Report - Government Executive

HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO NSPS
As discussed in Chapter 2, NSPS was developed to replace the GS/GG system for DoD’s nonintelligence
workforce. Like DCIPS, it reflected Executive Branch concerns that the GS system
was no longer adequate to recruit, hire, and compensate the workforce needed to support DoD’s
national security mission. NSPS encountered legal challenges from employees and unions
alleging that its provisions were applied inconsistently, resulting in disparate pay outcomes for
affected employees. The FY 2010 NDAA repealed NSPS’ statutory authority and directed the
Secretary of Defense to terminate it and transition all covered employees out from it no later than
January 1, 2012. 92
DCIPS and NSPS share several design characteristics. 93 Both were designed to foster a strong
performance culture by creating an HR system that more directly links employee pay to
performance and contribution to the DoD mission. 94 Both employed pay bands that replace the
15 GS or GG grades, with salary progression within the bands based on annual performance
assessments. They also increased communication between employees and their supervisors.
Finally, they both use pay pools funded from available resources to provide for performancebased
compensation.
NSPS policies required the integration, rather than separation, of performance management and
pay pool processes, a key area where it and DCIPS diverge. Other key differences are the areas
that have the greatest impact on employees’ compensation and their perceptions of system
fairness. Given that DCIPS’ performance evaluation and pay pool processes are separate, for
example, there is no commingling of salary and bonus pool funds. Unlike NSPS, DCIPS policy
requires that employee ratings be prepared and approved prior to the pay pool process. Further,
DCIPS does not permit pay pool officials to change ratings in the process of deciding salary or
bonus payouts. In contrast, NSPS pay pool panels had authority to change performance
management ratings during their deliberations to determine performance-based payouts and
require the supervisor to accept them, even if the supervisor disagreed. 95 The Defense Business
Board Report noted this as a major area fueling employee mistrust of the system and its
processes.
OUSD(I) officials indicated that they were attentive to DoD’s challenges with NSPS and applied
those lessons learned to DCIPS’ design features. Although some online dialogue and open
forum participants expressed concern about the fairness of ratings and pay pool processes, these
do not appear to be a function of the DCIPS’ design, but a result of how supervisors and
managers are implementing the system’s provisions. Table 3-6 provides a more detailed
comparison between DCIPS and NSPS. Key differences are highlighted in yellow.
92 Pub. L. 111-84, Sec. 1113.
93 NSPS changed the classification, compensation, recruitment, and staffing of DoD positions, but this comparison is
limited to aspects of NSPS that can be compared to DCIPS’ existing features, as officially documented in approved
policies.
94 DoD 1400.25-M, SC 1940, Subchapter 1940, Performance Management, dated Dec. 1, 2008.
95 As reported in the Defense Business Board Report to the Secretary of Defense, “Review of the National Security
Personnel System,” July 2009, which references the NSPS 2008 Evaluation Report, pp. 5-10.
52