FR 2024-29799

General Summary

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has implemented a new rule that reshapes how suitability and fitness for federal employment are assessed. This rule, designed to streamline and modernize the federal vetting process, establishes continuous vetting to replace periodic reinvestigations for certain federal roles. It sets the standards for evaluating the suitability of federal employees, contractor employees, and others involved with government agencies. The rule also delineates criteria to assess whether individuals are compatible with federal service obligations while ensuring these assessments do not impinge on individual rights as established by existing U.S. laws.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document reveals several areas of concern:

• Length and Complexity: The document uses legal and technical language, which makes it difficult for individuals without a government or legal background to understand.

• Subjective Criteria: The terms related to "character," "suitability," and "fitness" can be seen as inherently subjective. Clear definitions for these terms are not provided, which may lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications, and could introduce potential biases in the vetting process.

• Onerous Requirements: Continuous vetting, especially for individuals in low-risk positions, might be perceived as unnecessarily burdensome, potentially straining resources without a proportionate benefit.

• Cost Concerns: There is an acknowledgment of significant administrative costs for agencies to comply with this new rule. However, the document provides limited analysis of financial impacts, particularly how smaller agencies might manage these costs.

• Delegation of Authority: The complexity of the delegations and the decision-making authority outlined in the document could lead to confusion about who is responsible for specific determinations and actions.

Impact on the Public

For the broader public, the rule aims to ensure that individuals holding federal employment or working with federal contractors are thoroughly vetted and are suitable for those positions. This could enhance trust in the federal workforce's integrity and operational efficiency. However, these new vetting processes may also lead to longer wait times for federal job applications as the system adjusts to the new requirements.

Impact on Stakeholders

• Federal Agencies: Agencies are tasked with implementing these standards, which include potentially costly continuous vetting systems. While larger agencies might absorb these costs, smaller agencies could face financial stress without additional budget allocation.

• Federal Employees and Applicants: Those applying or transitioning between federal positions may experience delays as the new vetting processes become standardized. Current employees in low-risk positions may feel undue scrutiny due to the continuous vetting requirement.

• Contractors and Non-Federal Employees: Contractor employees with long-standing associations with government facilities will also experience these changes. The additional vetting could impact employment opportunities and necessitate adjustments to existing processes.

Conclusion

While intending to streamline and enhance the integrity of the federal hiring process, the rule's implementation requires careful attention to ensure it does not disproportionately burden certain agencies or individuals. More accessible language and detailed guidance would benefit broader understanding and alignment with the rule's objectives. Additionally, a comprehensive cost analysis with transparent financial planning would support fair implementation across all federal entities.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued a final rule aimed at revising the vetting processes across various levels of government positions, which includes financial implications. These revisions establish continuous vetting requirements and update the standards for determining suitability and fitness for federal employment.

Financial Summary

The financial aspect of this rule primarily revolves around the costs associated with the implementation of continuous vetting and the administrative adjustments required by employing agencies.

1. Cost Assumptions and Calculations:
2. The rule outlines that Federal employees involved in these administrative changes are expected to be compensated at a GS-14, step 5 salary level, equivalent to approximately $157,982 annually, or $75.70 per hour. Accounting for wages, benefits, and overhead, the total labor cost is assumed to be $151.40 per hour.

3. The initial year of implementation is estimated to require 250 hours of work, leading to a total approximate cost of $37,850 per agency, or about $3,028,000 government-wide.

4. Cost of Continuous Vetting:

5. Agencies will incur a $3.25 monthly subscription fee in fiscal year 2025 for each enrollee in non-sensitive, public trust positions. This is contrasted with higher costs for traditional methods such as non-sensitive, high-risk public trust reinvestigations priced at $2,505 over five years, a significant amount saved through continuous vetting.
6. For public trust populations, continuous vetting is expected to result in $47,198,000 in cost avoidance over a five-year cycle.

Relation to Identified Issues

1. Administrative Costs and Budget Strain:
2. The estimated costs for setting up the new vetting processes reveal significant financial investments. Smaller or less-resourced agencies could face high financial pressure due to the lack of detailed budget allocations and consideration in the plan.

3. Assumptions made in cost savings and reallocations, notably the transition from periodic reinvestigations to continuous vetting, underscore potential financial burdens. While cost savings are highlighted, the variability across agencies implies uneven financial impacts, necessitating thoughtful financial strategizing and possibly reevaluating resource distributions to lessen impacts on smaller agencies.

4. Equity and Fairness in Financial Impact:

5. The differing costs based on position risk and nature might lead to unequal financial demands. Agencies with a higher proportion of low-risk positions, like the VA, could incur substantial costs with no immediate off-setting savings detailed in the rule.

6. Specific examples given, such as the VA’s potential costs and savings, illustrate the financial complexities but may not capture the full variability across other smaller or differently structured agencies. This has the potential to complicate financial planning and forecasting for these entities.

7. Long-Term Fiscal Planning:

8. The rule indicates significant long-term savings from continuous vetting, yet the initial financial outlay and administrative burden pose immediate challenges. Balancing these requires careful fiscal management and potential policy adjustment to ensure fair and equitable cost distribution.
9. The references to potential savings, particularly in moving away from certain reinvestigation processes, suggest a drive toward long-term efficiency. However, without detailed financial tracking and reports, realizing these savings uniformly across all agencies remains an open question.

In conclusion, while the final rule sets ambitious targets for financial efficiency and risk management in federal employment vetting, it highlights critical areas for continuous analysis and potential refinement in implementation, particularly regarding budgetary and equitability issues.