The defense acquisition workforce consists of civilian and uniformed personnel at the Department of Defense (DOD) who manage the planning, design, development, testing, contracting production, introduction, acquisition logistics support, and disposal of systems, equipment, facilities, supplies, or services that are intended for use in, or support of, military missions. The defense acquisition workforce plays a key role to ensure that DOD's contract dollars are properly spent on goods and services. As part of this role, the workforce is responsible for ensuring that acquisition programs—including major weapons and information technology (IT) systems—remain within their estimated cost and delivery schedules and produce the desired capabilities. In FY2015, DOD obligated roughly $438 billion on federal contracts, which comprised 62% of contract obligations government-wide. To fulfill its duties, the workforce must have an adequate number of acquisition professionals with an appropriate mix of technical skills (such as cost estimating, program management, and systems engineering). There are concerns, however, that the workforce may not be adequately sized or equipped with the skills necessary to support DOD's acquisition workload. According to a 2014 compilation of expert views published by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations), two-thirds of contributors felt that improved recruiting, training, and incentives for the acquisition workforce are necessary for comprehensive acquisition reform. As of March 31, 2016, the defense acquisition workforce consisted of 158,212 employees, roughly 90% (142,728) employees) of which were civilians. Between FY2008 and FY2015, the workforce grew by 24.2%, or 30,343 employees ( Figure 1 ). The workforce experienced the largest increase between FY2009 and FY2010, growing by 11%, or 14,602 employees. In April 2009, the Secretary of Defense launched an acquisition workforce growth initiative that aimed to add 20,000 uniformed and civilian employees to FY2008 workforce levels through 2015. The initiative was launched, in part, to address reported workforce size and skill imbalances resulting from past downsizing, particularly the congressionally mandated cuts to the acquisition workforce in the 1990s. DOD has utilized several tools to help rebuild the size and capability of the acquisition workforce, one of which is hiring flexibilities. Hiring flexibilities are a suite of tools that are intended to simplify, and often accelerate, the federal hiring process. The way in which they do so, however, can vary by flexibility. Hiring flexibilities vary in structure and function in order to help agencies best meet their evolving recruitment needs. For example, some flexibilities provide hiring exemptions—waivers from competitive hiring requirements in Title 5 of the United States Code . Other flexibilities provide no hiring exemptions, but grant agencies more control in administering the hiring process. Flexibilities can also vary in terms of their Scope: Agency-specific or government-wide Coverage: One position or a group of positions Length: Temporary or permanent Authorization: Congress, the President, or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Service: Competitive or excepted service At least 38 hiring flexibilities are currently applicable to the civilian defense acquisition workforce—24 government-wide, 11 DOD-specific, and 3 acquisition-specific. A description of each of these flexibilities can be found in Appendix A . The subsections below describe six hiring flexibilities that, according to DOD, were used most frequently for external hires to the civilian acquisition workforce between FY2008 and FY2014 (during the acquisition workforce growth initiative): Direct-hire authority (DHA) Expedited hiring authority for civilian defense acquisition workforce positions (EHA) Pathways Recent Graduates program (established in December 2010) Pathways Internship program (established in December 2010) Federal Career Intern Program (eliminated in March 2011) Delegated examining authority DHA and EHA—a type of DHA—allow agencies to appoint individuals directly to a position or group of positions without regard for certain competitive hiring requirements in Title 5 of the United States Code . The specific hiring exemptions granted and applicability vary depending on the type of DHA. There are two different types of DHAs: OPM direct-hire and direct-hire authorized by statute . Regardless of type, the authorities are intended to accelerate job offers, though the level of acceleration may vary depending on an agency's interpretation of the authority. Appendix A provides examples of DHAs that are applicable to defense acquisition positions. The OPM direct-hire authorizes agencies to, upon OPM approval, waive competitive hiring requirements in 5 U.S.C. §§3309-3318—veterans' preference, competitive rating and ranking, and the rule of three —when filling positions for which OPM determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need. DHAs can be established independently by OPM or upon request from an agency, though OPM ultimately determines the application and duration of the authority. Agencies must present evidence of a severe shortage of candidates or critical hiring need in order to receive the DHA. DHAs authorized by statute operate similarly to OPM direct-hire, but often differ in three primary ways: 1. Agencies generally do not need OPM approval to use DHAs authorized by statute and thus do not have to demonstrate the existence of a severe shortage of candidates or critical hiring need. 2. The authorities can exempt agencies from a broader set of competitive hiring requirements compared with the OPM direct-hire. 3. The authorities often apply to a specific department or agency and rarely apply government-wide. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2016 authorized a DHA that allows each military department to appoint a certain number of individuals with scientific and engineering degrees to scientific and engineering positions within the defense acquisition workforce without regard to competitive hiring requirements in 5 U.S.C. §§3301-3330. Expedited hiring authority (EHA) for certain defense acquisition workforce positions is a type of DHA that was first authorized by the NDAA for FY2009. The EHA authorizes DOD to use the OPM-direct hire to fill defense acquisition positions facing a severe shortage of candidates or critical hiring need, as identified by the Secretary of Defense rather than OPM. The EHA is the broadest of existing DHAs established exclusively for defense acquisition positions. Congress has expanded the scope and applicability of the EHA over time to include (1) all qualified individuals rather than those who are highly qualified, and (2) positions facing a critical hiring need in addition to those facing a severe shortage of candidates . Congress changed the EHA from a temporary to a permanent authority in 2015. The Pathways Recent Graduates and Pathways Internship programs are training and development programs designed to recruit high-performing individuals into the federal government and create a pipeline of talent for agencies. Under the programs, qualified individuals are temporarily appointed to agency positions and receive job-related training. The appointment length, eligibility requirements, and covered positions vary by program ( Table 1 ). Upon program completion, participants can be noncompetitively converted to permanent federal positions in the competitive service. The two Pathways programs were based on the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP)—a structurally distinct training and development program that was terminated on March 1, 2011, under Executive Order 13562. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) found that the FCIP violated veterans' preference and public notice laws in November 2010. Positions under the Pathways programs are filled using an excepted service hiring authority, which places positions in the excepted service rather than the competitive service or Senior Executive Service. In so doing, the authority provides DOD with more flexibility and control over hiring for Pathways-covered acquisition positions. Namely, DOD can (1) restrict position eligibility to qualified students and recent graduates, (2) evaluate qualifications solely based on a candidate's education rather than work experience, and (3) use non-Title 5 recruitment, assessment and selection procedures, which may be more streamlined compared to procedures used for the competitive service. For example, DOD can post an abbreviated job announcement on USAJOBS for Pathways-covered acquisition positions. The table below provides a summary of different services within the federal civilian workforce. Delegated examining authority is arguably the standard for modern-day competitive federal hiring and can be considered the baseline for non-flexibility hiring. Delegated examining authority does not provide any hiring exemptions—agencies must comply with all competitive hiring requirements in Title 5 of the United States Code when filling positions under the authority. Delegated examining authority is considered a flexibility because it allows agencies, rather than OPM, to administer the federal hiring process for all competitive service positions (except Administrative Law Judge positions). Prior to delegated examining, federal hiring was centrally managed by OPM. Delegated examining is available to any agency that enters into an agreement with OPM. OPM can terminate, suspend, or revoke the agreement at any time. This section analyzes DOD's use of the six hiring flexibilities described above for some, but not all, civilian acquisition hires between FY2008 and FY2014 ( Table 2 ). According to DOD, the data in Table 2 include external civilian acquisition hires (i.e., applicants from outside the federal government), but do not include internal civilian acquisition hires (i.e., current or former federal employees). Internal hires may represent a sizeable portion of total civilian acquisition hires each year. Two of six flexibilities were available throughout the six-year period, while one was discontinued and three were established during that period. Regardless, the flexibilities were identified by DOD as the top six used to fill civilian defense acquisition positions between FY2008 and FY2014. Approximately 66% of total external civilian defense acquisition hires were made under the six flexibilities described above between FY2008 and FY2014 ( Table 2 ). The remaining 34% of external civilian hires were made through a mix of other hiring mechanisms that use competitive and noncompetitive procedures. The EHA flexibility was used most frequently, accounting for 17,699 external civilian acquisition hires over the six-year period. In FY2010, the EHA accounted for the largest amount of external civilian hires in a single year among the six flexibilities—5,393 hires. A 2016 GAO report found that the EHA was one of the top 20 hiring flexibilities used for all new hires government-wide in FY2014. The FCIP was the second most frequently used flexibility, accounting for 13,574 of total external acquisition hires over the six-year period. The FCIP was the only flexibility used more than the EHA in a single year, in raw numbers, accounting for 3,266 more external civilian acquisition hires than the EHA in FY2009. The FCIP was the second most frequently used flexibility over the six-year period despite being eliminated on March 1, 2011, and replaced by the Pathways Recent Graduate and Internship programs. DHAs and the two Pathways programs were among the least used flexibilities during the six-year period. DHAs accounted for the fewest external civilian hires across the entire six-year period—1,429 hires. The two Pathways programs accounted for the fewest external civilian hires during the time they were in effect —878 external civilian hires between FY2012 and FY2014. The Pathways programs were first implemented by DOD in FY2012, which may partially explain their relatively low use. Delegated examining authority, which features no hiring exemptions, accounted for a larger number of external civilian acquisition hires (3,040 hires) than DHAs and the Pathways programs combined (1,761 hires) between FY2012 and FY2014—the time period in which all four flexibilities were simultaneously in effect. Figure 2 , below, depicts trends in the aggregate use of the six most frequently used flexibilities for civilian external acquisition hiring from FY2008 to FY2014. Data from DOD show a rise in external civilian hires under the six flexibilities between FY2008 and FY2010, from 4,607 hires to 10,928 hires. External civilian hires then declined to 3,391 hires in FY2013, but experienced a slight uptick to 3,848 hires in FY2014. The following external events may have contributed to trends in aggregate flexibility use over the six-year period: The acquisition workforce growth initiative: As mentioned previously, in April 2009, DOD established a goal to add 20,000 personnel to FY2008 acquisition workforce levels through 2015. DOD exceeded this goal in FY2010, adding 21,826 employees to the workforce ( Figure 1 ). Thus, flexibility use—and overall external civilian acquisition hiring—may have surged through FY2010 to meet the growth initiative goal and declined through FY2013 after reaching it. Sequestration: The across-the-board budget cuts in FY2013, known as sequestration, might explain the slight uptick in flexibility use from FY2013 to FY2014. Flexibility hiring may have dipped in FY2013 due to civilian hiring freezes instituted by DOD in response to sequestration and then increased in FY2014, at which point sequestration was no longer in effect and certain hiring freezes were lifted. Civilian a cquisition workforce losses: The flexibility hiring uptick from FY2013 to FY2014 might also reflect DOD efforts to combat overall workforce losses and preserve growth achieved in previous years. The size of the overall civilian defense acquisition workforce decreased by 1,906 employees between FY2012 and FY2014, from 136,714 to 134,808 employees ( Figure 1 ). Workforce losses outpaced growth in FY2013 and FY2014. Shortfalls in certain acquisition career fields: The flexibility hiring uptick from FY2013 to FY2014 might also reflect DOD efforts to address staffing shortfalls in certain acquisition career fields. While DOD accomplished its overall acquisition workforce growth goal, a 2015 GAO report found that DOD did not meet growth targets for six acquisition career fields. The report further asserted that three of these fields that are considered as critical to reshaping the acquisition workforce—contracting, business, and engineering—experienced high attrition rates and difficulty recruiting qualified personnel. Data from DOD also show notable patterns in individual flexibility use during the six-year period, which might have resulted from a mix of structural changes and external events. Some notable patterns include the following: EHA: EHA use surged between FY2009 and FY2010, from 1,184 to 5,080 external civilian acquisition hires. In contrast, use of two of the remaining three most frequently used flexibilities in place during that time decreased. The EHA was expanded to cover a broader range of acquisition positions at the beginning of FY2009, which may have reduced the use of other flexibilities. FCIP: FCIP use consistently decreased between FY2009 and FY2014, with the largest decreases occurring between FY2010 and FY2011—from 3,875 to 1,104 external civilian acquisition hires. These decreases were likely in response to the November 2010 ruling that the FCIP violated certain hiring laws and the December 2010 announcement that the program would be terminated on March 1, 2011. DHA s: Although among the least-used identified flexibilities, use of DHAs generally increased between FY2008 and FY2014. The largest increase in DHA use occurred between FY2013 and FY2014, from 233 to 406 external civilian acquisition hires. These increases may reflect a rising number of DHAs available for the civilian defense acquisition workforce. For example, Congress authorized two new DHAs for DOD Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) in 2013 that are applicable to certain scientific and engineering acquisition positions. While the previous section discussed the use of flexibilities over time to fill civilian defense acquisition positions, this section discusses time to hire under the flexibilities. Table 3 presents data from DOD on average time to hire between FY2008 and FY2014 for five of the six hiring flexibilities described above—the flexibilities that are still currently available. Time to hire is presented for the years that flexibilities were available during the six-year period. DOD defines time to hire as the number of days from the date of the Request for Personnel Action (SF-52) to the appointment date. As shown in Table 3 , there are no discernible time to hire trends across all five flexibilities—time to hire fluctuates within and between flexibilities from year to year. However, some flexibility-specific trends exist in relation to OPM's 80-day hiring model. Specifically: Delegated examining authority—the only flexibility in Table 3 that provides no hiring exemptions and can be used as a baseline for standard competitive hiring—did not meet the 80-day hiring timeline in any year between FY2008 and FY2014. The EHA met the 80-day timeline in FY2009 (65 days). Average hiring speed under the EHA then slowed between FY2009-FY2013. The number of civilian external hires made under the EHA also declined each year between FY2009 and FY2013. The Pathways Internship program consistently met the 80-day hiring timeline between FY2012 – FY2014. In contrast, the Pathways Recent Graduates program consistently missed the 80-day timeline between FY2013-FY2014. As mentioned previously, DOD began implementing these programs in 2012, but only made hires under the Internship program in FY2012. DHAs did not meet the 80-day timeline, but was the only flexibility to be within five days of the timeline for three consecutive years—FY2009 to FY2011. Several factors may contribute to fluctuations in time to hire within and between the flexibilities listed in Table 3 . Some of these factors are discussed in the sections below. The presence of hiring exemptions may contribute to faster hiring. For instance, DOD data in Table 3 show that hiring under DHAs and EHA was faster than delegated examining authority for certain fiscal years. Certain Title 5 hiring requirements—such as competitive rating and ranking and veterans' preference—do not apply under the EHA and DHAs, while they do under delegated examining. According to a 2001 MSPB report, agency supervisors estimated that rating and ranking took an average of 21 days to complete under merit promotion—the second most time consuming hiring procedure identified in the report. The type of hiring exemptions may also affect time to hire. For example, hiring was faster under the Pathways Internship program compared to the EHA and DHA between FY2012 and FY2014. The Pathways Internship program does not waive veterans' preference or competitive rating and ranking like the EHA and DHAs. However, Pathways Internship allows for simplified job announcements that do not have to be posted on USAJOBS.gov and the use of agency-developed, rather than OPM-developed, qualification standards. These exemptions may have contributed to faster hiring under the Pathways Internship program. As mentioned previously, the two Pathways programs were first implemented in FY2012, which may affect their time to hire. Some hiring flexibilities are not designed to accelerate hiring. For example, delegated examining authority is designed to ensure that all candidates are given a fair and equal chance to obtain a position, specifically by having them compete with one another based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities. These flexibilities, however, may still accelerate the hiring process. According to a 1999 MSPB report, agencies believed that delegated examining resulted in faster and more effective hiring compared to OPM's centralized hiring system. Time to hire for individual flexibilities can vary by DOD component based on their interpretation of the flexibilities' governing laws. The laws provide broad discretion for implementation procedures and application of hiring exemptions. For example, DOD officials stated that the Departments of the Navy and Air Force have a broad interpretation of laws governing the DHA and EHA, while the Department of the Army "takes a very risk adverse [sic] approach." This might partially explain component-level time to hire differences for the two flexibilities ( Figure 3 ). More broadly, DOD components may have different internal hiring procedures that affect time to hire. While the components must abide by the applicable Title 5 hiring requirements, they have wide discretion to develop unique internal hiring policies and procedures within those requirements. For example, some components may hold a series of interviews for each best qualified candidate, whereas others may only hold one interview per candidate. In addition, components may have different approval and vetting processes for selecting final candidates. As Congress continues to consider reforms to the defense acquisition system, the following policy questions regarding hiring flexibilities for the civilian defense acquisition workforce may be of interest: Are flexibilities improving the civilian defense acquisition workforce? Does DOD have the appropriate number and type of flexibilities? What factors may impact effective use of available flexibilities to improve the civilian defense acquisition workforce? A fundamental question is whether available hiring flexibilities are improving the acquisition workforce, or effectively recruiting high-quality acquisition professionals with the right skills to the workforce and placing them in appropriate positions in a timely manner. Accurate and comprehensive data on the use of flexibilities is an integral first step in determining their effectiveness. Such data could identify, among other things, which flexibilities are used most frequently and the specific features that are most useful in recruiting high-quality acquisition personnel. As mentioned previously, however, the flexibility usage data provided by DOD is limited—it only reflects a subset of civilian acquisition hires (external hires) and may contain some counting discrepancies. These limitations might be partially attributable to the lack of hiring codes for individual flexibilities. According to a 2016 GAO report, OPM's hiring codes do not always link to individual hiring flexibilities and sometimes "represent an unknown number" of flexibilities. Some analysts may argue that the current number and structure of flexibilities is sufficient, based on several arguments: DOD exceeded its acquisition workforce growth goal and should focus on retention of acquisition talent through other tools. Flexibilities have been expanded over time to cover a broad range of acquisition positions. For example, the EHA has been made permanent and expanded to cover an increasing number of positions in the majority of acquisition career fields. Some flexibilities are not used effectively, and if used more effectively, would preclude the need for more flexibilities. DOD officials have acknowledged that two flexibilities currently available to fill certain acquisition positions—the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) and Highly Qualified Expert (HQE) authority—are underutilized. More broadly, a 2016 GAO report found that a "relatively small number" of hiring flexibilities (20) accounted for 91% of new hires government-wide in FY2014. In contrast, other analysts may argue that continued recruitment problems indicate the need for expanded or additional flexibilities, such as reported staffing shortfalls in six acquisition career fields, three of which are considered as critical to reshaping the acquisition workforce and whose shortfalls were partly driven by difficulty in hiring qualified personnel—contracting, engineering, and business; and reported difficulty recruiting acquisition talent from certain populations in the labor market, such as students and recent graduates. For example, although the Pathways programs allow for targeted recruitment of students and recent graduates, DOD acquisition officials asserted that the lack of a direct hire authority for those populations creates hiring challenges at campus recruiting events. Section 1106 of the NDAA for FY2017 ( S. 2943 ), as passed by the Senate, would create a DHA for post-secondary students and recent college graduates. The provision was not included in the subsequently House-passed version of S. 2943 . Several factors may impact the use of flexibilities for the defense acquisition workforce, and by extension, their effectiveness in improving the workforce. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: Flexibility structure: As mentioned previously, 35 of 38 identified flexibilities are applicable to, but not explicitly targeted at, defense acquisition positions. In addition, some of these flexibilities have arguably narrow eligibility criteria, which may affect their use for acquisition positions. For example, DHAs for scientific and engineering positions at DOD STRLs include degree requirements and usage caps. The NDAA for FY2016 authorized acquisition-specific DHAs nearly identical to those for STRLs. Budgetary constraints: Flexibility use may be affected by cost-cutting initiatives—such as workforce reductions and hiring freezes—instituted by DOD in response to congressional mandates to reduce the size and cost of its civilian workforce and discretionary spending limits in place through 2021 by the Budget Control Act of 2011. For example, in March 2011, the Secretary of Defense announced the elimination of 33 HQEs as part of a department-wide initiative to reduce overhead costs. Recruitment needs: Use of individual flexibilities may have fluctuated over time to meet DOD's evolving acquisition workforce needs and goals. For instance, as mentioned previously, increased use of the EHA in FY2010 may have occurred to help reach the acquisition workforce growth goal established in FY2009. Establishment of new flexibilities: Some hiring flexibilities may be used less or no longer needed due to the establishment of new flexibilities. For example, DOD officials reported that some flexibilities available under the Civilian Defense Acquisition Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo)—such as modified rating and ranking and scholastic achievement appointment —have been largely superseded by the EHA and Pathways programs. Some Interviewees for a 2011 RAND report also asserted that some of AcqDemo's flexibilities have been superseded by the EHA. Limited knowledge of flexibilities: Given the amount and complex structure of flexibilities, some DOD staff might be unfamiliar with (1) the full range of flexibilities that are available for the defense acquisition workforce, (2) the positions they cover, or (3) how to implement their individual requirements. For example, DOD officials noted that hiring managers have the "impression" that using the HQE authority is too difficult and recommended identifying strategies to address this "misconception." Unclear/inconsistent implementation guidance: Unclear or inconsistent implementing guidance on flexibilities—at the department or component-level—may lead to improper or inefficient use. Some DOD acquisition officials reported difficulty using certain flexibilities due to unclear guidance on the application of veterans' preference. For example, some DOD components appear to apply veterans' preference under the EHA, though the flexibility appears to waive it. This may stem from confusion over applicable department-level EHA guidance, which directed components to "make offers to qualified candidates with veterans' preference whenever practicable " (italics added). Balancing hiring speed and equity: As recommended by OPM and MSPB, DOD may be balancing the use of hiring flexibilities with traditional competitive hiring to achieve efficient, high-quality hiring. During a congressional hearing, one DOD official noted the efficiency of the EHA, but also acknowledged the importance of traditional competitive hiring to ensure fair and equal consideration of all qualified candidates. The oversight options presented in this section may help Congress gauge whether the current number and type of hiring flexibilities are appropriate and are improving the civilian acquisition workforce. Doing so may enable Congress to consider (1) expanding or authorizing new flexibilities, (2) consolidating or removing flexibilities, (3) otherwise restructuring flexibilities, and/or (4) using other tools to achieve workforce reforms. As stated above, comprehensive and accurate data on the use of flexibilities is integral to determining their effectiveness in improving the civilian acquisition workforce. However, such data is not publicly available and may be difficult to produce. As such, Congress might consider directing DOD to report, to the extent possible, the total number of all civilian acquisition hires—internal and external—made under all available hiring flexibilities. If such data cannot be reported, DOD could be further directed to identify barriers to providing such data, including any issues with assigning hiring codes to individual flexibilities. develop an internal system to identify and track the use of all individual hiring flexibilities for civilian acquisition positions. The system could take many forms, such as an internal coding structure that is cross-walked with OPM's existing hiring codes. In addition to gathering usage data, Congress might also consider requiring DOD to report on four additional metrics to help determine the effectiveness of flexibilities in improving the acquisition workforce. The metrics could serve as proxy measures for flexibilities' recruitment power and the quality of acquisition personnel hired under flexibilities. Four examples of additional metrics are discussed below. This measure might help determine whether flexibilities accelerate the hiring process from the view of the candidate rather than the agency. Specifically, measuring the days from closing a vacancy announcement to a conditional offer would isolate the impact of a flexibility on hiring procedures that directly affect a candidate's waiting time in the hiring process (such as rating and ranking, interviews, and selection). DOD currently measures time to hire from the perspective of the agency—from the request for personnel action to the candidate's appointment date —thus capturing days dedicated to procedures that do not affect a candidate's waiting time (such as reviewing a position description and conducting a job analysis). As such, it is difficult to determine how effective flexibilities are in expediting job offers from the candidate's view. Formally tracking the number of first choice candidates who accept a job offer for an acquisition position may help determine whether and which flexibilities minimize the loss of top talent to other entities. For example, suppose that 20% of first choice candidates decline job offers for contracting positions filled under the EHA, compared to 50% under traditional competitive hiring. This, in tandem with the aforementioned time to hire data, might indicate that the EHA's hiring exemptions affected candidates' decisions to accept job offers. In contrast, similar or lower acceptance rates under the EHA might indicate little to no impact of the flexibility on recruiting first choice candidates. DOD components are generally not required, statutorily or by internal guidance, to routinely report on job acceptances or declinations under flexibilities. Pursuant to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), DOD established certifications for defense acquisition workforce positions that include education, training, and experience requirements. Acquisition personnel must earn the DAWIA certifications associated with their respective positions within two years of their appointment. The following metrics related to DAWIA certifications might shed light on which flexibilities are most effective in recruiting high-quality acquisition personnel: the number of employees hired under flexibilities who are eligible to earn the appropriate DAWIA certification at the time of appointment, the number of employees hired under flexibilities who earn the appropriate DAWIA certification within the required 24-month timeframe, and the amount of time taken to earn the DAWIA certification. Tracking retention rates and career progression rates under flexibilities might help determine whether flexibilities attract acquisition professionals who stay longer and gain position-specific expertise faster relative to professionals recruited through standard competitive hiring. Consistent with GAO's recommendations on hiring authorities, Congress might consider directing the DOD inspector general or a special task force—such as the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations —to conduct a study on the overall effectiveness of flexibilities in improving the civilian acquisition workforce. Results from the study could help determine whether flexibilities should be expanded or created, consolidated or removed, or otherwise restructured. The study could, among other things, evaluate the use of all available flexibilities to fill civilian acquisition positions (as described above), including the extent to which flexibilities are targeted at critical or understaffed acquisition career fields. As mentioned previously, a 2015 GAO report found that six of 13 acquisition career fields fell below their planned growth levels, three of which are deemed as critical to reshaping the acquisition workforce—contracting, business, and engineering. implement the proxy measures described above for determining flexibilities' recruitment power and quality of acquisition personnel hired under flexibilities; identify the factors that affect the effective use of flexibilities for the workforce, including those previously described; and determine whether personnel hired under flexibilities have improved defense acquisition outcomes, such as delivering acquisition programs with the desired capabilities within the projected costs and timeline. Congress could direct DOD to undertake specific activities, such as the ones listed below, to clarify and align department- and component-level implementing guidance for hiring flexibilities. Such clarification might improve their use and effectiveness in improving the workforce: Mandatory training: DOD staff for the Office of the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), in coordination with USD(AT&L) staff, could provide training to DOD component and sub-component human resources staff on proper interpretation of department-level implementing guidance for flexibilities. Training could occur whenever revised guidance is issued, or on a more frequent cycle. Periodic reviews: USD(P&R) staff, in coordination with USD(AT&L) staff, could periodically review component and sub-component level implementing guidance to ensure alignment with department-level guidance. As part of this requirement, DOD components and sub-components could be directed to notify P&R staff when revised guidance is issued and submit a copy of the guidance. Technical assistance: Prior to issuing final implementing guidance, DOD components and sub-components could involve USD(P&R) and USD(AT&L) staff, in an advisory capacity, during the drafting phase to help mitigate any potential discrepancies with department-level guidance. DOD has taken steps to encourage better use of hiring flexibilities department-wide. The USD(AT&L) and USD(P&R) offices began holding joint summits on acquisition workforce recruitment and retention issues in 2015, which have resulted in several recommendations to use flexibilities more effectively. As a result of one summit, DOD updated its department-level EHA guidance in December 2015, which aimed to clarify the application of certain hiring exemptions, such as veterans' preference and competitive rating and ranking. While this report has focused on enhancing recruitment through hiring flexibilities for the civilian defense acquisition workforce, Congress may also want to consider other workforce improvement efforts, such as retaining acquisition personnel that have been hired. As mentioned previously, a 2016 GAO report found that high attrition rates contributed to shortfalls in certain acquisition career fields. While hiring flexibilities aim to enhance the recruitment of qualified individuals, they are not necessarily structured to retain them. The subsections below describe two efforts undertaken by Congress and DOD in recent years to increase the retention of acquisition personnel: pay flexibilities and AcqDemo. Pay flexibilities aim to increase retention by providing additional or higher compensation that is not typically available to federal employees. DOD officials asserted that the department is exploring ways to better use OPM-issued retention incentives, such as targeting incentives to acquisition career fields experiencing high attrition. DOD officials further noted that use of retention incentives is restricted to employees who are likely to leave federal service and "needs to" be expanded to those likely to leave the current organization. Congress has also authorized pay flexibilities for the defense acquisition workforce. For instance, the FY2016 NDAA authorized DOD to pay certain acquisition personnel up to 150% above the basic pay rate for level I of the Executive Schedule, which exceeds GS-15, step 10 pay rates. AcqDemo is an alternative personnel system that operates outside the GS and waives certain personnel laws and regulations. AcqDemo features, among other things, consolidated pay bands and a contribution-based performance management system. These structures are intended to provide a stronger link between pay and performance, particularly by basing pay increases on contribution to the agency. A 2014 RAND report found higher retention rates among AcqDemo employees compared to those covered by the GS and other alternative personnel systems. Congress and DOD have taken steps to expand the scope and use of AcqDemo, including (1) expanding the participation cap to 120,000 employees, (2) extending operation to December 31, 2020, and (3) streamlining the application process to join the project. Section 1104 of the NDAA for FY2017 ( S. 2943 ), as passed by the Senate, would establish a new personnel system for defense acquisition personnel and support staff. According to the Senate Committee on Armed Services report accompanying S. 2943 , the provision would, among other things, change AcqDemo from a temporary, OPM/DOD-controlled system to a permanent, DOD-controlled system. The provision was not included in the subsequently House-passed version of S. 2943 . Appendix A. Hiring Flexibilities Available for the Civilian Defense Acquisition Workforce

Summary: Policymakers and defense acquisition experts have asserted that improved recruitment for the defense acquisition workforce is a necessary component for comprehensive acquisition reform. To help rebuild the workforce and enhance recruitment, DOD has used several hiring flexibilities authorized by Congress, the President, and OPM in recent years. Hiring flexibilities are a suite of tools that are intended to simplify, and sometimes accelerate, the hiring process. The impact of hiring flexibilities on recruitment and workforce quality, however, remains unclear. Congress may consider three high-level questions regarding hiring flexibilities for the workforce: Are flexibilities effectively improving the workforce? Are the current number and type of flexibilities appropriate? What factors may impact effective use of flexibilities to improve the workforce? Congress could consider several oversight options to help gauge and improve the effectiveness of flexibilities in improving the civilian defense acquisition workforce. Such options might help Congress determine whether flexibilities should be expanded or newly created, consolidated or removed, or otherwise restructured. Congress could direct DOD to provide data on the use of all available flexibilities to fill the full range of civilian defense acquisition positions, including any barriers to producing such data; establish proxy measures for effectiveness related to employee quality (such as employee timeliness in earning required certifications and retention and career progression rates) and recruitment (such as time to hire from the perspective of the candidate and job acceptance rates); conduct a study that evaluates the effectiveness of flexibilities; and improve the quality, clarity, and use of implementing guidance for flexibilities. At least 38 hiring flexibilities are currently available for the civilian defense acquisition workforce. According to DOD, the following six flexibilities were used most frequently to fill external civilian acquisition positions between FY2008 and FY2014: 1. Direct-hire authority (DHA) 2. Expedited hiring authority (EHA) for certain civilian acquisition positions 3. Pathways Recent Graduates program 4. Pathways Internship program 5. Federal Career Intern Program 6. Delegated examining authority The six flexibilities accounted for roughly 66% of total external civilian acquisition hires between FY2008 and FY2014 (i.e., hires from outside the government). Some of the flexibilities were available throughout the six-year period, while others were discontinued or established during that period. Potential factors affecting the use of flexibilities include their structure, clarity of implementing guidance, establishment of new flexibilities, staff knowledge of appropriate use, budgetary constraints, and efforts to balance hiring speed with equity.