in Ohio, I always like to get out and talk to the folks 

that are involved. I think a couple of my staff members were out 

at Wright-Patterson, weren’t they? 

General GABRESKI. Yes, sir, just recently, in August. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. Now, I was wondering, what is your 

plan to deal with managers who find they do not want to be in this 

new role? Have you run into that at all? If they do not want to do 

it, have you decided what you are going to do? 

Ms. LACEY. That would not be a surprise to us based on the experience we had with all of the other demonstration programs over 

the last 15 or 20 years. Truth be told, when people have been put 

in senior leadership, senior management positions, their job is to 

be a manager. We have changed the rules of the game. We understand that. We have several places that have already gone through 

the mock payout process, and managers have said, ‘‘I cannot handle this. I am the wrong person. This is the wrong job for me,’’ and 

their line management is working with them to see about assigning 

them to other duties—which, by the way, is much easier in NSPS 

than it would have been otherwise—so that they can continue to 

make meaningful contributions to the organizations. 

19

Truth be told, though, we may not be able to find equivalent senior-level positions, non-managerial positions for every individual, 

but we——

Senator VOINOVICH. So you might have to say to somebody, ‘‘I 

know you do not want to do this, but we do not have a different 

job for you?’’

Ms. LACEY. No. I think the answer would be, ‘‘We do not have 

a different job for you that is not a manager’s job.’’ We would take 

the managerial duties away. We may not be able to place them in 

their perfect job right away at their current salary. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But the point is that you expect that might 

happen. 

Ms. LACEY. We expect that might happen. In fact, it has happened, and we have organizations that are working with line managers as we speak. 

I will also say, though, sir, that there are many folks that have 

gone through this mock payout process, the mock pay pool process, 

the training, and they have said, ‘‘Now that I get it, now that I 

have had the training, now that I have had the conversations, it 

is not as scary to me today as it was anticipating it 6 months ago.’’ 

So that training and retraining, which is built into our program, 

is very important as well. A little bit of knowledge takes a lot of 

the fear away. 

Senator VOINOVICH. General, could you share with me how long 

it is going to take for a manager to do a complete performance evaluation? 

General GABRESKI. I would tell you that after I chatted with the 

managers specifically out at Tinker, the fact that the training, in 

conjunction with the pay pool, kind of completes the cycle, just as 

Ms. Lacey said, that is really part and parcel of their job as supervisors and managers. So in the future, that will be part of their 

jobs. But now, as they are doing the training, they are getting that 

comfort level. And I would tell you it is not just the managers. It 

is the employees in terms of getting feedback, which is something 

different than they have had before, having to sit down face to face 

and eyeball to eyeball——

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have any idea of how long it would 

probably take to conduct a performance appraisal? 

For example, a manager sits down with an employee to discuss 

the written performance appraisal. By the way, is that going to be 

uniform throughout the system? 

General GABRESKI. Well, actually, the way it works is the training that they have had and that we have been doing has been 

going on for about a year and a half. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But the document that you are going to use, 

is that uniform throughout the system? 

General GABRESKI. Yes, it is. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. And have you gotten any feedback in 

the training process as to whether people think that the format is 

a good instrument to do the evaluation? Have you discussed that 

one yet? 

General GABRESKI. We have both sides of the coin. Once they get 

used to it and they are familiar with it and comfortable with it, 

they are going, OK, now I get it. But as you go into it, it is a little 

20

bit scary, but once you start doing it, it is a matter of the training 

and the on-the-job training. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things that is really important is 

the instrument you are using. It is going to be uniform, but does 

it really help get the job done? Is that something you already had, 

or have you worked with a consultant? 

Ms. LACEY. Well, sir, if I can, let me answer that question. This 

is built into the Defense Civilian Personnel System tool that we 

currently have. We have a single integrated database for all of our 

civilian personnel information in the Department of Defense. That 

particular system has some functionality in it for doing performance appraisals. It is used in the private sector. It is an Oraclebased product that we have modified to include the NSPS performance standard system. And that is now available at the desktop to 

all employees and supervisors as they transition into Spiral——

Senator VOINOVICH. So they can see it? 

Ms. LACEY. They can see it. They can make modifications. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And as you go through this, if somebody 

feels there is something that needs to be changed, there are ways 

to do that? It is really important that employees feel comfortable 

that the tool that you are using is fair. 

Ms. LACEY. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It must capture the things that really are 

necessary to do the job. 

Ms. LACEY. In fact, I am actually changing the tool as we speak. 

Based on the preliminary results from the mock payouts, they said, 

‘‘We need more characters that we can put in our self-assessments.’’ So we are making that change so it will be ready for the 

final payouts this fall. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Senator, if I can make one comment, too, just for 

clarity, because the objective is not to sit down at the beginning 

with the employee and arrive at objectives and criteria, then at the 

end of the year sit down again. The objective is to work with the 

employee throughout the year so——

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, but the point is you have to have the 

employee involved at the beginning. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. A good performance evaluation is one that 

you do not wait a year to do. As you go through the year, people 

should hear constant feedback, so when it is the end of the year, 

employees have a pretty good idea of how they are doing. 

Chairman COLLINS. It should not be a surprise. 

Mr. ENGLAND. That is my point. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. 

Chairman COLLINS. Exactly. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Exactly my point. By the end of the year——

Senator VOINOVICH. I am all for that. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It is unfortunate Mr. Perkinson is not here, 

and we ought to talk to him to see how he is looking at the system. 

One last thing, I really think it is important that you spend a 

lot of time collecting feedback from folks about whether or not they 

think NSPS is fair or not. Some will not be happy, but they need 

21

1The prepared statement of Mr. Perkinson appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

to know their supervisors are doing it fairly, that it is not subjective. The biggest concern we are going to hear from the unions is 

that this is arbitrary. How are you going to guarantee that it is 

being implemented the way it should be to deal with some concerns 

in that area? 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Voinovich, before the witnesses respond to that excellent question, I am going to have to leave, and 

so I am going to turn the hearing over to you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, this is the last question, but thank 

you. Thanks for staying. 

Chairman COLLINS. I will allow you to finish. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If she had not been willing to hold this hearing, you might not be here. [Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. I apologize to our witnesses. I am involved 

in the negotiations on four bills right now that I am trying to complete. And I hope you will keep my friend busy for a long time because chemical security is one of those bills. [Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I want to talk to you about sunset. 

Chairman COLLINS. I had a feeling that you did. 

But I did want to place in the record the testimony of Darryl Perkinson, the National President of the Federal Managers Association, who has had an unexpected event arise that precludes him 

from being here today.1

I want to close my comments by citing for the record his conclusion. Mr. Perkinson says, ‘‘Education and training are easing many 

concerns and providing initial calm to anxious managers and supervisors. Four and a half months into the new system, this is encouraging, but we have a long way to go.’’ I really think that sums 

up so well where we are, and it also indicates how absolutely critical that education and training process is to not only ensure that 

people understand the new system and implement it correctly, but 

also to ease those fears and those anxieties. 

I thought that Mr. Perkinson said it very well, and since he is 

not here to say it for himself, I did want to say it publicly on his 

behalf. 

Again, I want to thank Senator Voinovich for all of his work on 

this issue and thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich, the gavel is yours. 

Senator VOINOVICH [presiding]. Thank you. Well, it is going to be 

for one second. 

The main thing is to make sure there is in place a mechanism 

for employees to provide feedback. DOD must be able to identify a 

potential problem area before it gets out of control. 

Thank you very much. We appreciate it and look forward to seeing you after the first pay outs under NSPS. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Absolutely. Senator, thanks. We do appreciate 

your personal involvement. You have indeed been very helpful to 

this whole process, and we do thank you. It is greatly appreciated. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the reason why I included the quote 

from Schlesinger is I really believe that this is fundamental to our 

national security. It really is. 

22

Mr. ENGLAND. Absolutely. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Again, how well you do in the next 2 years 

is going to have a lot to do with whether or not this program is 

going to be successful and become institutionalized. That is a big 

challenge. I think from your perspective that it may be the greatest 

contribution particularly, Mr. Secretary and Director, that you can 

make to your country. 

Mr. ENGLAND. Absolutely. We agree. Senator, thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(23)

A P P E N D I X 


30599.001
24


30599.002
25


30599.003
26


30599.004
27


30599.005
28


30599.006
29


30599.007
30


30599.008
31


30599.009
32


30599.010
33


30599.011
34


30599.012
35


30599.013
36


30599.014
37


30599.015
38


30599.016
39


30599.017
40


30599.018
41


30599.019
42


30599.020
43


30599.021
44


30599.022
45


30599.023
46


30599.024
47


30599.025
48


30599.026
49


30599.027
50


30599.028
51


30599.029
52


30599.030
53


30599.031
54


30599.032
55


30599.033
56


30599.034
57


30599.035
58


30599.036
59


30599.037
60


30599.038
61


30599.039
62


30599.040
63


30599.041
64


30599.042
65


30599.043
66

Æ


30599.044