Home Media Center News Releases

Washington, D.C.—The Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee today raised serious questions about a June 2004 contract signed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a private company to implement a new personnel system that could cost taxpayers up to $175 million.

In a letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) questioned whether the contract with Northrop Grumman Corp. is in line with DHS’s responsibility to fulfill its mission in a responsible manner.

The congressman also demanded information on a variety of issues related to the contract by Aug. 15—the date by which a federal judge is to rule on the NTEU-led challenge to the legality of critical aspects of the regulations.

President Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), who reacted with sharp criticism a year ago when DHS announced the three-year contract with Northrop Grumman, strongly agreed with Rep. Thompson.

“This contract raises many more questions than it answers,” the union president said. “It simply moves important workplace matters farther and farther away from front-line employees, and that’s bad for both DHS and the country.”

The agreement calls for Northrop Grumman to provide “the full range of services” to redesign, and then implement, the core human resources systems, including pay and performance, at DHS.

A year ago, Kelley called that “troubling evidence” that neither DHS nor the administration had any real interest in using the real-life experiences of front-line employees to build a system that will increase the nation’s safety. Since DHS’s establishment in 2002, Kelley has been leading the fight to ensure its employees work under a personnel system that is fair, transparent and credible.

Instead, she said, the final regulations put forward by DHS and the Office of Personnel Management severely restrict employees’ collective bargaining rights—in direct contradiction to congressional intent expressed in the law establishing DHS—as well as infringe significantly on employee due process and appeal rights. Key regulations that make up that system are under legal attack in federal court by a five-union coalition led by NTEU.

In his letter Thompson wrote, “Developing complex pay and administrative systems necessitates a planned and coordinated effort with strict oversight and the accountability features that are usually absent” in the kind of blanket purchase agreement (BPA) used in this instance.

The Mississippi Democrat also pointed out that the General Services Administration has said BPAs should be used to simplify the filling of recurring needs for supplies and services, saving administrative time and reducing paperwork.

“As presented to the Congress,” Thompson wrote, “most of the expenses involved in designing and implementing a new (DHS) human resources system would be singular and non-recurring.” Thus, he said, using a procurement instrument designed for recurring expenditures “is inconsistent with this process.”

President Kelley reiterated NTEU’s strongly-held view that any new system that excludes in meaningful ways the voices of front-line DHS employees is doomed to fail. She underscored her concerns about the Northrup-Grumman deal by saying: “I fear this contract is another step in that direction.”

NTEU is the largest independent federal union, representing some 150,000 employees in 30 agencies and departments, including about 14,000 in DHS.

For more information, visit the NTEU web site at www.nteu.org, or call (202) 572-5500