i n s i g h t s & a n a l y s e s f o r F e d e r a l h u m a n c a p i t a l m a n a g e m e n t

I s s u e s of

M  R I 

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W h a  ’ 

I n s d 

Government’s Technical Experts: 

Will They Stay or Will They Go?

Contracting Officer Representatives share their views on what may 

influence their career planning.

continued, page 3 

The Office of Personnel Management 

is estimating that 40 percent of the Federal 

workforce will retire over the next 10 years. 

While this large number of potential retirements is enough to make anyone stop and 

think, it is even more important to look at 

what specific work and job-types may be 

affected not only by this retirement wave 

but also by other career planning decisions. 

Take, for example, Contracting Officer 

Representatives (CORs). In addition to 

their functional duties, CORs oversee the 

technical aspects of Government contracts. 

Over the years, agencies have procured 

increasingly complex and costly contracts 

and accordingly, have increased the amount 

of money spent on contracts. In fact, the 

annual amount spent on contracts grew 

by 87 percent between 1997 and 2004. 

Considering the importance of the work 

CORs perform and the billions of dollars 

they oversee, the Government needs to 

ensure that it retains sufficient CORs to 

provide the technical expertise needed to 

manage this vast array of contracts. 

The Merit Systems Protection Board’s 

(MSPB) recent report, Contracting 

Officer Representatives: Managing the 

Government’s Technical Experts to Achieve 

Positive Contract Outcomes, evaluates 

how the Government manages the COR 

workforce to achieve higher quality, 

timelier, and more cost effective contract 

deliverables. As part of the study, 

MSPB conducted a survey of CORs who 

provided interesting information about 

how contracting work affects their job 

satisfaction and career planning. 

CORs spend a large amount of their 

work time on contracting duties and 

consider these duties to be important to 

their job success and satisfaction.

• Most CORs reported spending more 

than 25% of their work time on 

contracting duties, while 42% spent 

over half of their time; 

• Almost 90% of CORs rated their 

contracting work as important to their 

overall job success; 

• 64% rated contracting work as 

increasing their job satisfaction. 

In addition, CORs’ desire to remain 

in their current job may be affected by the 

amount of contracting work they perform 

in relation to their salary. 

• Only one-third of CORs agreed that 

they would want to stay in their current 

job if their contracting work increased 

but their grade and pay remained the 

same­—about 4 in 10 disagreed

Director’s Perspective

Page 2

Highlights from The 

Practice of Merit Keynote 

Addresses

Page 4

Keeping it Personal When 

Conducting

Reference Checks

Page 5

The Business Case for 

Workforce Diversity

Page 6

Reinterpreting the 

Probationary Period—What 

Agencies Should Know

Page 6

Aiming for Quality When 

Reforming Federal Hiring 

Page 7

J u l y 2 0 0 6
I s s u e s of

M  R I 

i n s i g h t s & a n a l y s e s f o r F e d e r a l 

h u m a n c a p i t a l m a n a g e m e n t

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

CHAIRMAN

Neil A. G. McPhie

VICE CHAIRMAN

Mary M. Rose

BOARD MEMBER

Barbara J. Sapin

Office of Policy and Evaluation

DIRECTOR

Steve Nelson

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

John Crum 

Our Mission

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal merit 

systems and to ensure they are free 

from prohibited personnel practices.

Issues of Merit

We offer insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human 

capital management, particularly 

findings and recommendations 

from our independent research.

Reprint Permission

We invite you to reprint any of our 

articles. If you do, please include 

the following attribution: Reprinted 

from Issues of Merit, a publication 

of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board.

For More Information

Contact us at:

www.mspb.gov

(select STUDIES page)

STUDIES@mspb.gov

202-653-6772 x1350

1-800-209-8960

V/TDD: 202-653-8896

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339)

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

D r e to r s    e r s p c 



continued, page 3 

The Practice of Merit:

A Message from the Future

Traditional personnel rules don’t hold all the answers to achieving merit.

On April 20, 2006, MSPB held a 

symposium entitled The Practice of 

Merit. The symposium brought together 

top Federal officials involved in human 

resources management, as well as 

Congressional staff, academicians, and 

union officials. The event provided 

an opportunity for us to examine 

how agencies that are exempt from 

some or all provisions of Title 5—the 

law that governs most of the Federal 

Government—remain true to the 

fundamental values of public service 

such as fairness, openness, and equity. 

We were honored to sponsor 

presentations from agency representatives whose systems have been in 

place for many years and can speak 

authoritatively on preserving merit 

in a world of alternative personnel 

systems. These speakers provided many 

important insights for agencies that are 

considering changes to their personnel 

systems, for the managers who will 

work with those systems, and for the 

employees who will be affected by those 

systems. While our office will release 

a report on the symposium proceedings 

later this year, I wanted to share a few 

of the key lessons we learned from this 

experience.

First, “flexible” does not mean 

“arbitrary.” Alternative personnel 

systems are not created simply to give 

managers more flexibility. Flexibility 

is a means to an end: selecting, 

managing, and paying employees in a 

way that supports the organization’s 

mission and values. That end is only 

achieved when personnel decisions 

are based on appropriate factors and 

sound data. Consequently, alternative 

personnel systems include expectations 

and guidelines for how managers will use 

personnel flexibilities. 

For example, the process used to 

appoint most medical professionals in 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 

under Title 38, does not use certificates. 

Nor does the process constrain hiring 

managers through mechanisms such as a 

“rule of three.” Nevertheless, VA expects 

its managers to base their hiring decisions 

on qualifications for the job. 

VA also has considerable flexibility 

in setting starting salaries. VA’s Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Human Resources 

Management, Tom Hogan, noted however 

that flexibility is to be used in a manner 

consistent with fairness to employees and 

quality care for veterans:

“When a person is hired, we look at the 

totality of his or her experience...You can 

set a grade, you can set a step within a 

grade, and you can recognize the exact 

achievements of that specific individual. 

One of the reasons we do that is because 

in health care there are measurable, 

demonstrable outcomes of the quality 

of the people that you have working for 

you. For example, if you have nursing 

wards staffed by nurses with a BS degree 

in nursing, as opposed to an AA degree or 

an older diploma, [research demonstrates 

that] you will have measurably lower 

mortality and morbidity rates. The 

quality of your care is better. We will pay 

people for specific education that we can 

correlate to better outcomes. That’s a very 

strong part of how we do business.”
The Practice of Merit

(continued from page 2)

the success of an alternative personnel system depends 

on people. It depends on agency leaders who make the 

necessary investments to design and administer a personnel 

system and who hold managers accountable for using 

personnel authorities properly. It depends on managers 

who understand and consistently apply appropriate criteria 

for personnel decisions. It depends on employees who 

understand what is expected of them and who believe that 

managers will to do the right things for the right reasons. 

In short, success depends on a culture of managerial 

accountability and employee trust.

Finally, the time to prepare for future human resources 

flexibilities is now. Alternative personnel systems are 

less revolutionary than many might believe or fear. 

These systems are merit-based and preserve the values 

and protections that are the hallmark of the Federal civil 

service. Yet it’s also clear that much work lies ahead for 

Federal agencies. The transition from traditional, rule-based 

personnel systems to more flexible personnel systems will 

require much more than rewriting civil service laws and 

regulations. The transition will require agencies to develop 

managers, engage employees, and build trust. That will 

take considerable time and sustained effort. The message 

from our symposium is that agencies can begin the transition 

today, without waiting for “civil service reform”—but they 

should not expect to complete the transition overnight. 

A second lesson learned is that safeguards are essential. 

Agencies recognize that managers are not perfect. They also 

recognize that it is important that employees believe they 

are being treated fairly. Accordingly, effective alternative 

personnel systems provide for systemic monitoring and 

individual protections. The Government Accountability 

Office’s Chief Human Capital Officer, Jesse Hoskins, 

provided an excellent illustration of such safeguards:

“Whether it’s an annual awards ceremony or whether it’s 

performance cycles ending, performance-based compensation decisions, [or] promotion decisions, we independently 

review all the demographics and the data. We review it 

across teams; we review it within teams...We also have the 

Personnel Appeals Board. I’ve got to tell you how important 

that is for us. It’s a total independent agency. We are not 

under Title 5, but I tell you, we’ve got every aspect of it as 

it relates to employee rights and entitlements. And it really 

is very important for us to have that independent body so 

that employees can go out and actually get access to an 

adjudication process or system that will afford them some 

protection.”

In addition, we must keep in mind that while rules and 

safeguards are important, people and culture matter most. 

All of the agencies represented at our symposium recognized 

the importance of systems and safeguards. However, 

these agencies also delivered a “reality check” about the 

limitations of formal rules and processes. Ultimately, Steve Nelson 

Director, Policy and Evaluation

• 71% of CORs would remain in their jobs if their 

contracting activities and their grade and pay increased. 

Like the rest of Government, the COR workforce is 

aging. In fact, we could be facing a larger number of 

retirements in the COR workforce than the overall Federal 

workforce in the years to come.

• Adjusting for the time frame of the survey, nearly half 

of the CORs are currently eligible, or will be eligible, to 

retire in the next 1-3 years; 

• Almost 2 out of 3 CORs will be eligible to retire in the 

next 7 years. 

While contracting work is an important part of their 

overall job, it does not appear to motivate CORs to extend 

their hypothetical retirement plans. 

• Only 21% of CORs agreed that their contract-related 

activities make them want to remain in the civil 

service after they are eligible to retire; 42% disagreed. 

These survey results present a valuable insight 

into how CORs feel about their contracting work and 

the influence it may have on their career decisions. 

Considering the continuing growth and importance of 

Government contracts, the Government needs to develop 

strategic solutions to ensure that it has enough experienced 

technical and professional employees to provide the 

expertise required to effectively develop and manage 

contracts. 

continued from page 1

Contracting Officer Representatives


How can agencies maintain merit in an environment 

outside of typical human resources rules and regulations? 

That was the topic of MSPB’s April symposium, The 

Practice of Merit. Our keynote speakers, Comptroller 

General David Walker and Office of Personnel 

Management Deputy Director Dan Blair, shared their 

perspectives on how to preserve merit in these systems.

Keys to a Successful Workforce Transformation

Mr. Walker spoke about the workforce transformation 

he initiated at the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) and the 

role merit played in 

aligning individual with 

organizational performance. 

He acknowledged that, 

“Our way is not the way; 

it is a way” and offered 

valuable advice to agencies 

initiating human capital 

transformation efforts.

First, he 

recommended 

taking a phased-in approach, starting at the top and 

with new employees, then moving to the middle. 

Transformation efforts require committed, sustained, 

visionary, capable, and credible leadership at the top. 

But this is not enough by itself. People are the key to 

successful transformation efforts, and a number of key 

players and stakeholders must also be involved. 

Next, he advocated having a strategic human capital 

plan to help ensure the agency knows where it is trying 

to go. More importantly, he stressed the need for a 

modern, effective, and credible performance management 

system that is tied to the strategic human capital plan and 

validated by employees. Such a system must fairly assess 

performance based on valid and transparent standards.

In addition, he said a credible internal reconsideration 

process and an external appeals process are critical 

components of any transformation effort. At GAO, the 

internal reconsideration process ends with the Comptroller 

General. For its external appeals, GAO employees go 

to an independent appeals board called the Personnel 

Appeals Board, much like the MSPB for agencies in the 

competitive civil service. 

Finally, Mr. Walker recommended incorporating 

safeguards and accountability mechanisms. Employee 

involvement and multi-level reviews are necessary when 

developing and implementing new systems. 

Merit: A Framework for Change

Merit is “an amazing tenet that has withstood the 

test of time,” according to Dan Blair, Deputy Director of 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Mr. Blair 

addressed the role merit plays in a decentralized personnel 

system in his keynote address. He noted that merit has 

been a key element of the successful use of personnel 

flexibilities in the past and has a role for the future. 

“When you give these flexibilities to agencies, it needs to 

be done within a current, coherent framework,” he said— 

and merit is a part of that framework.

Describing the evolution of the civil service from 

the late 19th century to the present, Mr. Blair indicated 

that merit has remained a constant, guiding principle. 

He noted that the Federal Government was one of 

the first employers to provide merit-based workplace 

protections­—and these protections continue today

As Government moves toward decentralized 

personnel systems and new flexibilities, Mr. Blair 

noted that OPM is taking several steps to help agencies 

preserve merit. First, he indicated that OPM works with 

agencies to develop rules and 

regulations that are consistent 

with the merit principles, as 

it did with the new personnel 

systems in the Departments 

of Defense and Homeland 

Security. Second, OPM 

monitors agency progress 

on human capital initiatives 

through the President’s 

Management Agenda. 

Finally, OPM is 

working with agencies 

to establish self-assessments of their merit systems. 

According to Blair, “We talk about having a new system 

of accountability. We talk about having new personnel 

systems. We talk about Government reform taking place. 

But it’s all done according to a core central tenet—and 

that is merit system principles.” 

The Keys to Practicing Merit

Comptroller General David Walker and OPM Deputy Director Dan Blair share their thoughts on 

maintaining merit in this time of increasing personnel flexibilities. 

Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director,

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

David M. Walker, 

Comptroller General of the United States


Reference Checking: 

Don’t Neglect the Personal Touch 

Short-cutting the reference checking process may hurt your ability to hire the best person for the job.

Your office is hiring a new employee. It is a lot 

of work to review applications, conduct structured 

interviews, and administer work sample tests. But as 

a hiring official, you know it is worth it. Ever since 

your most senior employee retired several months ago, 

everyone has been pushing harder to accomplish the same 

work. All of you are looking forward to a reasonable 

workload again once the office is fully staffed. You are 

in the home stretch with three promising candidates—you 

could imagine any of them working with you.

It’s time to check their references—the last stage of 

information gathering before a job offer is made. You 

have read MSPB’s 2005 report, Reference Checking 

in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, and know it is 

important to verify candidates’ claims about training and 

experience before making an offer. You and your staff are 

firmly committed to checking references.

But isn’t there some way to make this go a little 

faster—and require less time from your over-taxed 

staff? Perhaps you could streamline the process by 

asking candidates to submit letters of recommendation. 

You might even conduct the reference checks by email 

or ask reference providers to rate candidates and type 

descriptions of their performance into Web-based forms.

You should, however, resist the impulse to cut 

corners. Letters of recommendation rarely contain a 

critical review of a candidate’s qualifications and are often 

written by the candidates themselves. And using letters, 

email, or Web-based forms removes the personal touch 

from reference checking. Conducting reference checks on 

the phone or in person brings the following three personal 

factors into play that are crucial to the quality of reference 

checks.

Establishing Rapport. Reference providers have no 

trouble including routine information in a letter, email, or 

Web form. But information about sensitive topics, such 

as a candidate’s poor job performance or out-of-bounds 

office behavior, is likely to be omitted from a written 

document. When reference checks are conducted by 

phone, the reference checker can establish a connection 

with the reference provider based on common experiences 

evaluating employees and the common goal of making 

good hiring decisions. This connection fosters more 

candid discussion of sensitive issues and produces more 

useful information.

Listening. Written responses conceal much of 

the process used to produce them. As you read this 

paragraph, you see only the final result of writing, 

reviewing, and editing. You cannot know where the 

writer was hesitant or unsure, where someone else’s 

words have been inserted, or where something written in 

candor was regretted and removed. The interaction of 

telephone reference checking allows the reference checker 

to respond to the pace and other verbal cues as a candidate 

is described.

Probing. Reference checkers can use the rapport 

they build and the verbal cues they detect to ask probing 

questions. Reference providers may be initially reluctant 

to discuss sensitive, but job-relevant topics. But they 

will rarely lie when asked direct follow-up questions 

about issues that emerge in reference checking. These 

direct probes can only be part of an interactive discussion 

conducted with skill and sensitivity by another person—

not an interactive Web form.

Keeping these three factors in the reference checking 

process will increase the quality of the information 

you obtain. You will be able to make a more informed 

decision about your three candidates, especially if one 

or more of them has exaggerated or misrepresented their 

work experience. Don’t neglect the human touch in 

reference checking! 

MSPB Wants Your Ideas!

If you were asked to identify the 

top Federal human capital issue you 

currently face, what would it be? 

MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation 

wants your views! We are in the process of developing 

our research agenda—the topics we will study over the 

next 1-3 years—and we want you to share your ideas 

on what needs to be studied. You may submit your 

suggestions by visiting MSPB’s Web site at www.mspb.

gov/studies/mspbstudiespage.html or by emailing them 

to research.agenda@mspb.gov.


The Business Case for Workforce Diversity

MSPB’s report, The Probationary Period: A Critical 

Assessment Opportunity, noted that the probationary 

period is a key part of the assessment process. 

Probationers have had limited procedural and appeal 

rights, making it easier for agencies to act quickly and 

with greater finality to terminate a new employee who 

exhibits deficient performance or conduct. Two court 

decisions, however, have changed how we define who is 

and who is not a probationary employee. 

For the probationary period to continue as an 

effective assessment tool in the hiring process, Federal 

agencies should: 1) understand how the law currently 

defines individuals who have full procedural and appeal 

rights; 2) use that understanding to calculate when new 

employees will become entitled to these rights; and 

3) terminate individuals with performance or conduct 

deficiencies before they become entitled to such rights.

In the past, Government interpreted the law so 

What Agencies Should Know in a Post-Van 

Wersch & McCormick World

that there were two groups of 

individuals who had procedural 

and appeal rights: 1) those who 

had completed a probationary or trial period, AND 2) 

those who were not required to serve a probationary 

or trial period but had completed 1 year (competitive 

service) or 2 years (excepted service) of continuous 

service. So, if the individual was currently serving a 

probationary period, he did not have appeal rights—even 

if he had the 1 or 2 years of service.

In Van Wersch v. Department of Health & Human 

Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

changed that interpretation for the excepted service. The 

decision held that an excepted service non-preference 

eligible is entitled to full procedural and appeal rights if 

she is not serving a trial period, OR if she has completed 2 

years of the requisite continuous service. In McCormick 

continued, page 7



Workforce diversity has become an increasingly 

important aspect of Federal hiring. Originally, workforce 

diversity was viewed as a social responsibility—righting 

the wrongs of past discriminatory workforce practices. 

However, it is apparent that workforce diversity is no 

longer just about responsibility. It is equally important 

as a business imperative, and there are important steps 

agencies can take to improve their diversity practices. 

In today’s work environment, an employer’s 

greatest asset becomes the knowledge its employees 

possess, regardless of race, gender, national origin, age, 

physical ability. In fact, as the labor force becomes 

increasingly diverse, employers can impede their ability 

to attract quality hires if they do not expand recruitment 

and reten-tion strategies to include diverse groups. 

This is particularly important since employees with 

different backgrounds and experiences can enhance the 

collective knowledge of the workforce and provide a 

better understanding of customers’ issues, given that the 

customer base is also becoming increasingly diverse. 

Many researchers predict that there will be a “human 

capital crisis” in which a large portion of the Federal 

workforce will soon retire. As Government addresses its 

human capital challenges and reshapes its workforce, we 

will likely be presented with a valuable opportunity to 

increase the diversity of the Federal workforce. Some of 

the best practices agencies can employ include:

Leadership Support. Agency leadership needs 

to make workforce diversity a priority and obtain the 

resources necessary to support it. 

Communication. To ensure that workforce diversity 

is valued throughout the organization, the agency’s 

leadership needs to communicate its commitment to 

diversity to the rest of the agency. 

Training. Provide training to management and staff. 

This will help ensure that the organization shares the same 

vision with regard to workforce diversity. 

Analysis. It is important that an agency continually 

analyze the representativeness of its workforce. Agencies 

may find that while they are well represented overall, 

there may be deficiencies in certain occupations or grades 

that they might need to address.

Measurement. Develop specific, measurable goals 

and objectives based on workforce analyses. 

Rewards. To reinforce the organization’s support 

and vision of workforce diversity, reward employee and 

managerial behaviors that are valued in the organization. 

As the Government addresses its human capital 

challenges, it is provided an opportunity to recognize and 

capitalize on diversity as a business imperative. 
Reforming Federal Hiring: Aim for Quality

What is wrong with the Federal hiring system? 

Many applicants, hiring managers, and Federal human 

resources professionals would ask “what isn’t wrong with 

it?” The challenge of reforming the hiring process is, in 

fact, the topic of MSPB’s upcoming perspectives report, 

Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper.

The Federal hiring process has changed extensively 

since it was officially established by the Pendleton 

Act over 120 years ago. Recent changes include the 

decentralization of staffing authorities, the granting of 

new flexibilities and agency-specific legislation, and the 

use of automated hiring processes. 

However, these changes have largely resulted in 

short-term remedies that focus on making the hiring 

process faster and cheaper. While these are worthy goals, 

faster and cheaper are not everything. Ultimately, the 

Government needs a hiring system that accomplishes 

many goals. It needs to be responsive to managers’ 

and applicants’ needs, produce high-quality applicants, 

support timely decisions, and result in competitive job 

offers. This requires longer-term, strategic reform with an 

emphasis on quality in addition to efficiency. 

A key example of how the Government has put 

efficiency before quality is its use of applicant assessment 

tools. Agencies potentially have a large array of 

assessment tools available to them to help distinguish 

among those applicants who 

cannot do the job, who can 

probably do the job, and who can 

definitely do the job. MSPB has 

evaluated several of these tools 

and provided agencies with suggestions on how they can 

be incorporated into the assessment process. For instance, 

a multiple hurdle approach that includes such tools as 

written examinations, structured interviews, reference 

checks, and the probationary period could provide useful 

predictions of candidates’ job performance. 

Unfortunately, MSPB has found that agencies tend 

to use assessment tools that are not good predictors of 

performance, such as poorly designed ratings of training 

and experience. These tools may be fairly inexpensive 

to develop, but they are less likely to result in quality 

selections than tools that are better predictors, such as 

work sample tests, written examinations, and structured 

interviewing. This is especially true when these more 

predictive tools are used successively to differentiate 

among candidates and place them into quality categories. 

What MSPB has found through our research is that 

many valuable hiring reforms, such as the use of multiple 

hurdles, do not require changes to law or regulation. But 

they do require that agencies look at hiring differently—

with a greater emphasis on quality. 

v. Department of the Air Force, the court held that an 

individual in the competitive service is entitled to full procedural and appeal rights if the individual is not serving a 

probationary period under an initial appointment, OR has 

completed 1 year of the required continuous service. 

So, in the post-Van Wersch & McCormick world, 

agencies should understand that even though an individual 

is still serving a probationary or trial period, he may be 

entitled to full procedural and appeal rights if he has the 

requisite type and amount of Federal service. To ensure 

that there is a probationary or trial period that can be 

used to further assess the qualifications of the employee, 

agencies must identify—soon after an individual is 

hired—the type and amount of prior Federal service 

the individual has. This prior service dictates when the 

individual obtains full procedural and appeal rights. 

To make this determination, agencies should begin 

with any prior Federal employment history included in an 

appointee’s resume. The accuracy of such information 

should have been verified through a reference check. 

Each appointee should also complete a Standard Form 

144, Statement of Prior Federal Service. If the person is 

being appointed without a break in service from another 

Federal agency and the Official Personnel File has not 

been received, agencies should obtain information by 

using a Standard Form 75, Request for Preliminary 

Employment Data. The information for completing this 

form may be received through a telephone call or the form 

may be mailed to the prior employing office. 

Using these techniques, agencies can accurately 

compute the time they have to assess a candidate via 

a probationary period and, when necessary, apply the 

appropriate procedures to terminate the candidate based 

on performance or conduct deficiencies. 

Probationary Period

continued from page 6


I s s u e s of

M  R I 

I n T h s I s s u e * I n T hi   I s s u     I   T  i   I s s 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

MSPB 20419

PERMIT NO. G-113

The Business Case for Workforce 

Diversity. Workforce diversity has 

become a business imperative. Find 

out why and what agencies can do 

to improve their diversity practices. 

(Page 6)

The Probationary Period. Two 

court decisions have changed how 

we interpret who is and who is not a 

probationer. Find out what you need 

to know about these decisions and 

how they affect your new employees’ 

procedural and appeal rights. 

(Page 6)

CORs’ Career Plans. With contracting work increasing, the Government 

has a continuous need for qualified 

Contracting Officer Representatives. 

We explore the Government’s potential challenges in meeting that need. 

(Page 1)

The Practice of Merit Symposium. 

MSPB sponsored a symposium to 

discuss how agencies practice 

merit in alternative personnel systems. 

• Our Director shares some of the 

key lessons learned. (Page 2)

• The Comptroller General of the 

United States and the Deputy 

Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management discuss the keys to 

merit in their keynote addresses. 

(Page 4)

J u l y 2 0 0 6 V o l u m e 1 1 I s s u e 3

Keeping the Personal Touch in 

Reference Checking. As Federal 

employees are becoming overtaxed 

and technology is making it easier to 

carry out many tasks, it becomes appealing to shortcut reference checks. 

Learn why shortcuts may lead to dead 

ends. (Page 5)

Reforming Federal Hiring. A new 

MSPB perspectives report focuses on 

how the Government can improve its 

hiring process—focus on quality in 

addition to efficiency. (Page 7)