[Senate Hearing 108-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-28
EVALUATING HUMAN CAPITAL AT THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
86-741 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joyce Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
------
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Andrew Richardson, Staff Director
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Cynthia Simmons, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Akaka................................................ 11
WITNESSES
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert, a Member of Congress from the State of
New York, and Chairman, House Science Committee................ 4
Hon. Sean O'Keefe, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 6
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 25
O'Keefe, Hon. Sean:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Appendix
Responses to questions submitted by:
Senator Akaka................................................ 35
Senator Carper............................................... 38
Senator Durbin............................................... 43
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 45
EVALUATING HUMAN CAPITAL AT THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Akaka, Carper, and Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. The Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District
of Columbia will come to order. Good morning and thank you all
for coming to today's hearing, which is titled ``Evaluating
Human Capital at NASA.''
Due to the location of the Glenn Research Center in
Cleveland I have always felt close to the NASA family. Through
my work as Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now as a
U.S. Senator, I have enjoyed my work with this important
Federal agency. Several years ago I had the good fortune of
getting to know the crew of STS-70 which was an all-Ohio crew
but for one, and I made that person an honorary Ohioan. A
picture of that crew hangs in my office here in Washington.
In considering the men and women who have accepted the call
of the Nation to participate in manned space flight since the
1960's, I want to take this opportunity to extend my
condolences to Administrator O'Keefe and the entire NASA family
as they continue to come to terms with the tragic loss of the
space shuttle Colombia and its brave crew. At the onset of this
hearing let me be clear. I have not asked the administrator to
come before the Subcommittee this morning to discuss this
tragedy. I believe such questioning is premature as the
Accident Investigation Board continues its important work.
Today, however, we will examine an important element of
NASA's management--its workforce, a small but very important
segment of the Federal Government's 1.8 million civilian
employees. Each day 20,000 dedicated individuals at NASA
facilities such as the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the
Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, the Glenn Research
Center at Lewis Field in Ohio, and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in California push the limits of science and
engineering for the benefit of our Nation and all mankind.
This is the eleventh oversight hearing the Subcommittee has
held on the formidable human capital challenges confronting the
Federal Government. Some of those hearings took place during
the time when Administrator O'Keefe was serving the Nation in
his previous appointment as Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Over the past couple of years we have
made great strides in addressing these problems by enacting
legislative solutions and implementing administrative changes.
Nevertheless, strategic human capital management remains on
GAO's ``High-Risk'' list. In addition, GAO has identified
NASA's contract management system as high risk. It is my
understanding that NASA has put together a proposal containing
the workforce flexibilities it needs to meet its mission. My
hope is that the proposal also addresses the needs of the
agency with regard to implementing and overseeing its contract
and financial management systems to achieve success and remove
the agency from the ``High-Risk'' list.
During my time as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio I
worked to address the workforce challenges within our local and
State governments. Working with a wide range of stakeholders we
successfully empowered our employees while establishing a
culture of quality management.
Since coming to the Senate in 1999, I have stressed to my
colleagues the urgency of the Federal Government's human
capital challenges--the need to get the right people with the
right skills in the right jobs at the right time. Robust
personnel management includes the ability to recruit the best
candidates, hire people in a timely manner, award performance
bonuses and other motivational tools to encourage retention,
and provide training and professional development opportunities
and the flexibilities to shape and empower a balanced
workforce. Good management includes the flexibility to act
quickly and to compete in today's knowledge-based economy.
I applaud the Bush Administration for its commitment to
address these personnel challenges by making human capital one
of five government-wide initiatives in the President's
Management Agenda. I am also pleased that Congress enacted
several important workforce reforms in the legislation to
establish the Department of Homeland Security.
Despite these reforms, however, the demographics of NASA's
workforce remained a very real concern. For example, 15 percent
of its workforce currently is eligible to retire. That number
climbs to 25 percent in just 5 short years. Also disconcerting
is the fact that scientists and engineers over age 60 outnumber
those under age 30 by nearly 3 to 1. With so many eligible for
retirement in the next few years, who knows how much
institutional knowledge and expertise is going to walk out the
door? This places the future of the agency at risk.
I would note that under Administrator O'Keefe's leadership
NASA has made headway in addressing its workforce challenges.
The Office of Management and Budget has elevated NASA's overall
status from red to yellow on the Management Scorecard for its
human capital efforts--one of just a handful of Federal
agencies to achieve such an accomplishment. NASA has also
earned a green light for its progress for implementing the
human capital management reforms outlined in the President's
Management Agenda. I am eager to hear what steps NASA has taken
to achieve this success. I am also hopeful we will learn what
plans NASA has for utilizing the workforce flexibilities
Congress enacted last November.
While we have made progress, there is much work for
Congress to do, which is why in January I introduced S. 129,
the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act. In reviewing
Administrator O'Keefe's written testimony I noticed many
parallels in the reforms he is seeking for NASA.
For example, both the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act and
NASA's proposal would allow more flexibility in offering
enhanced recruitment, relocation and retention bonuses, making
agencies more competitive in assembling a workforce. NASA is
seeking the ability to offer enhanced leave benefits to mid-
level professionals from the private sector. After talking with
leading national experts I also included this benefit in my
legislation. This is key to making the Federal Government an
employer of choice and recruiting top talent.
In addition, NASA has included in its proposal the
authority to enter into workforce exchanges with the private
sector. While these programs have long existed within the
Federal Government, just last year Congress enacted the Digital
Tech Corps Act. As the chief Senate sponsor of this
legislation, I believe its provisions will help agencies tap
private sector talent in the IT field. We desperately need
these individuals today in the Federal Government. A similar
program at NASA would provide a vital tool for the agency to
access talent in academia and offer NASA employees an
opportunity to gain experience from outside the agency.
I am interested in hearing from Administrator O'Keefe today
about his proposals. I am planning to introduce legislation
next week to help provide the reforms and flexibility NASA
needs for its workforce. I am eager to hear your thoughts,
Administrator O'Keefe, why it is so important.
We are very fortunate today to have with us someone I have
known a long time and have high regard for, and that is
Representative Sherry Boehlert of New York's 24th District. He
is chairman of the House Science Committee. Having served since
1983 on the Science Committee, NASA's authorizing committee,
and as chairman of that panel beginning in the 107th Congress,
Mr. Boehlert has taken a keen interest in NASA's workforce.
The Subcommittee looks forward to gaining the benefit of
the chairman's experience and expertise considering NASA. I
think it is really significant, Sherry, that you have been
working on this since 1983. It is just wonderful to have
somebody like you that is chairman of a committee that has such
a background. We are so glad to have you here this morning and
I welcome your presence, and I am eager to hear your testimony.
Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT,\1\ A MEMBER IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, HOUSE SCIENCE
COMMITTEE
Mr. Boehlert. Thank you very much, Senator. I will submit
my prepared statement for the record and I will try to
summarize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Hon. Boehlert appears in the Appendix
on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of things I would like to say at the outset. First
of all, let me identify with everything you have said in your
opening statement. You framed the issue just perfectly. The
only possible exception is all honorary Ohioans. Maybe we might
include New York because we are your neighbors and friends.
But let me say at the outset that this is something that
Administrator O'Keefe and his team and I and my committee, and
I know you and your people have been working on for some time.
This did not develop overnight. NASA has a human capital
challenge I think of the highest order and it is something we
have to address. That is not to suggest that the current
workforce is not top-notch, cream of the crop, the best, and
the brightest. The problem is they are leaving in droves. And
as you mention in your opening statement and it bears repeating
because it outlines the dimensions of the problem. The over-60
population at NASA in skilled positions outnumbers the under-30
by 3 to 1; 15 percent of their science and engineering
workforce are eligible to retire right now, 25 percent over the
next 5 years will be eligible to retire. This is something that
should raise a red flag in a number of quarters. I know you are
paying attention to it, I am, and it is up to both of us to
convince our colleagues that this is something they had darn
well better pay attention to.
Now we need government-wide reform setting, no doubt about
that. But we cannot wait. So we are setting up demonstration
projects, we are agency-specific. It is not something permanent
that will go on forever. It is a 6-year program. NASA just
cannot do whatever it darn well pleases. They have got to
present a plan to the Congress. But it gives them flexibility.
It gives them incentives. It gives them some of the tools that
any management team would want in order to provide the solid
management that we have every right to expect of it.
There are recruitment, redesignation, and relocation
bonuses. There are retention bonuses. Bottom line, we give them
flexibility, and that is very important. Now we did not give
them everything they wanted. They wanted something permanent.
They wanted--quite frankly, I can understand whether it is this
agency or any agency saying, we will let Congress know after we
do it, but we are going to go ahead and manage our agency to
the best of our ability, and we do not want any outside
interference. That is not the attitude of Administrator O'Keefe
or the key people at NASA. They have said right along, we want
to work with you. We have worked to develop this legislation. I
introduced it yesterday and I am glad to hear you are going to
be doing the same thing on the Senate side very shortly.
When all is said and done, we have to give to NASA the
flexibility, the incentives, the operational authority to
retain and attract more of the best and the brightest to add to
their already outstanding and very dedicated workforce. I am
going to do my level best on my side of the Capitol to get our
committee moving rapidly on this legislation. I know you will
do the same on your side of the Capitol. We have had a good
partnership over these years, Senator, and I look forward to
that partnership continuing for all the right reasons. That is
all I have to say.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I cannot help but
remember testimony that we had here over a year ago by Lee
Hamilton. He was testifying on the great need for scientists
and engineers in this country, and how we are really in very
bad shape in terms of the availability of those people, and
that too often many of them are coming from other countries to
study here and then going back to their countries, and that we
needed to produce a lot more engineers and scientists. One of
the things we sometimes overlook is that NASA has to go out and
compete for a limited number of these people, and if they do
not have the tools that the private sector has, they are not
going to be able to attract them to NASA. I wonder if you would
like to comment on that.
Mr. Boehlert. There is an Ohio connection here, so you will
be pleased.
I point out that the President of the United States signed
a historic No Child Left Behind legislation in Ohio in a high-
profile ceremony, something that did the Congress, on the
bipartisan basis, proud. A key provision of that measure is a
science and math partnership, because we have got to do a much
better job of developing our own in the science and math
disciplines.
We are not doing very well when we are in the international
competition. A third annual TIM study, a science and math
proficiency study, pointed out that our youngsters do not
measure up very well in comparison with youngsters from other
nations with whom we are competing. We are 15th and 16th,
respectively in science and math proficiency. So we have got to
start at the beginning.
We have a limited workforce in these areas. And as you
observed, NASA is competing for that limited workforce. And
quite frankly, it is very difficult to compete, to come to
government in a high-pressure, high-profile agency like that,
and look at your counterparts in the private sector and see
that they are doing much better in terms of financial
remuneration and benefits, etc.
But the people that come to NASA are inspired. But we want
to give them more than inspiration and we want to give them
fair treatment in terms of their compensation package.
The numbers are startling. And if we do not do a better
job, they are not going to be able to keep up. And when these
people say bye, I am going off into the sunset, I have served
the Nation and the Agency proud for many, many years, but it is
my time to sit on the front porch and read a book or lower my
golf handicap, or whatever they might decide to do, NASA has to
be able to replace those people.
That is what we are talking about today and it is
critically important.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for being here today and the
only thing I would ask you to do is convince your colleagues in
the committee that has jurisdiction that we need to fast track
this one.
Mr. Boehlert. We will do our best.
Senator Voinovich. There is some talk about waiting until
we do all the other agencies. I think that the situation at
NASA requires speedy action to deal with their personnel
problem. And if you could do what you can to influence some of
your colleagues that we ought to move this ahead of maybe some
of the other requests that have come to us, it would help me a
great deal.
Mr. Boehlert. I can assure you we will do just that, and I
look forward to a continuing partnership with you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
I would like to welcome Senator Pryor here this morning.
Glad to have you on the Subcommittee.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. With your background in government and
management, I am sure that you are going to be a real asset to
the Subcommittee and to the Committee. Would you like to make a
statement?
Senator Pryor. I do not have anything to say. Thank you.
I look forward to working with you on this.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
I am now delighted to introduce NASA Administrator Sean
O'Keefe. Administrator O'Keefe possesses an impressive career
of public service to our Nation. Prior to serving as NASA's
10th administrator, Mr. O'Keefe was appointed by President Bush
to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. In the 1990's he served on then-Defense Secretary Dick
Cheney's team as Comptroller of the Defense Department, and
Secretary of the Navy--you must have been 18 when you did this,
Sean--during the first Bush Administration.
Mr. O'Keefe began his career with the Federal Government as
a Presidential Management Intern, as have two members of my
current Subcommittee staff. That is a wonderful program, the
Presidential Management Intern Program. We bring some wonderful
people into government because of that program. If we had not
had it, you might not be here, Sean.
So we are really happy to have you here, and I am looking
forward to your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SEAN O'KEEFE,\1\ ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
sir. And Senator Pryor, thank you very much for your time here
this morning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Hon. O'Keefe appears in the Appendix
on page 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank you again for your opening comments, and
those of Chairman Boehlert, as well, and the leadership that
you have taken on this very important issue. It is absolutely
critical because it is about the future. It is about the
consideration of so many, I think, elements of what we have as
prospect as a proficient agency in the years ahead. And if we
do not think about these kinds of issues now, and were it not
for your leadership, we certainly would not have the tools and
capability to shape and prepare for that in the time ahead.
Senator Voinovich. Sean, can I just interrupt you a minute?
We have a tradition here in this Subcommittee that we swear in
our witnesses. If you would stand up.
[Witness sworn.]
Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that the witness
answered in the affirmative. Mr. O'Keefe, you may resume your
testimony.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
Again, your leadership in this regard is absolutely
critical. It is one that I think is an aspect for the future of
the Agency, as well as for our competency and capability to
deal with the remarkable challenges that the public portfolio
that is bequeathed to us of accomplishing, turns on our ability
to be able to shape our capabilities and professional talents
for the future. And your leadership in that regard is
absolutely essential, and that of Chairman Boehlert and his
willingness to go forward, as well.
I want to associate myself entirely with the opening
statements of both of you. I think you captured exactly the
essence of the nature of the challenge. It is not one that is
going to be happening some number of years from now. It is
looming. It is upon us at this juncture.
We have time now to work with these issues, but not much.
So as a result I think it is critical to do so.
If you would, sir, I will quickly summarize my statement
because an awful lot of what I had planned to cover here in an
opening statement has been handled quite admirably by both of
you in your opening commentary, as well. So if you would, sir,
I will submit that for the record and do a quick summary of a
couple of other highlights.
First of all, the point that the Comptroller General and
head of GAO, having determined that this is the highest risk
issue on the high-risk list that he has prepared of government-
wide challenges of human capital management, positively speaks
to the years of review that have gone on here. For at least the
last 4 or 5 years there has been repeated commentary from both
the Comptroller General, as well as, other outside expertise
that has pointed to this.
It is what persuaded, I think as you alluded to, the
President to make this an essential element of his management
agenda. Indeed, it is the top item on that agenda, the
strategic management of human capital.
The challenges that each department and agency encounters
requires applications of strategic principles. There is not a
one size fits all solution to this. Every agency and department
has a slightly different set of variations or concerns that
need to be accommodated. So there is not a singular solution
that can be handled in one sweep.
So as a result, the approach that we are taking at NASA
while again adhering to a number of very important strategic
human resource principles that we have discussed on several
other hearings, as well as in several fora that you have led
and hosted, are the kind of things that we have attempted to
incorporate in the proposals we sent forward, and that the
President proposed last June as part of a legislative package
to deal with human resource challenges.
At NASA, those general patterns are exactly as you have
described them. There is, I guess the most polite way to
describe this, a maturing workforce. We are positively at a
point where the average age, as much as I appreciate the
allusion to my age, is nonetheless exactly the average of what
the NASA professional capabilities is. I am 47 years old, and
that is the average age of the organization.
But as a result, that means there are many more folks on
the more senior side of where I am than on the more junior end.
And that speaks to a number of changes that have occurred over
the course of time.
The looming requirements in the time ahead and the
retirements of what we anticipate are exactly as you have
alluded. Certainly right now we have a very large percentage of
the workforce that are eligible to retire. In the next 5 years,
we are looking at better than a third of the workforce, as
well.
The unique part, and again it is not unique exclusively to
NASA, but it is a characteristic that is rather unusual at our
agency, it is a very dominant kind of concentration on science
and technology talent. We are the No. 2 agency or department in
the Federal Government in terms of hiring of engineers,
scientists, and other related technical fields, surpassed only
by the Department of Defense. So we are the second largest
recruiter and retainer of engineers, scientists, and technical
fields.
Like every agency, I think the approach and the
circumstances of what we are all confronting is quite telling.
As you alluded, and I am delighted to hear the repeat of
statistics that have been used often by both yourself as well
as Chairman Boehlert, that the over-proportion of folks over 60
exceeds by a factor of three the scientists and engineers under
30. So as a consequence, that speaks to a lag in recruiting
that occurred in the 1990's that we cannot make up. There is no
way that the actuarial tables can be suspended and that we
suddenly have folks with greater experience and capability by
simply wishing it so.
We have got to look at other creative approaches for mid-
level entry and a range of other opportunities that might not
otherwise be possible to correct such a deficiency.
But the other aspect of this that you alluded to, I think,
in your exchange with Chairman Boehlert, that is equally
significant is we are also confronting this particular
challenge right now at a time when there is a real diminution,
a trend that has been continuing nearly unabated for the past
10 years, on the part of younger folks in the United States in
science, math, engineering, and technical-related fields.
Last May and June, universities across the United States
conferred more degrees in sports and exercise science than they
did in electrical engineering. As a consequence, there is a
real drift off of the number of folks who have an interest in
this particular area of engineering and technical-related
aspects and science and that is the diminishing smaller cohort
that we seek to recruit from in order to deal with replacement
of this looming prospect in the next 5 years of approaching a
third of our workforce retiring.
So as a consequence, these are immediate near-term kinds of
propositions and issues we have to deal with.
The solutions, I think again, cannot be a one size fits all
approach. I think every agency and department has a different
emphasis or approach on what is there. Again, the point I have
found most impressive in the manner, Mr. Chairman, in which you
have approached this issue, as well as, that of Chairman
Boehlert, is to look at what are the overall human resource
principles, strategic focuses, that ought to be emphasized and
then select from a range of tools that could be provided to
uniquely fit the bill in any agency or department that has the
specific requirements, ours being, again, not terribly unique
but one that is different than what we would have at the Social
Security Administration or the Small Business Administration or
somewhere else.
The solutions, again, cannot be one size fits all. So the
approach that we are recommending, and is part of the
President's legislation advanced last June in the Workforce
Management Enhancement Act of 2002, at that time, now revised
to 2003, as we await congressional action of those
considerations. Our approach has been to look at three primary
areas.
The first is to examine and to try to correct what has been
a decade-long lag in new hires and the capacity to bring in
folks not only from undergraduate and graduate backgrounds in
science and engineering principally, but also to look at mid-
level entry opportunities. So a number of tools that we have
proposed are there to attempt to entice folks with some degree
of experience in the related fields that may be attracted to
public service and government service opportunities and
contribute their talents after having gained some level of
experience as well in that regard.
So we are looking at both ends of new hires, straight out
of graduate and undergraduate programs, as well as looking at
trying to entice and attract folks with some degree of
experience in related fields that may apply them towards public
service opportunities.
The second major area is to look at retention goals. The
tools that we proposed and suggested within the Workforce
Management Enhancement of Act of 2003, that the President
proposed again last June, is to target very specific kinds of
capabilities and fields that we see based on the trend analysis
that there are certain core competencies or competency
management issues that need to be emphasized in certain skill
areas, that we would seek to apply those tools selectively in
areas in which we seek to enhance our ability to arrest either
a retirement rate that would otherwise decimate or dramatically
reduce our talent skill in certain areas, or for our ability to
retain folks who have a certain set of capabilities that we
anticipate will be otherwise promoted or interested in moving
on to other private sector opportunities were it not for those
tools.
The third area is to use other Federal demonstration and
project authorities that have already been enacted that are
unique, exclusive to a department or another agency, that seem
to have some success rate. So it is in the spirit of, I think
picking up on a concept, Mr. Chairman, that you have advanced
on several occasions that I have seen or heard in hearings, as
well as in several fora that you have hosted, of trying to
adapt and use best practices across the Federal Government and
adapt them with some track record for how we may employ them
and use those capabilities within our own circumstance at NASA.
Let me conclude, I guess, with a couple of observations.
First and foremost, that you and Chairman Boehlert, again, have
demonstrated a leadership capacity and interest on this
particular topic that is absolutely critical. Chairman
Boehlert's introduction of H.R. 1085 yesterday is a major first
step in that direction as well. Your initiative of S. 129 and
the fast-track approach that you are now looking to proceed
with on this particular effort, or a version of it, to adapt
specifically to NASA's requirements is not only encouraging, it
is positively the break-through we have been seeking and
looking for, and are most excited that you would be willing to
put that kind of time and energy into.
We do have time, but not much. This is something that,
again, the statistics, the actuarial tables are very evident in
terms of the direction we are going. We have been talking about
these challenges as a government, as a group of public service
leaders now for several years.
Indeed, the debate that I find myself currently embroiled
in on other aspects is a spirited exchange over folks judging
the judgment of the current group of professionals in terms of
their capacity, expertise, talents and understanding of
operational issues, engineering, scientific, and technical
issues that we are wrestling with just today as a consequence
of our most recent challenges and the tragedy of the Columbia
loss.
That nonetheless tells me that within the next 5 years, as
that talent pool moves on, the number of folks with that degree
of experience is only going to be less, fewer of them. So that
debate will become narrower and narrower and easier to have,
about judging the judgments of a smaller group of the folks in
the years ahead unless we arrest this challenge right now and
begin to work that issue.
The President, I believe, and I very much appreciate your
observation, Mr. Chairman, at the opening, has stepped up to
this approach. As part of the President's management agenda,
this is the No. 1 item on the list of issues that he considers
across the entire Federal expanse must be addressed. It has
been a part of his agenda since the opening months of this
administration.
His legislative proposals specific to NASA that were
submitted last June speak to his commitment and interest in
assuring that we have the capacity and the tools that long
outlive the time we spend in this administration or are
privileged to serve ourselves in public service so that future
administrations will have an opportunity to continue to see the
expertise and talent that NASA can bring.
Again, I think the remarkable distinction about this debate
that has been going on now for several years and which we have
all identified and come to a blinding flash of the obvious in
terms of what the human capital challenges are, the major
distinction is you and Chairman Boehlert are doing something
about it. In that regard we are most grateful for that
attention and your leadership and willingness to take on this
important set of issues.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Administrator O'Keefe.
I would like to welcome Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka and I
collaborated over the last couple of years on some human
capital improvements and I am very proud that about half of our
legislative package was adopted in the Homeland Security Act.
Administrator O'Keefe, you are benefiting from some of
those provisions right now. One of them that I have heard more
about than any other one is the rule of three that we have had
throughout the Federal Government, which is a statute enacted
when Ohioan Ulysses Grant served as president and it was
decided that there may have been too much cronyism during that
administration so they went to a new system of hiring people.
We now have a new way of hiring people, a category ranking
system where we rate candidates as well qualified, qualified,
and not qualified. And then managers can have a better
opportunity to choose those people that will make a difference
for the agency. And I am hopeful that is going to benefit you.
Senator Akaka, would you like to make a remark or opening
statement before we open it up for questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
having this hearing. I am very pleased to be here today and
also to welcome Administrator O'Keefe.
I will make a brief statement. Unfortunately I cannot stay.
I wanted to express my appreciation to you for your efforts in
making the Federal Government the employer of choice and not of
the last resort. Senator Voinovich is certainly a pioneer and
leader in this area of human capital.
Administrator O'Keefe, thank you again for being here. I
wanted you to know that I was an early member of the House of
Representatives Space Caucus. As a matter of fact, I was
chairman of the Caucus. It was a time in the early 1980's when
NASA was having difficulties, but brought everything together
to bring it back up. I am glad it did.
I view NASA's mission of space exploration as unique within
the Federal Government and sincerely believe that its employees
are modern-day pioneers.
Despite the headway made through space exploration, NASA
faces many of the same workforce management challenges faced by
all Federal agencies. The number of employees nearing
retirement age is looming and the lack of trained and skilled
scientists and technicians poses a great threat to NASA's
future. Our national security agencies face a similar threat
and next week--and I wanted to mention this--I am reintroducing
legislation to strengthen their recruitment and retention
efforts in the areas of science and mathematics. I am pleased
that we have the opportunity today to review options for NASA
was well.
Mr. Chairman, I believe NASA has other management
challenges. Nearly 90 percent of its workforce is comprised of
contract or grant employees. With such a heavy reliance on
contract personnel, it is critical that there be effective and
strong contract management. And yet, GAO continues to find that
NASA lacks the systems and processes needed to oversee contact
activities and control costs effectively.
I am concerned that these outstanding problems with
outsourcing, coupled with NASA's need to achieve specific
contracting goals, could complicated the steps NASA must take
to address its operational, managerial, and safety challenges.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and our
colleagues to ensure that all Federal agencies have the tools
to put the right people and skills in the right place to serve
our Nation. So thank you for this opportunity for me to give my
statement, and I ask that my full statement be made a part of
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Thank you Chairman Voinovich. I am pleased to join you this morning
in welcoming NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe to our subcommittee.
Administrator O'Keefe, I thank you for being with us today. I want to
express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts in
making the Federal Government the employer of choice and not the
employer of last resort.
As an early member of the House of Representatives Space Caucus, I
view NASA's mission of space exploration unique within the Federal
Government. NASA employees are modern day pioneers who help uncover the
mysteries of the universe and promote technological advancements, such
as the wind-shear warning equipment used in commercial airliners. NASA
space scientists have harnessed microgravity conditions to make
advancements in medicine. Yet, despite the headway made through space
exploration, NASA faces many of the same workforce management
challenges faced by other Federal agencies.
Senator Voinovich, Representative Boehlert, and Administrator
O'Keefe have mentioned the large number of employees nearing retirement
age at NASA and the lack of trained and skilled scientists and
technicians which poses a great threat to NASA's future. Our national
security agencies face a similar threat, and next week I am
reintroducing legislation to strengthen their recruitment and retention
efforts in the areas of science and mathematics. I am pleased we have
the opportunity today to review options for NASA as well.
I would be remiss in mentioning that Senator Voinovich and I worked
together last year to amend the Homeland Security Act to provide new
government-wide workforce management tools to augment existing
flexibilities. Like other agencies, NASA enjoys certain flexibilities
to manage its workforce. In fact, the Comptroller General convincingly
argues that agencies already have 90 percent of the flexibilities
needed to manage more effectively.
But managerial flexibilities alone will not solve the workforce
challenges facing NASA or any other agencies. Real solutions call for
strong leadership from the top.
Whatever approach is proposed--be it through new government-wide
flexibilities or agency--specific measures--there must be a thorough
review before any proposals are implemented to alter the way agencies
hire, retain, train, or manage their workforces.
Nearly 90 percent of NASA's workforce are contract or grant
workers. With such heavy reliance on contract personnel, it is critical
that there be effective and strong contract management.
It is important to note that contract management has been
identified as a high risk area by GAO since 1990 when GAO's high risk
list was first begun. Unfortunately, GAO continues to find that NASA
lacks the systems and processes needed to oversee contractor activities
and control costs effectively.
I am concerned that these outstanding problems with outsourcing,
coupled with NASA's need to achieve specific contracting goals, could
complicate the steps NASA must take to address its operational,
managerial, and safety challenges.
Last year, the Office of Inspector General at NASA concluded that
the lack of proper contract oversight threatened the safety of the
space shuttle operations. According to testimony from the Comptroller
General, NASA faced staffing shortages that threatened its ability to
operate its programs safely. Therefore, I am curious to learn how NASA
proposes to balance its outsourcing goals while ensuring operational
safety, contract oversight, and sound workforce management.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that all
Federal agencies have the tools to put the right people with the right
skills in the right place to serve our Nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Administrator O'Keefe.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Pryor, would you like to start the questions?
Usually I do, but you did not get a chance to have an opening
statement.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, I would be glad to. If I may, I
have just three or four questions, Mr. Chairman, on the
retention of employees.
The first question I have is a general question. Are you
losing employees to retirement or are you losing them to the
private sector?
Mr. O'Keefe. Predominately it is retirement. In the
aerospace industry over all, there is not a vigorous recruiting
and hiring activity underway, but it is primarily for
retirements.
But NASA is a bit unique in the sense that there is a fair
amount of movement at mid-levels, as well as towards private
sector opportunities. But in this particular period, given the
current state of the aerospace industry over the last 3 years,
it has been a less than vigorous recruiting period. But
throughout its history there has been a fair amount of movement
at mid-levels from NASA directly to private industry, but it is
primarily, at this juncture, retirement-related.
Senator Pryor. With regard to the private sector, I assume
the competing interests for most of these highly qualified
employees that work for NASA would be mostly the aerospace
industry?
Mr. O'Keefe. Not necessarily. In certain aspects of what we
are dealing with, certainly in the flight operations activities
for international space station, for the space shuttle program,
for some of the test flight centers that we operate, the
aerospace industry is a dominant employer. But on the space and
earth science functions, for example, it is a wide range of
folks with backgrounds in astronomy, geology, you name it, any
number of different disciplines in the scientific and
engineering-related fields that are not necessarily directly
applicable to aerospace industry directly.
Senator Pryor. Are our salaries competitive? Is that one of
the problems, that people get to sort of a plateau in the
salary and it is just----
Mr. O'Keefe. We have really got to do more exhaustive
analysis because this is a real spirited debate that goes on
constantly. The most recent data I saw from an outfit called
the Partnership for Public Service that was quoting and using
some Bureau of Labor Statistics data, suggest that it is
competitive and that what we are dealing with, on average, for
engineers principally, is pretty competitive with private
industry.
Now it is capped, to be sure, and so you will not find the
high-end aberrations and I think part of it is skewed by the
fact that, again, NASA is the No. 2 employer of engineers in
terms of Federal employment across the government.
Part of it, I think, may be a function of an aging and more
mature workforce of engineers than what we see in the private
sector because there are fewer folks by a long shot in the
range and experience that ranges from 10 to 15 years, because
there was a real recruiting lag that occurred throughout the
1990's. As a result of that, you see a more high-end average
because the folks who are still part of the workforce are in
that area.
But it appears to be competitive but it bears a lot more
examination to really analyze that carefully.
Senator Pryor. I just came out of an environment where I
was the Attorney General of my State before I came here and we
were always competing with the private sector for lawyers.
Mr. O'Keefe. That is a very difficult task.
Senator Pryor. And under our State system we were very
limited on what we could pay. And literally, we had a situation
where a lot of the best and brightest lawyers could come out of
law school and within 2 or 3 years they could easily make as
much as some of our most highly paid lawyers. At that point you
have to rely on trying to find dedicated people than are
committed to public service. And there is a lot more than just
money for a lot of people.
We were fortunate to have a very high quality staff there,
but it was a struggle to try to keep all the pieces together.
It sounds like NASA, that may not really be the primary
issue but may be one of many issues. Is that fair to say?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir. I think that is a fair assessment.
The opportunities we have at our disposal, I think, that is
really quite unique is what appears to be a pretty competitive
salary range in terms of entry level. To be sure at mid-level.
The other major advantage, and I think we have an
opportunity, and it is quite an irony in the sense that this
liability is now a virtue in a sense, that when you look at the
range of experience and real paucity of folks within that 5- to
15-years range of experience, it means to folks that there are
great promotion opportunities if you come in.
So there are a smaller cohort of folks competing for a
larger number of opportunities, and so advancement is a very
attractive kind of circumstance right now for not only folks
coming in but also as an inducement for those who might want to
look at a mid-level entry, having spent 5 or 10 years in an
engineering firm and coming to the Federal Government with that
approach.
Much of what we have proposed in the Workforce Management
Enhancement Act that the President sent up last June is
designed specifically to provide some real incentives to sign
up now, recruiting bonuses, opportunities for travel, coverage,
all those kinds of things, the inducements that any company
would normally provide, to a much lesser extent, but at least
it is there. It is not like gee, we are just appealing to your
sense of public service to come aboard. There at least are some
competitive advantages.
Overall, can you do better in the private sector? I think
indisputably the answer is yes, you can do a lot better there.
But in terms of entry-level opportunities and potentially mid-
level entry from other experience, it is a very attractive time
to be part of an exciting program like NASA has to offer.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, the last question I have is
when I think of NASA I think obviously of some employment
opportunities in the Washington, DC area, and then you have
some in Florida and some in Texas. Are there other regions of
the country where NASA has major facilities?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the smallest
number are here in Washington. The rest are in Texas, Florida,
California, Alabama. Mississippi, Maryland, just up the road
here at Goddard, and Ohio, of course.
Senator Pryor. He left one State out there, though,
Arkansas.
Mr. O'Keefe. No, had to save the absolute punchline for the
end there. And throughout Virginia, certainly at the Langley
Research Center, as well.
But it is a very expanded effort that you can trace the
history of NASA's development from the early NACA days when,
the Wright brothers and others all formed together as part of
the original Langley efforts to bring about aeronautics as a
focus of the Federal establishment and then trace it throughout
the history of the development of NASA in 1958. It has grown up
in lots of different locations around the country and some
places are easier to recruit than others.
Senator Pryor. I understand that.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. O'Keefe, last year we gathered a lot
of experts from around the country to talk about human capital.
And as you know, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University made human capital the topic of several
executive sessions.
I had an opportunity to spend some time with some of the
students there at Harvard and I have since then, as a result of
that experience, talked to some other students in Ohio about
them coming to work for the Federal Government.
One of the issues that came up was that we are not getting
as many young people to come to the Federal Government because
they see so much of agencies' work being outsourced to third
parties. And rather than come to work for the Federal
Government they are choosing to go to work for those
organizations.
I thought about that at length, and I would like you to
comment on whether you believe that one of the reasons we have
been competing so much work is that the lack of flexibilities
has made it difficult to attract and retain agency employees.
Mr. O'Keefe. That may be part of it, but I think an
overwhelming set of factors as to what has created the present
condition, I think at NASA, appears to be again over the course
of the past decade a very vigorous effort at transitioning the
operational aspects of that we do, the launch services, all the
technical work that goes into aerospace-related kinds of
activities, rather than maintaining an infrastructure within
the Federal establishment for that purpose. Instead looking to
contract that specifically with aerospace companies with
expertise in the field.
It follows the same pattern I saw at the Defense
Department, as a matter of fact, in my prior incarnation in
public service, of looking at moving industrial-related
activities that could be performed in a variety of other
venues, and rather than maintaining a public infrastructure for
those capabilities that is duplicative of that commercial set
of options, that there was a very clear propensity and trend,
certainly over the last decade, at NASA towards transitioning
many of those activities over to commercial enterprises in the
aerospace industry, specifically.
As it pertains to the management of functions, the
engineering capabilities, the design requirements, the
decisionmaking about the conduct of operations, all that has
been retained within NASA. If anything, I find the
opportunities and the enticement for recruiting to an exotic
agency like NASA, with very high name recognition among all
Americans, to be a much easier kind of magnet, if you will, to
attracting interest there.
The problem is we lack some of the tools to bring the deal
over the line, if you will, on bringing various folks into the
agency because we have used all the tools at our disposal,
every capability we have--and we have got many at NASA. It is
really quite extraordinary to see the degree of flexibilities,
for example, of the 1958 Space Act, and the capabilities that
we have that are really quite unique relative to some other
agencies and departments, to bring on folks in very limited
numbers for capabilities and requirements we may have in an
immediate time.
Nonetheless, it is a very limited set of authorities. So
much of what you have introduced, and Chairman Boehlert is
sponsoring as well, and it was included in the President's
original legislation last June, will give us that full expanse
of tools to put the deal over the line, if you will, of
bringing folks into the agency. Frankly, the name recognition
alone is enough to bring folks to the door, at least to listen.
Then we have got to have the capability to close the
opportunity and actually bring folks in.
Senator Voinovich. Of the things that you are suggesting
that you need, what do you think is the most important, in
terms of bringing them in the door?
Mr. O'Keefe. The retention tools that we propose, there are
three really important ones. The first one is a proposal we put
forward a scholarship for service program, which is a very
specific effort to try to link the opportunity for future
engagement, employment, involvement in public service with
undergraduate and graduate students currently engaged in
research with principal investigators, professors on faculty at
universities who are looking at science and research activities
that have direct application to what we are doing at NASA.
That is a golden opportunity to bring in folks who already
have an interest, who already have an expertise, have dedicated
some of their time as undergraduates and graduates towards the
kinds of things we really need the expertise at, and then be
able to bring them in, in the scholarship for service program,
to offer them an opportunity to be part of the NASA family in
the time ahead when they go seeking professional opportunities.
If I had to pick one, that is clearly one of the most
attractive. I find every time at a university campus I mention
something like that, folks immediately light up and say there
is an opportunity that is really quite enhancing.
The other ones, I guess, that are equally critical in other
respects are this mid-level entry aspects, of looking at folks
with 5 to 10 years of experience in an engineering firm, for
example. Having the kind of enticements that would say look, we
have the capability to bring you in, maybe not at comparable
salary, or at least we can try to be as competitive as possible
in that regard given the nature of mid-level and mid-grade kind
of salaries that the Federal Government provides. But here are
some recruiting enticements for you. There are a series of them
that we propose as tools that would open up the chance to not
just look at fresh out of new entrant requirements right
straight out of an undergraduate or graduate program.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that impressed me, as
we moved along with the legislation, and I think you deal with
it in your proposal, is the issue of leave accrual for mid-
level hires. A lot of people are not aware of this, but when
one comes to work for the Federal Government he gets 13 days.
If he is here 3 years, he gets 20 days. And if he is here 15
years, he gets 26 days.
Suppose some mid-level person goes to his or her spouse and
says I want to go to work for NASA, I am excited about this
opportunity. I may not make as much as I am in the private
sector, but I want to serve my country. And the spouse asks the
question, what kind of vacation will you receive? And then the
potential employee explains to them. And after that, he or she
may decide not to come because of that situation, because
vacation has become so important a fringe benefit, I think,
today in our country.
Mr. O'Keefe. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. Those are practical things.
Mr. O'Keefe. You have hit the nail right on the head. Those
are the kinds of maddening things that we do to ourselves
inadvertently because of the limitations of the way the rules
are structured. You have hit it right on. Because sometimes
those become the deal breakers. And folks sit back and say gee,
do I really want to sign up for this?
We had a gent who just last year began as the Director of
the Johnson Space Center, who was a retired 3-star marine. And
he had gotten out back 5 years ago, I guess, having had a
distinguished career in the Marine Corps all that time, went to
work for a private company.
We recruited him to be the director and he got no leave
because of the way that the arrangement was structured. Now
thank goodness, we were able to compel him to his public
service calling, and recalling, and he agreed to do so.
But it was just something he has had to fiddle with for the
past year and work his way through, even though this is a gent
who has had better than 30 years of public service time. And
yet the rules would not permit something like that. You have it
right on. That is exactly the problem.
Senator Voinovich. How about the repayment of student
loans? Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. O'Keefe. That has some attractiveness to it and it is
certainly one of the elements of the pending legislation that
can be yet another tool that would put this deal over the line
kind of condition where if you have folks with engineering
degrees or any scientific degree that would be attractive, they
would look at the Federal Government as an employer of
attractive alternative if the opportunity for forgiveness of
student loans were to be incorporated as part of that.
That is a very creative end approach and one that, again,
no one size fits all. If you have that full range of tools in
the kit bag, and there is any number of things you can pull out
to adapt to the individual case in which you are looking for,
for individual competencies you seek, and the capabilities of
people that may be applying.
Senator Voinovich. I was shocked when I found out that if a
person comes to work for the Federal Government and the Federal
Government pays off his or her loans over a period of time that
the payment of those loans is a taxable item for that employee.
But if an educational institution repays the loans in return
for public service, it is not taxable. That is a little quirk
in the law, but again one I think that needs to be taken care
of.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. One of the areas that has been
outstanding now for 13 years, and I addressed it in my opening
statement, is the issue of contract management as a high risk
item. For 13 years that has been a high risk area on GAO's
list.
I would like to know what are you doing about that issue,
so that maybe a year from now David Walker can say it is no
longer high risk?
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a very
important question and one that I had spent a lot of time
working on as soon as I got to NASA because the primary reason
why NASA was on the high risk list for contract management was
what is referred to as undefinitized contracts.
In other words, it was a case where GAO said you have got
too many contracts out there that are aging, they have been out
for a long time and they have no real expiration date on them,
and all you do is keep amending these contracts for new
services or new capabilities or whatever, and just modifying
them as you go along.
Absolutely right. This was just a rather frequent practice,
apparently, that seemed to go on, and was really an acquisition
policy issue that really was a major question because it spoke
to the issue of wider liabilities, what are we committing the
government to, the public to, for a longer term.
And so we really worked very hard over the course of this
past year to fry down the number of undefinitized contracts to
an almost decimal dust number. As a matter of fact, in November
and December, GAO notified us that we were to be now removed
from the high risk list as a consequence of having brought that
number down to zero.
What put us back on the list, just recently, is a change in
the Federal Accounting Standards Board procedures just about 2
years ago, in which property held by contractors that belongs
to the government, if it is not inventoried and accounted for
properly, that then poses a high risk issue to GAO.
What they noted in our audit a year ago was a variance by
contractors that were reporting the various aerospace companies
that we do business with, that were reporting varying numbers
that were at odds with what we had valued as being the value of
property that was in the hands of contractors for specific
functions that we do.
It relates to things like, again, the shuttle program, the
international space station, the various space probes or
whatever else we do, as well as assets on orbit, as a matter of
fact, that may be controlled by a contractor but owned by the
government. And the fact that the valuations were different and
not in concert with the new Federal Accounting Standards Board
rules put us back on the high risk list.
So the reason we were on the risk for the past dozen years,
we beat the parade rest and finally got our way off from that
particular list for that set of reasons, on the contract
issues. And we now have found ourselves for a new reason on the
high risk list, which we have identified as part of our last
audit that Price Waterhouse Coopers, our external auditor, came
in and gave us some very constructive approaches on how we can
police that question over the course of this coming year with
all of our major contractors we do business with to get an
exactitude of what we value and what they value as the value of
government-owned property at contractor facilities.
So I am very confident by this time next year that will not
be an issue, and unless something new comes up, we will be once
and for all off the high risk list for contract management
issues.
Senator Voinovich. Good.
I have visited the facility there in Florida on a couple of
occasions and I had a very good tour when STS-70 went up, I
think it was in 1995, with our Ohio crew. I will never forget
it because one of the astronauts was a graduate of Ohio State
University and she made it so that the patch that they used
featured an Ohio State block O, which she claims that NASA did
not know about, but they later figured it out. I was impressed
with what I saw.
After the Challenger tragedy we were going through the
center and NASA staff was showing us how they were repairing
the tiles after the shuttle comes back. They have a lot of tile
work that needs to be done after each mission.
The thought occurred to me, are the people who repair those
tiles once the shuttles come back on NASA's payroll or is that
worked contracted out to somebody else?
Mr. O'Keefe. There is a combination. This is part of this
transition I referred to that appears to have occurred over the
course of the past decade of looking at launch services and
preparation for operations kind of activities to what is now a
consortium arrangement between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin
called the United Space Alliance and is a subsidiary of those
two primaries that operate all of the launch services
activities.
Within the orbiter processing facility that it sounds like
you went through, there are some 27,000 tiles on an orbiter.
The inspection activity goes on with both United Space Alliance
engineers and technical folks, as well as NASA folks. So we
have got the better part of about, I want to say about 2,500
NASA employees, but let me give you an exact number for the
record of how many folks we have at the Kennedy Space Center.
We have Air Force folks that are there from Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station that will look at a variety of issues, and the
United Space Alliance, as well as the other aerospace
companies, that will have folks there that work through a
variety of different issues.
So if you go through the orbiter processing facility,
chances are one in two that the folk you talk to are either
NASA folks directly, U.S. Government personnel who are public
servants, or they are United Space Alliance employees. And it
depends on whether you talk to a manager, an inspector, someone
who is actually working on some of the issues, it varies.
Senator Voinovich. Do you believe that you have the people
on board to guarantee that the contractors you have hired are
the quality that you want and they are doing the job that you
want? Before I was county auditor, we had contracted out our
appraising business and we had some real problems, in fact,
scandals. And when I became auditor I brought on a small staff
of individuals whose main job was to review contractors' work.
They were highly competent people who managed the work and made
sure that we were getting what the contractor said he was going
to do, in terms of quality of the people they hired and the
work that came back.
Do you feel that you, at this stage, have enough of those
people on board that can make sure that we are getting what we
are supposed to be getting from these contractors?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, it appears so. But again, much of what I
think seems to be a focus of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board efforts, for example, is to look at systems
and the management practices, the run up to pre-launch, as well
as on-orbit activities, and how that interaction occurs between
NASA, the primary contractors, folks who are part of the NASA
community overall.
They are going to be looking at that question and I am
going to be guided by their findings in that regard.
By anecdotal sense of this, though, is it does not matter
whether it is a direct U.S. Government personnel or folks
associated with a wide range of different companies that we do
business with. For example, before every single launch, about
10 days to 2 weeks prior, there is an assembly of folks in a
room about this size of anybody and everybody who has anything
to do with the launch of that particular mission from the U.S.
Government who are NASA personnel, and of the senior folks from
the Agency as well as lots of different contract folks who are
engaged in pre-launch, on-orbit, etc., activities, senior
engineers, and technical folks. Their responsibility is if
there is a single anomaly to raise your hand. These flight
readiness reviews, go on for the better part of a day to 2 days
of beating every single anomaly that is viewed there. There is
no one in the room, from the few that I have and the activities
that I have seen there, that stops anybody and says wait a
minute, you cannot speak because you are a contractor and you
are a government employee, or you are not high enough up in the
food chain, or whatever. It is anybody who has got an issue is
authorized and expected to speak.
It is a very coordinated effort that goes on. That has
impressed me in the year or 14 months I have been at the
Agency, to see that there is a very close communication, very
close coordination of activities, independent of whose payroll
is there, in support of those activities. It has little or
nothing to do with where you are on the hierarchical chain. It
is if you have a responsibility and you are accountable, the
expectation is you will speak up. Because if it is not exactly
right, we do not fly. And that is an ethos that has really made
a strong impression on me, what I have seen in the last 14
months.
Senator Voinovich. In other words, they can all contribute.
I guess the main thing that I am concerned about is do you have
the people that work for you, that conduct an oversight of
contractors to make sure they are giving the agency what is
expected? And also to look at the quality of the work that is
being done? Do you feel comfortable about that?
Mr. O'Keefe. In terms of the management of our contract
efforts for launch services, etc., it is very evident to me
that the senior experience rate, capabilities, et cetera, is
really quite impressive. In terms of the NASA employees and
their experience rates, the folks who are in the jobs, who are
in those capacities have a lot of maturity, to put a very kind
diplomatic word to it. They are older folks. That is what
scares me, is once they move on, there is not a whole lot there
behind it in terms of our capacity. The bench strength is not
as deep as it could be.
That is why we have really got to use the tools now to get
moving on not only growing a new cadre and core of people with
that degree of experience, but we have also got to be looking
at bringing in folks who have the capacity and capability.
The good news is that the folks who are on the senior end
of this and are the management team that do the contract
oversight and our part of the iterative process on all the
activities we are engaged in, have an awful lot of knowledge to
import. Our experience base is just unsurpassed. All we have to
do is get the folks in there who have the capacity to soak up
that knowledge before they decided to move on.
Senator Voinovich. I would be really interested to have
someone in your shop do a survey over the last several years of
what work has been competed and the decision on whether to
contract it or leave it within the Agency. I have had some
complaints from some folks in Cleveland at NASA that too much
of their work is being contracted out to third parties.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir, we certainly will.
[The material requested for the record by Chairman
Voinovich follows:]
INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MR. O'KEEFE FOR THE RECORD
From early on in its existence, NASA has contracted with the
private sector for most of the products and services it uses. Most of
the Agency's funding is dispersed widely in the national economy
through contracts, grants, and other agreements. Through these
expenditures, NASA acquires a variety of scientific, technical, and
support services for the civilian aeronautics and space programs. Over
the last ten years, the agency-wide ratio of civil servant to
contractor has been stable. What has occurred over that time has been
the incremental rebalancing of capabilities in the civil service and
contractor workforce. NASA has strengthened its in-house core
capabilities while contracting out for increasingly available
commercial services in a competitive environment, because we found that
it is more efficient to contract for those services on an as-needed
basis. NASA's limited in-house resources are focused on core mission
related activities where possible, leaving routine operations and
services for providers in the private sector. This rebalancing was
completely accomplished through retraining, reassignment, and
attrition.
For example, NASA has implemented large-scale outsourcing of
information technology over the last several years as the capabilities
of commercial IT service providers have outstripped government
capabilities. Specifically, the Outsourcing Desktop Initiative for NASA
(ODIN) allowed NASA to focus its limited resources on its core mission.
ODIN is a master contract awarded in June 1998 covering headquarters
and all the NASA centers. Prior to ODIN, NASA had civil servants and
multiple contractors who were responsible for providing administration
and support for the Agency's computer and telecommunications systems.
The Agency also was responsible for the maintenance and replacement of
its approximately 38,000 desktop computers; 2,500 servers; and 51,000
phones. With the award of ODIN, the Agency was able to turn all this
over to three contractors, each of which is responsible for certain
NASA centers and headquarters. This resulted in NASA being able to
focus its civil servants on core mission related activities; to provide
services to all customers regardless of platform; and to provide
consistent and predictable technology refreshment for desktops, while
reducing costs and improving cost management and cost containment since
the monthly cost per seat is known and the price does not change.
Another example of smaller proportions is the Wallops Sounding Rocket
Program and Range Operations that was contracted out in 1996. Again,
NASA was able to focus its civil servants on core mission related
activities while routine operation of sounding rockets and ranges was
transferred to contractors.
The actions described above encompass the major activities that had
been performed by the Agency and that were transferred to the
contractor community in the last several years, even though several
thousand civil service jobs were redirected as a result of contract
consolidations, which improved Agency efficiency. The Space Flight
Operations Contract (SFOC) is probably the prime example of where the
Agency utilized contract consolidations to generate savings on one of
its major complex technical programs. Prior to 1996, NASA embarked on a
series of cost reduction activities to significantly decrease the cost
of space flight operations. During this phase, emphasis was placed on
consolidation, synergy and productivity improvements within functional
areas, and ``working smarter'' by eliminating low priority products or
processes. The next logical step in this process was the SFOC. This
contract, which was awarded in 1996, consolidated shuttle operations
performed under 12 contracts under this single prime contract.
Subsequently, an additional 8 contracts were consolidated into the
SFOC.
Additionally, since 1992, NASA eliminated several thousand civil
service positions during the downsizing of the workforce, which was a
major Federal initiative at that time. NASA accomplished its downsizing
through voluntary attrition; there was no associated reduction-in-
force.
Senator Voinovich. And I am saying to you that if the word
gets out around the country that you may go to work for the
Federal Government but the work may be outsourced, why bother
to go to work for NASA? Why not find a contractor that you
probably think will be around for a while and go to work for
them and not bother with NASA? You may be competing against
yourself in that situation. I would be interested in getting
some information back from you on that.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. I am familiar with the legislation, the
things that you are promoting. I can assure you that we will be
getting the bill introduced. I will be trying to get as many
co-sponsors as I can for it. I have been working with the House
to try and make sure that they will be willing to move this
ahead of some of the other legislation.
We do know we have a human capital problem throughout the
Federal Government. We have solved part of it with the
amendments to the Homeland Security Act. There is a lot more
that needs to be done. The Defense Department is going to be
coming in and asking for some more flexibilities. But I think
that your situation commands a high priority from us and we
ought to move it forward.
Mr. O'Keefe. I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Carper is here. Senator, have
you had a chance to vote yet?
Senator Carper. I have not. I thought we might vote
together.
Senator Voinovich. I do not have any further comments.
Senator Carper, would you like to ask the Administrator a
question or two before we go to vote together?
Senator Carper. Will the hearing adjourn when we go to
vote? Is that correct?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, it will, unless you want to come
back.
Senator Carper. Let me just say to Mr. O'Keefe, thank you
for being here and thank you for your stewardship. We know it
has been a tough time for you and for the team that you lead.
My staff has been here. I am sorry that I could not be here
earlier. And as we walk over to the Floor, I will be chatting
with our Chairman to get the gist of what transpired here.
But I just want you to know that you and the NASA family
have been in our thoughts and certainly in our prayers.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Senator. You are most kind. We
appreciate it. It is a pleasure to see you, too, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Before I adjourn the hearing, I want to
again thank you for being here today, along with your team.
I would like to indicate that the record is going to remain
open until 5 p.m. tomorrow so that my colleagues may submit
statements. And also to give them an opportunity to raise
questions that will be submitted to you, Mr. O'Keefe.
Again, thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOEHLERT (R-NY), CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE
ON SCIENCE
I greatly appreciate your allowing me to appear before you today to
discuss the personnel problems facing NASA and how we might address
them. As you well know, this issue has been of concern for many years,
but is now receiving more attention from all of us because of the
tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia.
I wanted to come before you today because I think that reform of
NASA's workforce policies could be one of the positive changes to
result from the demise of STS-107. That is not to say, of course, that
different personnel policies would have prevented the loss of the
Shuttle. But anything we can do to strengthen NASA as an agency will be
valuable at this critical time. In the end, organizations, including
Federal agencies, can only be as good as the people they comprise.
That NASA needs to do more to recruit and retain the best people is
hardly a secret, nor is it an attack on the current workforce. One of
the greatest problems NASA faces is a huge retirement bulge. Within
five years, a quarter of the NASA workforce will be eligible to retire.
The most recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report on NASA, issued
just this past January, noted, ``The agency still need[s] to deal with
critical losses due to retirements in coming years.'' This conclusion
built on numerous past GAO reports that concluded that NASA had to do
more to address its workforce needs.
Now, NASA is not the only agency facing workforce issues, in
general, or issues involving its scientific and engineering workforce
in particular. But NASA's needs are especially critical. I don't
believe we have to wait for massive, wholesale reform of civil service
law to take care of NASA's immediate problems. Indeed, there's
precedent for helping individual agencies solve their problems. In the
1980's, the Science Committee, working with the civil service
committees, got enacted civil service reforms exclusively to help what
was then the National Bureau of Standards recruit and retain top
scientists.
And there's another reason not to wait for broader reform to help
NASA. The changes NASA needs do not amount to any kind of startling
break from the existing legal structure. The changes expand or revise
existing legal authority in ways that should not raise undue concern.
With this in mind, I commend to you the package of reforms the
Science Committee majority negotiated with NASA. These reforms are
incorporated in H.R. 1085, which I introduced yesterday. We plan to
have a hearing on the bill next Wednesday, and would like to move it
before the April recess. At our NASA budget hearing last week, Members
on both sides of the aisle expressed interest in passing workforce
legislation, and I'm hopeful we'll be able to build consensus for H.R.
1085. With your permission, I'd like to submit the bill for the record.
As I've said, H.R. 1085 builds on existing law. It allows NASA, for
example, to offer larger recruitment and retention bonuses than are
permitted currently, and to offer bonuses to employees shifting between
Federal jobs without relocating. But the language we use parallels
existing law and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations.
You'll be pleased to hear that I won't go through all the
provisions of H.R. 1085 here, although it's a relatively short bill. I
do want to point out, though, that we were very careful to give NASA
only temporary authority so that Congress could evaluate the reforms
before they became permanent. We also require a plan from NASA before
the reforms are in place so that both the Congress and NASA's employees
can understand how this new authority will be used. And many of NASA's
actions will still require OPM review.
NASA proposed some reforms that we rejected. Most notably we were
unwilling to let NASA decide on its own to make permanent any large-
scale personnel demonstration projects. And we were unwilling to let
NASA run exchange programs in which industry employees would act as
NASA staff while being paid by their home companies. Whatever the
advantage of such exchanges, that authority seemed like it raised too
many conflict-of-interest concerns.
So we think we've taken a cautious, balanced approach to solving
some real problems. Working off NASA's own recommendations, we've
expanded the utility of current law without throwing the existing
system overboard and without abdicating our oversight responsibilities.
We look forward to working with your Committee and with Chairman
Davis in the House to come up with a package of reforms that will make
NASA stronger without making the civil service system weaker. Thank
you.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN O'KEEFE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss
NASA's Human Capital challenges. The Agency faces a number of strategic
obstacles to our ability to manage our Human Capital effectively and
efficiently. The President forwarded legislation to Congress last May
to provide our managers the tools they need to reshape and reconstitute
a capable world class workforce. We've worked with Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert of the House Science Committee to reinvigorate legislative
solutions to address our workforce issues, and we appreciate the hard
work of Mr. Boehlert and his staff. Mr. Chairman, I know that you are a
firm believer that reforms are needed to enable Federal managers to
manage their human capital more strategically, and have supported
designing flexible tools to make the Federal service desirable. I
welcome this opportunity to work with you in these endeavors. We were
similarly gratified that the Homeland Security Act included several
government-wide human capital provisions, including several that NASA
had on its legislative agenda forwarded by the Administration last
summer. This is a step in the right direction.
When President Eisenhower and the Congress created NASA. they
sought to establish a government agency that could undertake and
overcome the Nation's technological challenges in aeronautics and space
exploration. Without NASA, there would be no American presence to take
up these challenges. During the Cold War, the very best minds of our
Nation joined forces to transform the futuristic dreams of our parents'
generation into the historic reality our children learn about in
today's classrooms. The legacy of that work continues today. Across the
Nation, NASA scientists, engineers, researchers, and technicians have
made and continue to make remarkable discoveries and advancements that
touch the lives of every American. We are an Agency committed to
``pioneering the future'' as only NASA can.
In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, much has been written and
discussed in the public debate about the prospect of future expertise
at NASA. One of the greatest challenges before the Agency today is
having the people--the human capital--available to forge ahead and make
the future breakthroughs tomorrow's everyday reality. NASA's history is
celebrated worldwide for having accomplished the things that no one has
ever done before. None of those achievements happened by accident. They
were the result of management innovation, revolutionary technologies
and solid science and research. These three pillars of NASA's
achievement were built by the men and women of NASA and without them,
the history of achievement that we celebrate in aeronautics and space
exploration never would have been possible. History is made everyday at
NASA; but to maintain our leadership position, a new generation must be
forged to carry our Nation's innovation and exploration forward.
The legislation we will forward to the 108th Congress will be the
same as that which the President submitted last year, with the possible
inclusion of additional provisions recently developed, and is intended
to provide us the flexible management tools to make sure NASA can
continue to attract and retain the best and brightest minds and to
reconfigure and reconstitute that workforce to meet the changing
demands of that future innovation and exploration. The list of tools
includes:
To recruit new talent:
Scholarship-for-Service Program
Enhanced recruitment bonuses
Remove limitation to 25% of base pay for only one year
and include locality pay
Allow more than one method of payment (lump sum). E.g.,
installments pegged to continued performance.
In addition, Streamlined Hiring Authority has been provided on a
government-wide basis by section 1312 of the Homeland Security Act
(P.L. 107-296):
direct hiring for positions in ``critical needs'' or
``severe shortage'' categories, and
category rating system for evaluating candidates (for any
position)--able to select from top group, not limited to top three or
numerical ratings
To retain existing talent, attract short-term mid-level talent:
1. NASA-Industry Exchange Program
2. Allow extension of IPA Assignments from 4 to 6 years
3. Term Appointments
Allow extension of term appointments from 4 up to 6 years
Allow conversion to permanent without second round of
competition if competitively selected for term appointment
Many NASA projects run more than 4 years and would benefit for
retention of these individuals for the duration of the project.
4. Enhanced relocation and retention bonuses
Remove limitation to 25% of base pay for only one year
and include locality pay
Allow more than one method of payment (lump sum). E.g.,
installments pegged to continued performance.
5. Allow increase maximum annual pay for NASA excepted service
appointments from $134,000 to $142,500
6. Allow increased pay for critical positions to level of the Vice
President.
To try other new, quicker and more effective tools:
Modify current law to allow NASA to request and implement a
demonstration project, subject to OPM approval, quicker and without any
limitation on the number of employees that would be covered by the
project.
I note with appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, that several of
these proposals were enacted into law last year as part of your
amendment to the Homeland Security Act.
In addition, we are working with the Administration on
further legislative tools, such as enhanced annual leave, that may be
forwarded later this session.
The reduction in NASA's workforce during the 1990's has led to an
imbalance of skills; too may in some areas not enough in emerging
technologies (e.g., nanotechnology). In addition, NASA is confronted
with convergence of three trends:
1. reduction in number of science and engineering graduates;
2. increased competition from traditional aerospace sector and
non-aerospace sector for this reduced pool of scientists and engineers;
and
3. increasing number of experienced NASA employees eligible for
retirement.
NASA needs to have better tools to recruit new hires, retain
existing mid-level workforce, and reconfigure the workforce to meet
emerging needs.
Vision And Mission
When I assumed the leadership of NASA a little over a year ago, I
wanted to ensure that this pathfinder Agency had the means and mission
to support that pioneering spirit through the next several decades.
NASA has a vital role to play in today's world. My testimony today will
touch on the management challenges that NASA must overcome if we are to
achieve our mission. NASA is intent on continuing the gains made over
45 years while pushing the edge of the envelope of what appears today
to be impossible. We have developed a roadmap to continue our work in a
more efficient, collaborative manner. NASA will fulfill its imperative
not only for the sake of human knowledge--but also for our future and
our security.
In that spirit, we developed a new strategic framework and vision
for the Agency. It is a blueprint for the future of exploration and a
roadmap for achievement that we hope will improve the lives of everyone
in this country and everyone on this planet. Our new vision is to
improve life here, to extend life to there, and to find life beyond.
This vision frames all that we do and how we do it. NASA will do this
by implementing our mission--to understand and protect our home planet;
to explore the Universe and search for life; to inspire the next
generation of explorers . . . as only NASA can.
To understand and protect our home planet, NASA will work to
develop and employ the technologies that will make our Nation and
society a better place. We will work to develop technology to help
forecast the impact of storms on one continent upon the crop production
on another; we will work to trace and predict the patterns of mosquito-
borne diseases, and study climate, geography and the environment--all
in an effort to understand the multiple systems of our planet and our
impact upon it.
Our mission's second theme is to explore the universe and search
for life. NASA will seek to develop the advanced technologies,
robotics, and science that eventually will enable us to explore and
seek firsthand the answers and the science behind our most fundamental
inquiries. If we are to achieve such ambitious objectives, there is
much we still must learn and many technical challenges that must be
conquered.
For example, today's rockets that have been the engine of
exploration since the inception of space travel are today at the limit
of what they can deliver. Propulsion is only one of the challenges
facing further exploration of space. The physical challenges incurred
by our space explorers also must be better defined. We still do not
know or understand the long-term effects of radiation and exposure to a
microgravity environment upon the human body. The infant steps we have
taken via the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station have
given us many answers to explore, but they have yielded even more
questions for us to consider.
Our third mission objective is to inspire the next generation of
explorers. America often looks to NASA to help our Nation build an
unequalled pool of scientific and technical talent. NASA accepts that
responsibility and in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Education, the National Science Foundation, other Federal agencies, and
industry and educational partners, we will work to motivate our
Nation's youth to embrace the study of mathematics, science and
engineering disciplines. To emphasize the important role that education
plays at NASA, last year we established a new Education Enterprise. The
Education Enterprise will unify the educational programs in NASA's
other five enterprises and at our 10 Field Centers under a One NASA
Education vision. NASA's Education imperative will permeate and be
embedded within all the Agency's initiatives. The dedicated people in
this new Enterprise will work to inspire more students to pursue the
study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and
ultimately to choose careers in aeronautics and space-related fields.
Without the scholars to take the study of these disciplines to their
next level, the missions we seek to lead remain bound to the launch
pad. As the U.S. Department of Labor has reported, the opportunities in
the technology sector are expected to quadruple in this decade.
Unfortunately, the pool of college students enrolled in mathematics,
science and engineering courses continues to decline. NASA faces
similar challenges with having the scientific and engineering workforce
necessary to fulfill its missions.
Our mission statement concludes with the statement, ``as only NASA
can.'' Our Agency is one of the Nation's leading research and
technology Federal agencies. We possess some of our Nation's most
unique tools, capabilities and expertise. NASA represents a National
asset and investment unparalleled in the world. Nonetheless, to achieve
success in our mission, our activities must focus on those areas where
NASA can make unique contributions. To make the best use of our
workforce and other resources, we must also leverage the unique
contributions of our partners in academia, industry, and other Federal
agencies.
Our commitment to the American taxpayer is to continue providing a
direct and very tangible means of improving life on our planet. We will
overcome challenges and push on in the name of science and in the
pursuit of knowledge to benefit all people. Extending life beyond the
reaches of our Earth is not a process driven by any particular
destination. Rather it is driven by science that will contribute to the
social, economic, and intellectual growth of our society and the people
who make that science possible are our greatest asset.
Workforce Challenges
NASA's ability to fulfill its ambitious mission is dependent on the
quality of its workforce. An Agency is only as strong as its people.
They need to be world-class if they are to be expected to break new
ground in science and technology, explore the universe, or pioneer
exciting discoveries here on Earth and beyond. Being ``good enough''
will not suffice; NASA needs the best and the brightest to build a
world-class workforce. This means that NASA requires not only a broad
pool of scientists and engineers who form the core of our workforce,
but also highly competent professionals who can support NASA's
technical programs, and address the Agency's financial, human capital,
acquisition, business management, and equal opportunity challenges.
Today, NASA faces an increasing management challenge in attracting,
hiring, and retaining the talented men and women who, inspired by our
amazing discoveries and innovations of the past 4 decades, will help
mold the future of our Nation's aeronautics and space programs. As a
Nation, we must ensure that the Agency continues to have the scientific
and technical expertise necessary to preserve our role as the world's
leader in aeronautics, space and Earth science, and emerging technology
research. The President already has indicated his commitment to the
strategic management of human capital in the Federal workforce, by
making this imperative, first on in his Management Agenda. In fact, the
resident's Management Agenda specifically references the human capital
challenge that NASA faces and related skill imbalances. The President's
recognition of the human capital challenges faced by NASA and other
agencies is shared by the Government Accounting Office, which has
placed the management of human capital as one of the items on the
government-wide ``high-risk list.''
At NASA, we are ready to do our part to make sure that we have the
best people for the job at hand, and to do that we need to manage this
resource efficiently and responsibly, as well as compete favorably in a
very competitive market place. We have developed a Strategic Human
Capital Plan to establish a systematic, Agency-wide approach to human
capital management, aligned with our vision and mission. The Plan
assesses NASA's current state with respect to human capital management,
then goes on to identify goals, barriers, improvement initiatives, and
intended outcomes. The Plan is an integrated approach to address the
concerns of the Administration as well as our internal human capital
needs. We are making progress, as evidenced by our improved ratings on
the President's Management Scorecard.
NASA's ability to implement its mission in science, technology, and
exploration depends on our ability to reconfigure and reconstitute a
world-class workforce--peopled with skilled workers who are
representative of our Nation's strengths. The human capital
flexibilities that we are requesting will help us shape the workforce
necessary to implement our mission today and in the future.
Today, NASA's ability to maintain a world-class workforce with the
talent it needs to perform cutting-edge work is threatened by several
converging trends. Each trend in isolation is a concern; in concert,
the indicators are alarming. We need to address these trends now by
anticipating and mitigating their impact on NASA's workforce in the
near-term and beyond. These indicators could lead to a severe workforce
crisis if we do not take prompt action. The warning signs are here, and
we are paying attention. Many of our planned actions to deal with
threats to our human capital are possible without the aid of Congress;
but some of the solutions require legislation. We are proposing a
number of human capital provisions, which the Administration believes
are crucial steps toward averting a workforce crisis.
The trends I'd like to discuss with you today fall into two broad
categories. First, there are trends that affect the nationwide labor
market, and the applicant pool from which we draw our workers. These
indicators affect other employers, not just NASA, and point to
worsening employee pipeline issues in the future. Secondly, I would
like to address a number of NASA--specific demographics. Coupled with
the nationwide issues we face, the NASA picture shows us that we need
to take action and take it now.
Nationwide Trends
The Shrinking Scientist and Engineer (S&E) Pipeline
There is growing evidence that the pipeline for tomorrow's
scientists and engineers is shrinking. We are facing a critical
shortage of students pursuing degrees in disciplines of critical
importance to NASA--science, mathematics, and engineering. Several
recent National Science Foundation reports document a disturbing trend:
the science and engineering (S&E) pipeline has been shrinking over the
past decade. This trend begins at the undergraduate level and extends
through the ranks of doctoral candidates. Here are some statistics that
illustrate what currently is happening to the S&E pipeline:
Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment--The number of
students enrolling in undergraduate engineering decreased by more than
20% between 1983 and 1999. [National Science Board, Science and
Engineering Indicators-2002, Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2002 (NSB-02-01)]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6741.001
Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment Trend
Graduate S&E Enrollment--Engineering graduate enrollment
also declined from a high in 1992 of 128,854 to 105,006 in 1999.
Graduate enrollment in the physical sciences, earth sciences, and
mathematics also showed a downturn between 1993 and 2000. [National
Science Foundation Data Brief. Growth Continued in 2000 in Graduate
Enrollment in Science and Engineering Fields (NSF-02-306), December 21,
2001)]
Post-Graduate S&E Enrollment--By the year 2000, the
number of doctorates awarded annually in engineering had declined by
15% from its mid-decade peak; since 1994, the number of doctorates in
physics declined by 22%. Even in mathematics and computer science--
where job opportunities are on the rise--the number of doctorates
awarded declined in 1999 and 2000. [National Science Foundation Info
Brief. Declines in U.S. Doctorate Awards in Physics and Engineering
(NSF-02-316), April 2002]
Foreign S&E Enrollment--40% of the graduate students in
America's engineering, mathematics, and computer science programs are
foreign nationals. In the natural sciences, the number of non-citizens
is nearly 1 in 4. When we concentrate on engineering graduate students
who are U.S. citizens, the number of enrollees declined precipitously
between 1993 and 1999: from more than 77,000 to just over 60,000, a 23%
drop in under a decade. [National Science Board, Science and
Engineering Indicators-2002, Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2002 (NSB-02-01)]
Aerospace Enrollment--Graduate enrollment in aerospace
engineering has declined steadily in recent years--from 4,036 in 1992
to 3,407 in 2000, pointing to a diminishing interest in aerospace as a
career. [National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-
2002, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2002 (NSB-02-01) and
National Science Foundation Data Brief. Growth Continued in 2000 in
Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Fields (NSF-02-306),
December 21, 2001)]
NASA is not alone in its search for enthusiastic, qualified
employees representative of the best that our Nation has to offer.
Throughout the Federal Government, as well as the private sector, the
challenge faced by a lack of scientists and engineers is real and is
growing by the day. The situation is summarized in the Hart-Rudman
Commission's Final Report issued last year: ``The harsh fact is that
the US need for the highest quality human capital in science,
mathematics, and engineering is not being met.''
The nationwide trends I have described have great significance to
NASA since the Agency relies on a highly educated and broad science and
engineering workforce: nearly 60% of the total NASA workforce is S&E,
and fully half of those employees have Masters or Doctorate degrees.
Increased Competition for Technical Skills
At the same time that the national S&E pipeline is shrinking, the
demand for the technical skills NASA needs is increasing. The job
market in the S&E occupations is projected to increase dramatically
over the next ten years. The need for technical expertise no longer is
confined to the technical industries that have been traditional
competitors. NASA will face competition from new arenas as graduates in
the S&E fields now are sought after by the banking industry,
entertainment industry, and elsewhere in career fields not
traditionally considered as primary choices for technical graduates. In
the academic sector, traditionally not a competitor, we find ourselves
vying for the same high-level technical workers. America's top schools
now offer very competitive salaries to academicians with world-class
skills--the same skills NASA seeks. Specifically, here are some of the
trends that the Nation is seeing in the job market:
Increasing S&E Positions--The Bureau of Labor Statistics
projects that employment in the fields of science and engineering is
expected to increase about 3 times faster than the rate for all
occupations between 2000 and 2010, mostly in computer-related
occupations. Increases in engineering and the physical sciences are
projected at 20% and 15%, respectively. [National Science Board.
Science and Engineering Indicators-20G2, Arlington. VA: National
Science Foundation, 2002 (NSB-02-01)]
Increasing S&E Retirements--This report also notes that
with current retirement patterns, the total number of retirements among
S&E-degreed workers will increase dramatically over the next 20 years.
More than half of S&E-degreed workers are age 40 or older, and the 40-
44 age group is nearly 4 times as large as the 60-64 age group. As
employers seek to fill vacancies created by these retirements,
competition for quality S&E workers will intensify.
Low Interest in Government Employment--According to an
October 2001 Hart-Teeter poll, the lowest levels of interest in
government employment were found among college-educated and
professional workers. Only 16% of college-educated workers express
significant interest in working for the Federal Government, and a like
number of professionals and managers would opt for a government job. In
contrast, the poll also revealed that positive perceptions of private
sector work increased dramatically among those with formal education.
This indicates that NASA will face a significant challenge in trying to
attract experienced mid and senior level professionals to the Agency.
NASA Demographics and Trends
Current Skills Imbalances, Gaps, and Lack of Depth Within the NASA
Workforce
The trends I have just outlined are not unique to NASA; we share
them with other employers in the labor market today. Unfortunately, the
difficulties they present to NASA's ability to manage our human capital
are only exacerbated by several Agency-specific threats, warning us
that we need to pay attention to these indicators before they result in
a crisis. The challenge of acquiring and retaining the right workforce
is not a problem of the future--it exists now. The Agency currently has
skill gaps in areas such as nanotechnology, systems engineering,
propulsion systems, advanced engineering technology, and information
technology. In emerging technology areas, NASA projects the need to
employ more civil servants in ``hard to fill'' areas such as
astrobiology, robotics, and fundamental space biology. In other
professional areas such as financial management, acquisition, and
project management, a lack of depth is becoming detrimental to our
ability to manage our resources and programs.
NASA has undergone significant downsizing over the past decade,
reducing its workforce from approximately 25,000 civil servants in FY
1993 to approximately 19,000 today. NASA made every effort to retain
key skills, but in order to avoid involuntary separations in achieving
those reductions, it was not always possible to control the nature of
the attrition. Inevitably, we lost some individuals with skills we
couldn't afford to lose, and now these skills need to be replaced.
Through downsizing and the normal attrition process, we lost key areas
of our institutional knowledge base.
The 2001 report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel made
specific references to NASA's skills deficiencies when they noted the
following:
NASA faces a critical skills challenge in the Shuttle and
International Space Station programs despite resumption of active
recruitment.
The Agency must ensure the availability of critical
skills, using appropriate incentives when necessary to recruit and
retain employees.
Recent downsizing and hiring limitations by the Agency
may cause a future shortage of experienced leadership.
The shortage of experienced, highly skilled workers has
contributed to increases in workforce stress.
Unfortunately, NASA's need to reinvigorate the workforce with the
right skills and abilities is occurring at the very time in which
competition for workers with those skills is intense.
Potential Significant Loss of Knowledge Due to Retirements within the
S&E Workforce
I have just discussed the skills imbalances that NASA faces today.
The situation promises to worsen with time. New skills imbalances will
occur over the next several years as the aging workforce reaches
retirement eligibility. Approximately 15% of NASA's S&E employees are
eligible to retire now. Within 5 years, almost 25% of the current
workforce will be eligible to retire. Historical attrition patterns
suggest that the percentage of those eligible for retirement should
remain level at around 15-16% each year. In an Agency where the
expertise is not as deep as we would like it to be, even a few
retirements can be critical. Everywhere I go across the NASA Centers, I
hear the same story: ``We're only one-deep. We can't afford to lose
that skill.'' Clearly the Agency must begin preparing for its projected
workforce needs now since a quarter of its senior engineers and
scientists will depart this decade and the job market is far more
competitive than in the past.
Another way to look at the potential loss of knowledge is to
examine NASA's current S&E profile. At this time, within the S&E
workforce, NASA's over-60 population outnumbers its under-30 population
by nearly 3 to 1. The age contrast is even more dramatic at some NASA
Centers, at 5 to 1I! By comparison, in 1993 the under-30 S&E workforce
was nearly double the number of over-60 workers. This is an alarming
trend that demands our immediate attention with decisive action if we
are to preserve NASA's aeronautics and space capabilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6741.002
Increased Recruitment and Retention Problems
The last NASA trend I want to discuss with you today involves the
evidence of increased difficulty of recruiting and retaining employees.
Historically, NASA has enjoyed unusually low attrition rates, due in
part to the attraction of our unique mission and the fact that our
employees simply love their work and stay on the job longer than the
typical worker. However, one recent trend is of concern. We have noted
a change in the attrition pattern among NASA's most recent hires.
Compared to an overall attrition rate of just under 4% for all S&E's,
the departure rate for S&E's hired since 1993 is nearly double--despite
the fact that in the fall of 2000 the Agency completed downsizing.
Our challenge continues once we manage to hire personnel. Although
our historical attrition rates are low, we notice an alarming
development among our youngest S&E population. After factoring out the
55+-retirement eligibility group, attrition among the S&E workforce is
highest in the 25-39 age group. This phenomenon has a multi-faceted
impact on NASA. It represents a lost investment for the Agency; shrinks
the potential pool of future leaders and managers; and skews the
average age of S&E workforce toward retirement eligibility age.
Help is Needed
All of these trends provide immediate warning signals that
significant measures must be taken to address workforce imperatives
that ultimately impact mission capability. We cannot resolve these new
and emerging problems with past solutions, nor are current personnel
flexibilities adequate.
To address the human capital challenges I have outlined for you
today, NASA needs additional tools. We have used the ones we have and
we have been innovative and imaginative but we need the Congress'
assistance. Specifically, we need to:
Encourage students to pursue careers in science and
technology
Compete successfully with the private sector to attract
and retain a world-class workforce.
Reshape the workforce to address skills imbalances and
gaps, and
Leverage outside expertise to address skills gaps and
strengthen NASA's mission capability.
Each request in the legislative proposal will be carefully crafted
to enhance NASA's ability to manage our human capital efficiently and
effectively, in concert with the mandate of the President's Management
Agenda--and plain old-fashioned good, sound management. Many of these
provisions have been implemented by other agencies (such as the
Department of Defense in their demonstration projects, and the Internal
Revenue Service through their reform legislation). Without these
legislative tools, NASA's challenges will soon become its crisis in
human capital management.
Legislative Proposals
We are proposing several legislative provisions to address the
threat to the S&E pipeline. The Scholarship for Service program would
offer college scholarships to students pursuing undergraduate and
graduate degrees in science, engineering, mathematics, or technology.
In return, the students would fulfill a service requirement with NASA
following their graduation, thus providing a return on our investment.
Current statutes do not allow a service obligation for scholarship
recipients.
The NASA Industry Exchange Program, modeled on the very successful
Intergovernmental Personnel Act authority, introduces a means for NASA
to engage in mutually beneficial, collaborate ventures with industry to
infuse new ideas and perspectives into the Agency, develop new skills
within the workforce, and strengthen mission capabilities. Without such
an authority, talented individuals from industry remain an untapped
resource for the Agency since the salaries and benefits of the Federal
sector are not competitive with the compensation packages offered to
industry's most talented workers. Assignments would be limited to 2
years, with a 2-year extension, and would be subject to the full range
of Federal criminal laws in title 18, including public corruption
offenses, and adhere to current statutes covering government ethics,
conflicts of interest, and procurement integrity. The Information
Technology Exchange Program, established in the E-Government Act of
2002, which was passed by the House during the last Congress,
represents a similar endeavor to establish an exchange program between
the Federal Government and the private sector in order to promote the
development of expertise in information technology management, and for
other purposes.
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Personnel Act authority to permit
assignments up to 6 years (rather than 4) is another tool that will
facilitate knowledge transfer--an important goal of an Agency that must
sustain its intellectual capital. This flexibility will allow
individuals from academia or other institutions to continue working in
support of long-term projects or programs when the need for continuity
is critical.
Enhanced recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses will help
us with enhanced authority to offer financial incentives to individuals
to come to work for us, to relocate to take on a new assignment, or to
remain with the Agency instead of leaving to pursue a more lucrative
job opportunity or retiring. Current bonus authority offers up to 25%
of basic pay, and has proved useful--to a point. Our proposal would
base bonuses on the higher locality pay salaries, allow greater amounts
when coupled with longer service agreements, and make more flexible
payment options available (such as a choice between up front payments,
installments, and payments at the conclusion of an assignment). These
payment options could be tailored to the situation at hand, and tie
payment of the incentive to actual performance.
The enhanced annual leave provisions are targeted particularly to
mid-career hires, who likely would give up attractive vacation packages
to become first-time Federal employees. Rather than starting out with
the minimal annual leave benefits available in current law, these
provisions would permit all senior executives to accrue annual leave at
the maximum rate; and permit crediting new employees with up to 10 days
of annual leave as a recruitment incentive. These flexibilities help
NASA to compete with the compensation packages available to private
sector employers.
The term appointment authority is used extensively within the
Agency to support many NASA programs and projects. It is useful for
work of a time-limited duration, and it allows the Agency to terminate
employment without adverse action when the need for the work/
competencies wanes. The bill's provision to allow a limited number of
term appointments to be extended up to 6 years, rather than 4, will
enhance its usefulness by accommodating the length of some NASA
programs and projects. In addition, the bill provides that a term
employee may be converted to a permanent position in the same line of
work without further competition, provided the employee was initially
hired under a competitive process and the public notice specified the
potential for conversion. This provision does not alter any feature or
principle of the competitive process, but eliminates the need for
duplicative competition. Ultimately it may make the concept of term
appointments more attractive to potential applicants and thereby
provide a more robust labor pool for NASA management to consider.
Conversions of term employees to permanent positions that differ from
the position for which the employee initially competed would require
internal competition.
In order to attract world-class talent into NASA's most essential
positions, we propose changes to the authority to pay employees in
critical positions. We seek authority to grant critical pay for up to
10 positions per year, subject to approval by the NASA Administrator,
with pay up to that of the Vice President (currently $198,600). These
enhancements will help us compete in an enormously competitive job
market. The provisions raising the annual compensation cap for NASA
excepted employees appointed under the Space Act from Level IV of the
Executive Schedule to Level III will address this need as well. Based
on the current pay scale, this would allow an increase from $134,000 to
$142,500.
Separation incentives (``buyouts'') are a valuable tool to
encourage voluntary attrition as the Agency rebalances skills and
reshapes its workforce. NASA needs the tools to encourage targeted
attrition in areas in which the need for certain skills has diminished
so that it can recruit and reshape a workforce that is aligned to
current and future mission needs. The Homeland Security Act provides
authority to pay up to $25,000. However, we have found that this amount
is not always enough to entice highly paid NASA professionals to leave;
the typical NASA employee stays on the job longer than average and is
dedicated to the work. Our proposal would allow NASA to pay buyouts up
to 50% of base salary to a limited number of employees, under
circumstances outlined in our Agency plan.
Finally, the streamlined demonstration authority provision provides
the Agency with an effective and extensively tested mechanism for
pursuing additional human resources innovations in response to changing
workforce needs. A number of agencies, notably the Department of
Defense and Department of Agriculture, have operated highly successful
projects. Unfortunately, the legal requirements to initiate a
demonstration project are daunting. Current law limits ``demo''
projects to 5,000 employees, requires multiple Federal Register
notices, a public hearing, and a 180-day notice to affected employees.
Once an agency successfully tests a system, it must seek additional
legislation to make that system permanent. The authority we are seeking
would remove the coverage limit to allow widespread testing of new
ideas, and shorten the steps to implement a project. Once a project
proves successful, the Office of Personnel Management could approve
conversion from a demo to a permanent alternative personnel system
without further legislation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, each of these
legislative provisions when taken individually will only help NASA deal
with its human capital strategic threats to a limited degree. However,
when taken together as an integrated package they form a strong nucleus
in support of the Agency's Strategic Human Capital Plan and the
President's Management Agenda, and will be invaluable as we deal with a
diminishing pipeline, recruitment and retention of a world-class
workforce, and skills imbalances. With these tools in hand, we will be
able to avert a serious human capital crisis at NASA.
The missions we seek to lead and make possible are the visions that
we all have for our future--new launch systems, innovations in high-
performance computing, advances in biological research and exploration
of our cosmos that extend our lives and way of life out there. Those
things can only happen if we have the people that can make them happen.
Technology and exploration will go nowhere without the human know-how
and presence to make today's impossible into tomorrow's reality. After
meeting and working with many of the men and women of NASA during the
past year, I know we can do those things and I look forward to working
with you and sharing the rewards of your investment and trust in us.
__________
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SEN. AKAKA FROM
ADMINISTRATOR O'KEEFE
Question 1:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
workforce proposals include flexibilities relating to the recruitment,
compensation, and management of its workforce. One of these proposals
would provide the broad authority to establish a new demonstration
personnel system for the entire NASA workforce. Under current law,
agencies are authorized to implement demonstration projects for up to
5,000 employees. NASA's in-house workforce currently consists of about
20,000 workers.
What type of authority would you test under this new personnel
system that is not included along with your other workforce proposals?
Answer 1:
Specific proposals would be developed in collaboration with
employees, unions, and managers--focusing on those flexibilities that
are most needed to address NASA's human capital challenges and achieve
the Agency's strategic and programmatic goals. We have learned from the
positive experiences other agencies (including the Department of
Defense, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department
of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture) have had with their
demonstration projects. We may find it beneficial initially to develop
proposals similar to some of the successfully tested flexibilities
implemented in past and current demonstration projects, tailoring them
to meet the specific workforce challenges NASA faces. We are likely to
look closely at various compensation and hiring tools that have been
used in those demonstration projects.
Question 2:
Last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a study on
the effective use of managerial flexibilities. GAO noted that the
manner in which agencies utilize these flexibilities is just as
important as which flexibilities are made available. In fact, the
report concluded that inefficient and ineffective use of personnel
flexibilities can significantly hinder the ability of Federal agencies
to recruit, hire, retain, and manage their workforce.
How will you ensure that NASA uses the additional flexibilities you
have requested effectively?
Answer 2:
The GAO study provides very sound recommended practices for
implementing human capital flexibilities effectively; these
recommendations have served as a useful guide in our planning for the
use of additional tools.
The study notes the importance of ensuring that the use of
flexibilities is part of an overall human capital strategy clearly
linked to an agency's program goals, along with a plan for using and
funding the authorities. NASA places great importance on the need to
have an effective human capital strategy. On OMB's most recent
Executive Management Scorecard for strategic management of human
capital, NASA was one of only six Federal agencies rated ``yellow'',
and received an assessment of ``green'' in recognition of successful
progress made in this area.
Our use of such flexibilities would be aligned with our human
capital strategy--which is documented in our approved Strategic Human
Capital Plan and its companion Strategic Human Capital Implementation
Plan. These plans represent an integrated, systematic, Agency wide
approach to human capital management, and identify our human capital
goals, challenges, improvement initiatives and intended outcomes. In
developing these plans, we identified flexibilities and authorities
that the Agency may need to pursue through legislation in order to most
effectively achieve our human capital goals and outcomes; they are
included as an appendix to the Implementation Plan and many of them are
incorporated into S. 610, the NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003.
Appropriate and successful use of new flexibilities must be based
on analysis of current workforce needs. We are developing an Agency
wide, integrated workforce planning and analysis system, with a
competency management system component. This component will facilitate
a more comprehensive identification of our workforce competency
strengths and weaknesses so that we can more effectively align our
workforce to the mission. The analyses generated from these tools will
enable NASA to use new flexibilities in a strategic way.
The GAO report also notes the importance of streamlining and
improving administrative processes for using flexibilities. NASA's
actions demonstrate commitment to this objective. Over a year ago NASA
launched a ``Freedom to Manage'' initiative to solicit ideas from the
workforce for removing bureaucratic barriers and giving managers and
employees more flexibility to do their jobs. Employees were encouraged
to identify practices, internal regulations, government regulations,
and statutes that impose needless impediments. This on-going effort has
resulted in streamlining Agency procedures and delegating more
authorities, wherever the changes could be effected by modifying Agency
practices, policies, and regulations. In those instances in which
removing impediments to effective management required changes to
Federal regulations or statutes, we assessed whether such changes
should be pursued. Many of the provisions in our human capital
legislative package were developed through this process, in response to
the input we received from the Freedom to Manage effort.
The Freedom to Manage initiative actively seeks input from the
Agency workforce at all levels. Town Hall meetings have been held at
all Centers to stimulate discussion and encourage suggestions. NASA
created a website devoted exclusively to the Freedom to Manage
initiative, with a mechanism for submitting suggestions easily and
anonymously.
This effort led to other benefits. It encouraged employees at all
levels to become engaged in reviewing and suggesting improvements to
policies and procedures. In addition, the on-going discussions served
to educate managers and employees on existing authorities and their
use. These are practices the GAO study indicated are also necessary to
successful implementation of human capital flexibilities. If NASA is
authorized to use additional flexibilities, we will build upon these
approaches in working with employees, unions, and managers in
implementing changes.
Also critical to effective implementation of new flexibilities is
ensuring that there are clear and equitable guidelines for using the
tools--while ensuring that managers are accountable for their use. We
would engage appropriate stakeholders from all Centers in developing
internal policies and procedures for their use. A change management
strategy, incorporating communications strategies, will be developed to
ensure that the workforce understands the reasons for, and nature of,
the changes. As suggested above, this dialogue has been initiated to a
limited extent through the Freedom to Manage actions; many of the
legislative provisions we seek were proposed through the Freedom to
Manage discussions at our Centers.
Question 3:
During the 1990's, NASA underwent significant downsizing, which has
contributed to overall staffing shortages. According to the Comptroller
General's testimony before the House Science Committee last year,
``many key areas were not sufficiently staffed by quality workers, and
the remaining workforce showed signs of overwork and fatigue.'' Just
this year, GAO reported that staffing shortages remain a concern and
threaten NASA's operational safety and effectiveness.
Would you recommend increasing overall in-house staff levels at
NASA, and if not, why?
Answer 3:
In 1999 the Agency conducted a NASA-wide Core Capability
Assessment, a center-by-center analysis to identify workforce and
infrastructure requirements. One of the objectives of the review was to
help chart a strategy that would provide the OSF Centers with the
requisite flexibility to attract and retain the critical skills
necessary to ensure safe mission and program success. Over the past few
years, the OSF Centers have been able to hire additional personnel to
fill some of those critical areas. Additional personnel may be required
if the Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommends new Shuttle
program requirements.
Question 4:
Staffing levels and contractor oversight has been a concern at NASA
for sometime. In 1995, your predecessor, Dan Goldin, stated that NASA
staffing levels were the same as they were in 1961. GAO reported this
year that staffing shortages threaten NASA's operational safety and
that NASA does not have the processes and mechanisms in place to
oversee contracted operations.
Do you believe NASA has the staffing levels required to inspect and
oversee the operations of its contractor workforce effectively?
Answer 4:
We have a complement of skilled and dedicated civil servants and
contractors who are fully able to perform the work required to ensure
the continued safety and viability of our space program. Additional
personnel may be required if the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
recommends new Shuttle program requirements.
Question 5:
On February 3, 2003, a NASA spokesman said that findings from the
Rand Corporation report entitled Alternate Trajectories: Options for
Competitive Sourcing of the Space Shuttle Program would be considered
only after the investigation into the Columbia disaster was complete.
Competitive sourcing is not a NASA-only objective, but part of the
President's Management Agenda and NASA progress with meeting the
milestones in the agenda is determined by Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). According to the Management Agenda, the administration
will, identify mismanaged, wasteful, or duplicative government
programs, with an eye to cutting their funding, redesigning them, or
eliminating them altogether NASA received a green light on progress
made for competitive sourcing but received a red for overall status.
Answer 5:
As of this date, NASA has exercised a 2-year extension option to
the current Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC), which carries the
contract through October 2004. NASA's FY 2004 budget does not provide
for ``privatization alternatives,'' but rather assumes continued
exploration of alternatives for competitive sourcing of Space Shuttle
flight operations. Further examination of Shuttle competitive sourcing
options is being held in abeyance until the Gehman Board
recommendations are received and assessed. It would be premature for
NASA to propose any detailed plans for Shuttle competitive sourcing
prior to receipt of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
conclusions.
Question 6:
Do you believe that a delay in implementing a long-term outsourcing
plan will hurt NASA's future OMB rating, thus leading to budget cuts in
the coming years? Have you received assurances from OMB that any delays
in competitive sourcing policies would not be held against NASA?
Answer 6:
A delay in incorporating the Space Shuttle in NASA's competitive
sourcing plan is unlikely to be held against the agency. Even without
the Space Shuttle, NASA has already developed an interim competitive
sourcing plan that achieves the President's government-wide, 15
percent, near-term competitive sourcing goal. And NASA's final
competitive sourcing plan to achieve the government-wide, 40 percent,
long-term competitive sourcing goal is under development.
Question 7:
Once NASA decides on a competitive sourcing option and begins to
move more jobs to the private sector, what do you believe will be the
key metric used by OMB to determine success? Do you believe it will be
the number of jobs moved, overall financial savings, or increased
safety?
Answer 7:
It is not clear at this time that the Space Shuttle competitive
sourcing decision will move more jobs to the private sector. It is
still early in the process and NASA intends to move cautiously and
prudently in developing a Space Shuttle competitive sourcing plan. A
key metric used by NASA and OMB to measure success is not the number of
jobs moved but the number of jobs exposed to competition. The
competitive sourcing initiative is not about downsizing or outsourcing
but about exposing the government's commercial activities to
competition in order to cause the government to operate more
effectively and efficiently. Safety is of paramount concern to NASA and
has been and will be the most important consideration in the
development of any competitive sourcing plan for the Shuttle program.
However, it is important to note that Space Shuttle contractors have no
less incentive than the civil servant workforce for ensuring safe
Shuttle flight operations.
Question 8:
The RAND Corporation's 2002 report on options for competitive
sources of the Space Shuttle Program proposed a three-key safety
process whereby the launch of a space shuttle could not take place
without the concurrence of NASA, an Independent Safety Assurance
Office, and the contractor.
How will you ensure that NASA maintains the expertise necessary for
proper oversight if more operational responsibilities are shifted to
private contractors? Will NASA be an informed party to a three-key
safety process?
Answer 8:
The idea of an Independent Safety Assurance Office was a concept
proposed by the RAND-led Task Force, should NASA decide to further
reduce our role in Shuttle operations. NASA currently accomplishes the
independent safety assurance function through the Office of Safety and
Mission Assurance, and recognizes the importance of maintaining an
independent safety assurance function for the future. Should there be a
decision in the future to shift more operational responsibilities to
private contractors, one of the key factors for developing such a plan
will be to assure that there is sufficient expertise to fulfill the
oversight role. NASA is still evaluating the best course of action to
take for the future of the Shuttle Program and has not made any final
decisions in this regard.
Question 9:
Making the Independent Safety Assurance Office a partner in a
three-key safety process shows the importance that independent
assessment plays in terms of ensuring safety, free of either launch
pressures or concerns of profitability. Indeed, an Independent Safety
Assurance Office would provide an added dimension to shuttle safety,
provide oversight of both NASA and contractor safety practices, and
help design practices to continually improve shuttle safety.
Is there room in the NASA budget for such an office?
Answer 9:
The NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance was structured to
provide just such an independent safety assurance function. This
organization is headed by the Associate Administrator for Safety and
Mission Assurance, who reports directly to the NASA Administrator. The
Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance is free of
both launch schedule and Program budgetary pressures, and participates
directly in the review and concurrence process for each Shuttle launch.
Question 10:
In addition to the four outsourcing options and two privatization
options noted in the RAND report, RAND also examined using a national
Space Authority to ensure safety in the Space Shuttle Program while
moving ahead with management reform. In its report, RAND stated, ``an
authority typically is established in circumstances where inherent
barriers to competition, or other flaws in the market setting make the
ideal of purely commercial supply unachievable.'' For example,
authorities are seen in municipal or regional transportation entities
and finance and service industries. Often an authority is viewed as a
pseudo-governmental institution as a result its creation might be
construed as a step backwards from the notion of competitive sourcing.
Are you considering this option even though it may conflict with
the President's Management Agenda?
Answer 10:
The RAND-led Task Force offered a broad array of possible
organizational structures to accomplish Shuttle competitive sourcing.
The report indicates that the concept of a Space Authority would be the
most challenging to implement. NASA has reviewed the findings and
recommendations of the RAND report along with other studies and
reports, which have also addressed this subject. In addition, we
anticipate that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board may also
offer findings and recommendations on how NASA should structure the
future of the Shuttle Program. NASA will consider all of this data and
information as it formulates planning for the future operation of the
Space Shuttle Program in coordination with the Administration and
Congress.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SEN. CARPER FROM
ADMINISTRATOR O'KEEFE
Question 1:
In your legislative proposal, you ask for increased authority to
hire certain kinds of workers on a temporary basis without going
through the competitive hiring process laid out in current law. As you
know, Congress, through the Homeland Security Act, gave Federal
managers government-wide the option of abandoning current competitive
hiring procedures in favor of a categorical hiring system. This system
has been tested at the Department of Agriculture and has allowed
managers to make new hires quicker than they can under the current
system. Does NASA plan to make use of the new hiring authority granted
them under the Homeland Security Act? How? Finally, how is this new
authority inadequate in meeting NASA's hiring needs?
Answer 1:
NASA has been very supportive of the concept of a category rating
system as an approach that streamlines the hiring process while
preserving veterans' preference. We certainly will use this methodology
and we are assessing the changes that need to be made in our automated
staffing system and our internal regulations to use it effectively.
Although the category rating approach represents a valuable
flexibility in the hiring process, additional tools are needed to
address specific workforce issues facing NASA. The proposals regarding
term appointments and the Distinguished Scholar Appointment Authority
illustrate this point.
Term Appointment Authority
Many of NASA's scientific and technical projects are of limited
duration (e.g., 3-6 years), so the Agency may hire term employees for
the anticipated time of the project. These term employees are hired
under the same rules and procedures of competition as permanent
employees. However, term employees cannot be converted to permanent
status without going through exactly the same competitive application,
evaluation and selection process they underwent when being hired for
the term positions. This is true even in those situations in which a
permanent position becomes available in the same line of work and the
same organization as the term position for which initially hired.
Requiring the term employee to apply for an essentially identical
permanent position in the same organization is a duplicative effort
that wastes time and is frustrating to the employee.
For that reason, we propose permitting a term employee to be
converted to a career-conditional appointment, without further
competition, if certain conditions are met. The employee must have been
selected for the term position under competitive examining procedures;
the competitive announcement must have stated that there is potential
for conversion to permanent status; and the conversion must be to a
position in the same occupation, same location, and with the same
promotion potential. If the position is not essentially identical, then
the term employee must apply for consideration under internal merit
promotion competition.
Although a category rating system will streamline the competitive
hiring process, we believe that under the very specific circumstances
described above it is not necessary to make a term employee re-apply
through the competitive examining process at all, since it is
duplicative of the process he/she already underwent.
Distinguished Scholar Appointment Authority
The Distinguished Scholar Appointment authority is a hiring
authority that could be used only in appointing individuals to
positions identified by OPM as requiring education and training in the
principles, concepts, and theories of the occupation that typically can
be gained only through completion of a specified curriculum at a
college or university. These are commonly referred to as positions that
have a ``positive education requirement.'' For some scientist and
engineer positions within NASA, the Agency seeks candidates who are
recent, exceptional graduates with a specific degree (undergraduate or
graduate) directly related to the position. Often such candidates have
no professional work experience in the field for which they are being
hired since they have just graduated--but their academic
accomplishments make them highly desirable candidates for the position.
Traditional examining methods may unintentionally favor candidates
with experience, failing to give due weight to academic
accomplishments. The Distinguished Scholar recruitment authority would
appear to be an appropriate way to make qualitative distinctions among
graduating engineers and scientists who lack work experience but have
impressive academic credentials. It could be used in those situations
in which NASA is targeting its recruitment toward fresh out science and
engineering graduates, rather than experienced scientists and
engineers.
The category rating methodology would continue to be used in
external hiring for many scientists and engineering positions--
particularly those in which experience is desired.
Question 2:
In your legislative proposal, you ask for the authority to offer
significantly more in recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses
than you can under current law. Has NASA made use of these bonuses in
the past? How have they been used? Why is the amount you are allowed to
offer today insufficient? If you are given the authority to offer more,
how will this authority be used?
Answer 2:
NASA has utilized ``the 3 R's'' when appropriate to recruit and
retain high quality individuals, when salary just isn't enough. For
example, recruitment bonuses may be used at the entry level to entice
``fresh out'' engineers who are receiving competing offers from private
companies that far exceed what NASA can pay in base salary. In other
cases, the recruitment bonus may be offered to a mid-level engineer or
scientist from the private sector as a means of offering a compensation
package that is competitive with the individual's current employer.
Generally, such a bonus is combined with a salary offer at an advanced
step on the General Schedule pay scale, based on the qualifications of
the candidate. The bonus is an attractive incentive to sweeten the
offer, and is a one-time cost to NASA.
Relocation bonuses have been useful in compensating NASA employees
who relocate between our Centers. Over the past decade, several hundred
employees changed geographic locations to accommodate program changes,
downsizing, and more effective distribution of skills. Such movements
serve the Agency's need to broaden the perspective of its workers and
managers, as well as enhance the capabilities of the individual. Many
employees find it difficult to uproot family and move to a new area in
mid-career, especially when moving to a higher cost area. Although
travel and transportation costs are provided, the government travel
reimbursements do not completely cover the actual costs of some high-
cost moves. Relocation bonuses have made the difference to facilitate
moves of employees--including senior managers--between geographic
locations. Without the option of providing this bonus, it is doubtful
that many of these employees would have agreed to relocate to accept
these jobs.
In an Agency with a ``mature'' workforce, it is vital to sustain
our critical knowledge base and essential competencies. Retention
allowances have proven a valuable tool to convince valuable employees
who are contemplating retirement or being wooed by the private sector
to stay on at NASA if program needs require their continued knowledge
and leadership. For example, one NASA Center has used a retention
allowance to retain a senior executive in supercomputing and
intelligent systems that had been offered numerous attractive job
offers, including Vice-President for Engineering at a high-tech company
and Vice Chancellor positions at two universities.
Despite the use of these incentives, there are cases where the
current authority is not sufficient to meet our needs. Here are a few
compelling examples of NASA recruitment and retention problems:
A NASA Center lost a key individual last year--the head
of an Advanced Supercomputing Division--to the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. The lab offered a salary increase of almost $40,000 and, in
addition, the job was located in a much lower cost of living area. This
was a significant loss to the Agency; the employee had been with the
Agency since 1986, had experience at two Centers, and was highly
respected.
A NASA Center attempted to recruit an impressive
candidate for nanotechnology research. He had a Ph.D. in chemistry from
Scripps Research Institute and three years of Postdoctoral Fellow
research at Harvard University in which he specialized in the
development of micro fabrication techniques using mesoscale self-
assembly. These were competencies highly desired by that Center.
Despite being offered a salary at an advanced step of his grade, along
with a recruitment bonus, he declined the offer due to the high cost of
living in that area. NASA's compensation package simply wasn't
adequate.
One NASA Center is in danger of losing one of their
brightest recruits in the last two years. The employee has a Ph.D. from
Yale University School of Medicine and conducted Postdoctoral Fellow
research in DNA sequencing at the Stanford Genome Technology Center. He
conducts nanotechnology and DNA/genome research with application to
NASA missions such as the development of medical diagnostics, in vivo
gene detection and astronaut health monitoring. He is heavily recruited
by organizations such as Intel Corporation and by Yale University with
starting salaries at approximately $150,000--or more than one and a
halftimes his current salary.
A fresh out Ph.D. candidate from the University of
California at Berkeley declined a job offer from a NASA Center that
included a salary at the top step of the grade and a recruitment bonus.
He was offered a position at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories at a
salary almost $20,000 more than this Center could offer.
Recently, a NASA Center attempted to hire a fresh out
Ph.D. from MIT who had a background in nanotechnology computing.
Despite NASA's salary offer at an advanced rate, combined with a
recruitment bonus, he declined the offer to accept a position with a
small start-up company in one of the Boston high-tech communities.
A NASA Center lost a high quality employee at the GS-14
level to the private sector. The company raised the person's salary by
over 50%, bought his house, moved him to corporate housing, helped him
buy a new house, gave him stock options, and other perks.
These examples may sound unusual, but they are real cases. NASA
needs more flexibility to pay recruitment, relocation, and retention
bonuses so that we do not lose individuals of this caliber. The current
authority works in most cases; but when you deal with people with
world-class skills who are in high demand by companies and
organizations who can offer generous and flexible compensation
packages, it's not enough. Our proposal would allow for payment of
higher bonuses, with flexible payment methods to meet a variety of
needs.
NASA's proposal for a more generous, flexible recruitment/
retention/relocation bonus authority is an enhancement to the existing
government-wide authority, which NASA has used for many years. The
Agency's use of the new authority would not differ from the manner in
which it implements the current authority. Our Centers would continue
to make judicious use of the bonuses, taking into account the need to
attract and retain the very best talent and the need to balance the
costs associated with bonuses against competing needs.
Question 3:
On average, how much more can a graduate with a doctorate in
science or engineering earn in the private sector than they can at
NASA? How will the new pay authority you ask for in your legislative
proposal help close the gap? If, as you say, interest in aerospace work
among qualified graduates is fading, how will NASA's ability to pay
them more enable you to recruit the kind of talent you need?
Answer 3:
According to the recent National Association of Colleges and
Employers (NACE) Salary Survey for 2001-2002, the average ``beginning
offers'' to doctoral graduates for specific engineering disciplines
were as follows:
Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering Electrical $70,506
Electrical/Electronics/Communications Engineering $77,316
Computer Engineering $59,211
By comparison, in 2002, the Federal Government salary rates for
fresh out graduates with doctorates in engineering were:
Aerospace Engineer (non-research) $47,240 to $59,741
Aerospace Engineer (research) $51,624 to $66,609
Electrical/Electronics Engineer (non-research) $48,629 to $61,130
Electrical/Electronics Engineer (research) $54,954 to $69,939
Computer Engineer (non-research) $49,187 to $63,939*
Computer Engineer (research) $56,454 to $73,387*
The Federal salaries are shown as a range, since there are ten
steps within each grade level. An applicant can be offered a salary at
the higher end of the range, if he/she possesses superior
qualifications for the job. Also, the salary scale for computer
engineers differs by geographic region. The salary range for computer
engineer positions reflects most geographic regions in the U.S.;
however, the salary scales are higher in large metropolitan areas such
as San Francisco, New York, Houston, Los Angeles, Boston, Denver,
Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
According to the NACE Salary Survey for 2001-2002, the average
salary representing ``beginning offers'' to doctoral students in the
sciences in 2002 were as follows:
Chemistry $63,168
Mathematics $54,219
Physics $51,936
By comparison, in 2002, the Federal Government salary rates for
fresh out graduates with doctorates in the sciences ranged from $45,285
to $58,867 for non-research positions, and $54,275 to $70,555 for
research positions. Again, the ranges would be higher in certain
metropolitan areas.
It is important to note that the above figures represent starting
salaries for ``fresh out'' graduates--not salaries for engineers and
scientists who have experience in their field subsequent to receiving
the doctorate. Attracting (and retaining) the experienced scientists
and engineers is one of NASA's most difficult human capital challenges.
Our legislative proposals contain several provisions that are intended
to address that challenge.
In addition to the enhanced recruitment/relocation/retention
bonuses, we propose to raise the cap on the salary associated with the
critical pay authority and the NASA Excepted (NEX) authority.
Typically, the NEX authority is used to hire individuals with unique,
exceptional talent needed for critical programs; similarly, the
critical position authority is used in filling positions that require
expertise of an extremely high level in a technical or professional
field, critical to successful accomplishment of our mission. These are
the circumstances in which we need to be able to compensate an
individual at a level commensurate with his/her expertise and at a
level competitive with the private sector.
The provision regarding enhanced travel benefits for new hires,
which would provide new hires with the same travel and relocation
benefits that permanent employees receive when they transfer, would be
particularly beneficial in attracting the mid-career and senior-level
candidates. These employees often are reluctant to accept positions in
different geographic areas--particularly high cost areas--if they
cannot receive reimbursement for many of the costs associated with the
relocation. The ability to offer competitive relocation benefits would
be a great help in attracting talented experienced individuals.
A more generous annual leave benefit for new hires would constitute
a different type of incentive that would be useful in attracting mid-
career and senior-level candidates. Typically, employees at those
levels have accrued substantial vacation benefits in the private
sector, which they would forfeit in coming to the Federal Government.
Many regard this benefit as an important part of the total
``compensation package'' when considering competing job offers.
We recognize that providing a more competitive compensation package
is only part of the solution in addressing the challenge of attracting
high-quality engineers and scientists to the Agency. We must address
one of the underlying causes of the intense competition for technical
talent: the shrinking science and engineering applicant pool. As a
long-term solution we want to guide U.S. students toward science and
engineering careers. Our proposed ``Scholarship for Service''
proposal--along with our many other education initiatives--is intended
to do this.
Question 4:
You say that downsizing that occurred at NASA during the 1990's
left you with a surplus of talent in some areas but with a shortage of
other, more critical workers. Explain to me the nature of the
downsizing effort NASA undertook in the 1990's. Was it a part of a
comprehensive personnel plan? Why did it occur? What kinds of workers
were let go? What kind of work do the surplus workers do?
Answer 4:
During the 1990's, NASA was an agency in transition. NASA embraced
a philosophy of reinvention that extended beyond mandated reductions
and focused on maximizing the efficiency, effectiveness, and vitality
of the Agency. Our managers used these cuts to become more efficient
and more relevant and to make real changes in our thinking, culture,
and products. One of the major changes was a transition away from
operational work and an increased focus on research and development
within NASA.
NASA developed a Human Resources Management Plan designed to take
advantage of available options to meet or exceed current year
downsizing targets and posture the Agency for known future reductions.
NASA was able to achieve its workforce reductions through normal
attrition, hiring restrictions, and several uses of time-limited buyout
offerings, coupled with early retirement incentives. To help our
employees find new jobs in the private sector, we opened Career
Transition Assistance Program (CTAP) Centers at Field locations,
offering help with career planning, skills assessment, interview
techniques, and resume preparation. NASA's downsizing effort was
accomplished without a single involuntary separation, and in that
regard, served as a model for other agencies.
In the early stages of downsizing, NASA offered voluntary
separation incentives to employees in all skill groups, since the
targeted reductions were quite large. After several years, incentives
were sharply restricted, targeted to specific locations, organizations,
and/or job skills, as we came closer to our numerical goals and began
to be concerned about maintaining adequate skill levels in key areas.
For example, one buyout program at Langley Research Center was focused
on engineering technicians, particularly in wind tunnel operations,
where the need for that skill was sharply reduced; but buyouts were not
available to professional engineers who were still needed for ongoing
aeronautics research. In another instance, operation and maintenance of
aircraft was transitioned from the Ames Research Center to the Dryden
Flight Research Center; employees impacted by this action who could not
be absorbed into the Ames workforce and did not wish to relocate were
offered separation incentives.
At this point, we know that we have workforce imbalances, resulting
partly from downsizing, but also from changing technology and program
needs, compounded by normal attrition. We know that we need people with
backgrounds in information technology, nuclear engineering, human
factors engineering, space physics, astronomy and astrophysics, program
and project management, and contract management. We are developing and
refining tools to facilitate workforce analysis and competency
assessments to lend consistency and structure to decisions regarding
the skills NASA needs today and in the future.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SEN. DURBIN FROM
ADMINISTRATOR O'KEEFE
Nearly three years ago, joined by Senators Voinovich and Akaka, I
offered an amendment to the FY 2001 Defense Authorization bill to
address concerns I had that Federal agencies were not taking advantage
of one of the many recruitment and retention options made available to
them by Congress. That particular tool is the use of student loan
repayments of up to $6,000 per year for qualified employees. My
amendment, adopted by the Senate, was made part of the final conference
package signed into law on October 30, 2000.
In July of 2001, OPM published amendments to those regulations to
reflect changes in the law as a result of passage of my amendment.
These changes addressed removal of the incentive to only professional,
technical or administrative personnel and the limitation of the
incentive to employees covered under General Schedule pay rates. The
rules also broaden the types of loans that qualify for repayment, as my
amendment provided. Finally, the new rules require that agencies report
to OPM their use of the incentive and require that OPM report to
Congress on the agencies' use of the incentive.
Question 1:
Has NASA implemented the student loan repayment program for its
employees? With what results?
Answer 1:
Yes, NASA has implemented the student loan repayment program.
During FY 2002, eight employees received student loan repayments. NASA
considers this incentive to be a valuable tool in recruiting or
retaining high-quality individuals to the agency who might otherwise
accept positions with competing employers.
Question 2:
Which specific skills have been particularly difficult for NASA to
either recruit or develop?
Answer 2:
Recruiting top talent in information technology and engineering
continues to be a challenge for NASA because the competition from the
private sector (including academic institutions) for these skills is
intense. In large part, this is due to the shrinking domestic pipeline
of engineers and scientists that this country faces, so we anticipate
that recruiting for these technical skills--particularly computer
engineering and computer science--will be very difficult in the coming
years.
Within the broad field of engineering, aerospace engineering is an
area of particular concern since aerospace engineers comprise 35% of
NASA's scientist and engineering workforce. In the past decade, the
number of students choosing that field of study has declined, making
recruitment more difficult. (To illustrate, as reported in the National
Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators 2002 report,
graduate enrollment in aerospace engineering declined from over 4,000
in 1992 to only 3,400 in 2000.)
Some of the specialized technical areas that have been especially
difficult to fill during the past few years include: nanotechnology
computing, DNA/genome research, and astrobiology.
Recruitment challenges are, to some extent, a function of location
as well. For example, NASA Centers in high-cost areas--such as the Ames
Research Center in the Silicon Valley--may encounter difficulty in
recruiting a wide range of occupations since Federal salaries in many
instances are not sufficiently competitive to attract individuals to
that area.
From a development perspective, NASA has maintained a strong focus
on providing continuous learning opportunities for the workforce.
Employees are encouraged to enhance technical skills through academic
training, as well as conferences and symposia to ensure state of the
art capacity in such skills as engineering, science, and information
technology. In addition, to supplement technical skills and competency
development, a comprehensive array of opportunities for development and
enhancement of competencies in leadership and management development,
program and project leadership, acquisition, and business acumen are
available to the workforce.
Question 3:
Which recruits or new hires does NASA tend to lose to the private
sector? For what reasons?
Answer 3:
Although we maintain data on losses of new hires for reasons other
than retirement, the database does not capture the specific reason an
employee left NASA. We know that many left to accept jobs in the
private sector, while others may have left for different reasons--e.g.,
to attend graduate school. Data for 1998 through 2002 shows that among
the engineering and science workforce, the highest number of losses
among those with under five years of Federal service were in the
following categories, listed in order of frequency:
Aerospace Engineer
Electronics Engineer
Computer Engineer
Space Flight Operations Engineer
General Engineer--Management
Data Systems and Analysis Engineer
Facilities and Environmental Factors Engineer
Electrical Engineer
The pattern is very similar among hires with five to nine years of
Federal experience. The highest numbers of losses were in the following
categories, listed in order of frequency:
Aerospace Engineer
Computer Engineer
Electronics Engineer
General Engineer--Management
Space Flight Operations Engineer
Facilities and Environmental Factors Engineer
Data Systems and Analysis Engineer
Materials Engineer
Electrical Engineer
NASA has an initiative underway to develop an Employee Preference
Survey to better understand ``turnover risk'' in the Agency. Since this
initiative is in the developmental stage at this time, meaningful
Agencywide data is not yet available.
However, in connection with our National Recruitment Initiative
study conducted in 2001, focus groups were held at all NASA Centers
with new and recent science and engineering hires to gather information
that would be helpful in developing effective recruitment and retention
strategies. These employees were asked to address why they came to work
for NASA, the critical factors in retaining a top quality science and
engineering workforce at NASA, and their recommendations for attracting
scientists and engineers to NASA in the future. Their responses showed
that the most important factors influencing their decision to accept a
job were challenging work and growth potential, followed by
developmental opportunities, job stability, and benefits.
The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) found
similar results when they conducted a survey in 2000 on what employees
value in an employer. The responses were: room for advancement (52%),
good benefits (46%), continuing education and training (41%),
geographic location (39%), and job security/stability (34%).
Question 4:
What would be the specific components of an effective Scholarship
for Service Program that would meet NASA's needs?
Answer 4:
The desired components of proposed NASA Science and Technology
Scholarship Program are outlined below:
Enrollment/Eligibility
--U.S. Citizenship
--Full Time Student or Pending Graduate at Accredited 2-year or 4-
year University/College/Community College
--Rising Sophomore or Junior (Pilot Year); Add Graduate
Continuance Eligibility Over Time
--Clearly established articulation agreement with or matriculation
letter from fully accredited 4-year college/university
--Minimum Cumulative GPA of 3.0/4.0
--Academic Coursework/Curriculum Highlighting NASA Critical Skill
Areas (Engineering, Physical/Natural/Life Sciences, Computer Science,
Mathematics)
Scholarship Provisions
--Student Eligibility for up to 4 Academic Years
--Tuition paid directly to academic institution
--Covers Tuition, Fees, and Other Expenses, as determined
--Student Academic Program Approved and Progress Reviewed/Approved
Annually by NASA
--Student Must Maintain Academic Standing As Required By College/
University
Service Obligation
--One Year of NASA Service for Each Full Academic Year of
Scholarship Enrollment
--Service Obligation To Begin Within 60 Days of Graduation
--Deferral Option for Graduate Studies (NASA Approval)
--NASA-sponsored Summer Internship
--Obligation Can Be Served As Temp, Term, Career Conditional
Employee (NASA Decision)
Penalties For Breach of Contract
--First Year Under Scholarship: Considered ``Under Probation'' (No
Penalty for Withdrawal)
--Renewal Year(s): Repayment of Scholarship Tuition Costs If
Academic Year is Not Completed (Repay Year's Tuition)
--Upon Graduation: Repayment of Scholarship Tuition Costs If
Service Obligation Not Met (Repay 3 Times Total Scholarship Expenses)
Program Partner & Scope
--Seek An Experienced Program Partner to Help Structure, Market
and Coordinate Scholarship Program
--Anticipate 150-200 Students First Year: 50-100 Rising
Sophomores; 50-100 Rising Juniors
--Grow to Full Complement of -300, Adjusting Intake with
Graduations/Withdrawals/NASA Workforce Requirements
--NASA to Establish Target Academic Disciplines/Goals (% in
Engineering, NaturaI/Life Sciences, etc.)
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SEN. LAUTENBERG FROM
ADMINISTRATOR O'KEEFE
Question 1:
Mr. O'Keefe, I believe that we must also address NASA's
organizational culture with regard to information flow, and assure the
proper level of internal oversight.
Answer 1:
A tremendous effort has been implemented over the years to motivate
staff to communicate safety concerns and reinforce the expectation that
any individual with a safety concern is expected to communicate it.
Numerous mechanisms are in place to facilitate this communication
and employees are rewarded for expressing their concerns. United Space
Alliance, the Space Shuttle program's prime contractor, has a formal
Time-Out Policy (E-02-18) signed by the Vice President, Safety Quality
& Mission Assurance, that encourages and actively supports the safety
practice of calling a ``time out'' when anyone is unsure or
uncomfortable with any situation. Policies are in place for all
employees whether civil service or contractors to stop any activity
that they feel is unsafe. This safety awareness behavior is highly
encouraged and rewarded at all levels. NASA management has an excellent
record of responding to safety concerns expressed by individuals.
Since Challenger, the management structure for space flight
programs has been reviewed and undergone significant changes in
organization, personnel, and management philosophy. Program reporting
channels have been redefined and streamlined. In the past year,
additional changes have been made, further improving the oversight and
accountability of program management. Since last year, the Program
Managers for both the Shuttle and International Space Station Program
have reported directly to the Deputy Associate Administrator for
International Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs at NASA
Headquarters.
Because of the lessons NASA learned following the Challenger
tragedy, we put in place a process for ensuring that elements of the
Shuttle system are safe before we commit to flight. Each Shuttle flight
is subjected to a rigorous review prior to certification of flight
readiness (COFR). Two weeks prior to launch, NASA holds a Flight
Readiness Review (FRR), chaired by the Associate Administrator for
Space Flight. The FRR is attended by all senior program management and
contractor officials. At the FRR, project managers assess readiness for
launch, report hardware status, problems encountered during launch
processing and their resolution, and launch constraints. Each manager
and official is required to sign the COFR.
In the recent past, this process has identified several potentially
serious issues with Shuttle flowliners and the ball strut tie-rod
assembly (BSTRA). These problems were analyzed and resolved prior to
flight.
Even at the risk of delays to our launch schedule, NASA is
committed to identifying and resolving potential safety issues. Each
and every employee is empowered and obligated to identify issues that
they believe may pose a risk to the Shuttle and her crew.
This process is codified in NSTS 08117, ``Requirements and
Procedures for the Certification of Flight Readiness,'' which lays out
the steps in the COFR process: including Project Milestone Reviews; the
Program Milestone Reviews; and the Flight Readiness Review (FRR).
In addition to formal COFR and other processes, employees and
contractors are encouraged to identify and report safety issues both
through regular reporting channels and anonymously through the NASA
Safety Reporting System (NSRS). The Office of Safety and Mission
Assurance is responsible for this anonymous process.
The NSRS is an anonymous, voluntary, and responsive reporting
channel to notify NASA's senior management of employee concerns about
hazards. It is managed independently by NASA's Office of Safety and
Mission Assurance and is designed to supplement local hazard reporting
channels. Anyone can initiate an NSRS report. Personnel are directed to
report hazards first through their local channels and then to NSRS if
no remedial action is taken; if they are unsatisfied with the action
taken; or if they fear reprisal if they report the hazard through
normal channels. NSRS reports receive prompt attention from senior
personnel. A summary of NSRS status is presented at each FRR. The NASA
Administrator established the NSRS in 1987 following the Challenger
accident. This system has supported all Shuttle flights since that time
and has been expanded to cover all NASA operations.
Question 2:
And on the question of the ratio of employees to contractors, tell
me, what expansion of your workforce will be needed to assure
excellence in safety and in order to position NASA to meet its goals
for the 21st Century?
Answer 2:
The ratio of civil servant to contractor is not constant but varies
depending on the nature of the work. For example, for a project that
entails work that is commercial in nature, the work could be
accomplished with a bare minimum of government involvement; whereas, if
the project involves work that is not performed in the private sector,
civil servants may perform it mostly or wholly. Most complex aerospace
projects are somewhere on the continuum and can involve a mix of
contractor and civil servant employees. Assuring excellence might not
necessarily require the expansion of either the civil servant or
contractor workforce. Rather, program excellence relies on well-
informed and experienced-based management decisions regarding the
effective deployment (mix) of civil servant and contractor human
capital resources based on the nature of the project and the risk of
program failure.
Question 3:
Do you foresee more government workers or private contractors?
Answer 3:
Rather than dictating increases or decreases in the number of
certain types of employees, the Federal Government has set a path in
recent years to make greater use of regular competitions as a tool to
ensure that managers do effectively deploy civil servant and contractor
human capital resources. The Competitive Sourcing reform in the
President's Management Agenda is the government-wide vehicle for this
improved approach to Federal human capital management.
Question 4:
To inspire our young people to enter scientific fields and to
entice the best and brightest to choose a career with NASA, rather than
say, Wall Street or Microsoft, what visions will you offer to the next
generation and how will you communicate it to our young people?
Answer 4:
NASA's mission to understand and explore depends upon an educated
and motivated workforce with the ingenuity to invent tools and solve
problems and the courage to always ask the next question. To accomplish
this, education has been made a core mission of the Agency: ``To
Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers . . . as only NASA can.'' Two
Agency goals in our FY 2004 Strategic Plan guide our educational
efforts:
Goal 6: Inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.
Goal 7: Engage the public in shaping and sharing the experience of
exploration and discovery
As stated in the NASA Strategic Plan, education and inspiration are
integral parts of NASA's programs, and educational and motivational
activities are being incorporated into every NASA program from the
earliest stages. To guide this process, a new NASA Enterprise--
Education--has been created to serve as the Agency's umbrella
organization for defining and articulating an overarching education
vision and mission. The Education Enterprise will serve as the focal
point for education planning and implementation, program reviews, and
the evaluative performance of all NASA sponsored educational programs.
The evaluation of NASA's education programs will be based upon
benchmarked criteria as is practiced or tracked through established and
recognized educational tools as well as commensurate with other NASA
research and development activities.
The Education Enterprise has established four new initiatives in FY
2004 to inspire and entice students to enter scientific fields and
choose a career with NASA or NASA affiliated organizations:
The Educator Astronaut Program: seeking America's exemplary
teachers to become members of the NASA Astronaut Corps to bring the
wonder of space exploration into our education system;
Explorer Schools: through a competitive process, identify middle
schools that will bring teams of educators together to work in
partnership with NASA over a 3-year period to enhance their
professional development, and provide them unique teaching tools and
learning resources for students, in support of increased student
achievement in mathematics and science.
Scholarship for Service (proposed--enabling legislation pending):
providing full scholarships for students seeking degrees in science or
engineering fields of high priority for NASA in exchange for a year for
year matching employment requirement by the student recipient; and
Explorer Institutes: working with the Nation's museums, and science
and technology centers to provide compelling learning experiences for
students, their parents and the general public.
The United States needs a technically competent workforce that
reflects our Nation's diversity. Inspiring and motivating students to
pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
assures NASA a new and continuing generation of explorers and a
workforce that will keep America technologically and economically
competitive. Our vision is ``To Inspire the Next Generation of
Explorers'' to pursue education and careers in science and technical
fields and to be prepared to join NASA in pursuit of exploration and
discovery.
NASA also must be effective in communicating this vision and
marketing the Agency as an ``employer of choice'' to the graduates who
are ready to enter the workforce. NASA recognized the importance of
having an effective recruitment program and during FY 2002 conducted a
National Recruitment Initiative study to develop hiring strategies and
tools for NASA's current and future science and engineering needs. The
study focused on strategies appropriate for hiring new graduates--the
``fresh-outs''--and provided valuable insights regarding effective
recruitment approaches to use in today's labor market.
Using what we learned from that focused study, as well as other
research, we developed new recruitment materials and more effective
communications strategies to appeal to the emerging workforce. Our
marketing techniques have become more expansive in order to compete in
today's environment. We established a unified NASA JOBS website to
provide easy access to information on jobs, with direct links to
information on NASA's mission and the ability for individuals to apply
for positions on-line. We developed new promotional materials,
including CD ROM business cards with links to the NASA JOBS web site
and a short movie on the history of NASA. We have developed an
employment DVD that provides information on what it's like to work at
NASA from those who know best--our own employees. We have put a face on
the thousands of individuals throughout the agency engaged in
challenging, state-of-the-art work. The themes of challenging work and
opportunities for growth are included throughout the DVD as employees
explain why they came to NASA and why they stay.
In summary, our core mission ``To Inspire the Next Generation of
Explorers . . . as Only NASA Can'' guides both our education and
employment strategies to inspire and entice the best and brightest to
choose a career with NASA.