The E-Gov Act created ITEP to improve the skills of the federal workforce in using information technology. The act authorizes federal executive agencies that volunteer to participate to temporarily detail IT staff to private-sector companies and to accept individuals from the private sector. Assignments can last up to a year and are extendable for another year. Federal employees could be exposed to private industry best management practices, while private-sector employees could gain a greater understanding of federal information management practices and of how the government does its work. The opportunity to begin exchanges is due to end in December 2007. OPM was required to issue implementing regulations for ITEP and to report semiannually to the Congress on the number of individuals assigned to and from each agency, including a brief description of each assignment and other information as appropriate. Between 2003 and 2005, OPM developed implementing regulations for the program, including soliciting public comments. OMB reviewed and approved OPM’s draft regulations as part of its normal regulatory process. The final ITEP regulations were not issued until August 2005, and became effective in September 2005, almost 3 years into the program. OPM reported to the Congress that the delay in the issuance of the regulations was due to the complexity of the issues involved, including various ethics and standard of conduct issues that could complicate exchanges, especially from private industry to the federal government. In addition to OMB, OPM worked with the Department of Justice and the Office of Government Ethics to finalize the regulations. In the ITEP regulations, OPM established a requirement that each participating agency develop an ITEP plan. These plans are to be approved by the head of each agency before beginning exchanges. Agencies, companies, and individual participants are also required to sign a written agreement before any exchanges can begin. Each participating agency has primary responsibility for planning and directing its own ITEP program but must adhere to the act and OPM regulations in implementing exchanges. In December 2005, 3 months after the ITEP regulations went into effect, OPM issued additional guidance to assist agencies in implementing their programs and in drafting plans. The guidance included an overview of the program, templates for ITEP plans and written agreements, and answers to frequently asked questions and is available to agencies through the OPM.gov Web site. To help promote the program, OPM partnered with the Federal Chief Information Officers Council and with the Industry Advisory Council and conducted outreach with several other IT professional organizations to reach private-sector companies. OPM assists the agencies in marketing their ITEP programs through its USAJOBS Web site. To facilitate the exchange of information, OPM has been conducting weekly teleconferences with participating agencies and the IAC. Additionally, the CIO of OPM co-chairs the CIO Council’s Information Technology Workforce Committee, which helps to promote the program and shares status updates during monthly meetings. The E-Gov Act specifically addresses ethics and reimbursement issues. The law states that private-sector employees assigned to a federal agency under ITEP are deemed to be employees of the federal agency in terms of Title 5, U.S.C., Chapter 73 (Suitability, Security, and Conduct) as well as various other laws. For example, federal employees detailed to the private sector would remain subject to all federal ethics rules and would continue to be paid by their agencies. Private-sector employees detailed to a federal agency would become subject to federal ethics rules, such as those involving conflict of interest and financial disclosure, and would continue to be paid by their companies. The act permits the federal government to reimburse some expenses, such as travel and per diem and leaves open the possibility that agencies might reimburse the company for some of its employees’ salaries, but it specifically prohibits companies from charging the government for an employee’s salary or benefits as a direct or indirect cost under a federal contract. With only 1 year to go before the opportunity to begin exchanges ends, the seven agencies participating are still initiating their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. All seven agencies have drafted plans, but only three—DHS, DOD, and Commerce—have finalized them. Only one agency, DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, has attempted to negotiate an exchange, but it was not able to reach an agreement with a potential private-sector partner. When the CIO Council called for agencies to volunteer for ITEP, nine agencies volunteered to participate; seven agencies—the Department of Commerce, DOD, DHS, Department of the Treasury, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Health and Human Services, and OPM—committed to implementing programs. Participating agencies began developing their ITEP plans after OPM issued regulations in August 2005. Agency officials told us that the OPM guidance was useful and that they worked closely with their agencies’ human resources and general counsel staffs to develop their plans. Of those seven, DHS, DOD, and Commerce have approved plans as required by OPM regulations, and the other four agencies have draft plans that are awaiting agency head approval. DHS’s plan was approved in March 2006; DOD’s plan was approved in August 2006; and Commerce’s plan was approved in October 2006 (see fig. 1). Officials from the agencies with draft plans estimated that additional time required for review and approval of these draft plans could range from a few days to an indefinite amount of time. OPM requires that plans address how the program will be carried out (e.g., processes and procedures); how many exchanges the agency plans to have; how employees are selected; which officials may approve exchanges; and employee rights to return to the agency. Agencies are given the flexibility to tailor their ITEP plans to meet their individual needs and the workforce skills they want to reinforce. In addition, agencies have identified key skills they would like to strengthen through ITEP exchanges. The skills most frequently identified by agency officials were enterprise architecture, project management, and information security. Table 1 shows the status of agencies’ plans and the specific skills agencies have identified. As of November 2006, no exchanges have occurred. Officials from the participating agencies stated that they have had few inquiries and little interest from private-sector companies regarding the ITEP program. DHS, the first agency to have an approved plan, has attempted to implement an exchange with a private-sector partner; however, the company did not go ahead with the exchange because, as prohibited by the act, it could not charge the government for its employee’s salary as an indirect cost on its government contracts. DOD recently finalized its ITEP plan in August 2006 and is proceeding with program implementation, but has not begun negotiating agreements. OPM has reported to the Congress on the status of its development of the regulations and activities to promote the program. In its last two semiannual reports, in April and October 2006, OPM has reported on the status of agency plans but has not reported that no exchanges have taken place. OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP programs, including limited availability of private-sector employees with the skills agencies want, concern that sending employees to agencies may hinder companies’ ability to bid on future contracts, possible reluctance of private-sector employees to be subject to federal ethics rules, and more effectively marketing the program. These challenges will make it difficult to find willing and qualified participants and negotiate agreements with companies. OPM and participating agencies’ officials are aware of the challenges and acknowledge that they need to be addressed, but these challenges have not been reported to the Congress in the semiannual reports. Federal agencies face a challenge in finding employees from the private sector with the skills they are most interested in pursuing. Although agencies have identified their target skills—enterprise architecture, project management, and information security—these skills are also in short supply in the private sector. According to the IAC, which represents about 500 companies, companies would be reluctant to give up the services of staff members with these valuable skills. The IAC believes the federal government is more likely to attract staff from private-sector companies if the agencies focus on other skill areas where the government is a leader, such as electronic learning. Both the IAC, representing its member companies, and agencies told us of their reluctance to undertake exchanges because of a risk that an exchange could interfere with future federal contracting opportunities. Although the act specifically prohibits private-sector employees from having access to any nonpublic information of commercial value to their company, they might still obtain or appear to obtain information that would give them an unfair competitive advantage, and their companies might then be disqualified from bidding on future contracts. According to the IAC, this is a major issue with the program, because it is not easy to determine what information is appropriate for private-sector employees. FBI program officials also told us that this issue was a particular concern to them. The Human Resource Manager for DHS’s Office of the CIO told us that DHS components were not interested in accepting an employee from a DHS contractor, because they did not want to risk damaging their relationship with the company. Another challenge identified by federal agencies and IAC is that private- sector employees considering an assignment to a government agency could be discouraged by the numerous federal ethics rules they would need to comply with to participate in the program. The regulations specified by the act, such as those governing claims against the government, political contributions, post-employment activities, disclosure of confidential information, and, especially, financial disclosure could make a detail to a federal agency unattractive. For example, although this has not yet occurred, agencies and IAC agreed that the need to file a financial disclosure statement could discourage some potential private company participants. Federal agencies face a challenge in determining how to effectively promote ITEP to the private sector.