Relaxing the standards for management to conduct employee evaluations and set performance standards will not enhance national security. This will only lead to greater uncertainty about what is expected of employees, resulting in misunderstandings, disruptions, and inefficiencies in performance.
 
Page 7585 
Section 9901.405 Performance management system requirements 
9901.405(a) states: “DoD will issue implementing issuances that establish a performance management system for DoD employees, subject to the requirements set forth in this subpart.” 
This system has not been defined, so there is no way to determine if it will be fair, effective and credible. This process should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. 
No changes should be made to the current performance management system used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. 
A system without a fair and credible performance management procedure will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security. 

Page 7585 
Section 9901.406 Setting and communicating performance expectations 
The proposed regulations are seriously flawed because they do not require management to provide performance expectations to employees in writing. 
9901.406(b) should be modified by adding: “Performance expectations will be provided in writing and discussed with employees at the beginning of the rating period. When expectations are set or changed verbally by supervisors during the rating period, they will be confirmed in writing by management, and provided to employees in a timely manner.” 
9901.406(b) should be modified by adding: “Performance expectations must permit the accurate evaluation of job performance based on objective criteria.” This recommendation incorporates a current requirement for performance standards under 5 U.S.C. 4302(b)(1). 
9901.406(d) should be modified by adding: “Employees should seek clarification and/or additional information when they do not understand their performance expectations.” This change clarifies that the primary responsibility for clearly communicating performance expectations lies with supervisors. 

Page 7586 
Section 9901.408 Developing performance and addressing poor performance 
9901.408(a) states: “DoD implementing issuances will prescribe procedures that supervisors will use to develop employee performance and to address poor performance.” 
These procedures have not been defined, so there is no way to determine if they will be fair, effective and credible for employees. This process should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. 
No changes should be made to the performance management procedures currently used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. 
A system without a fair and credible performance management process will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security. 

Page 7586 
Section 9901.409 Rating and rewarding performance 
9901.409(a) states: “The NSPS performance management system will establish a multi-level rating system as described in the DoD implementing issuances.” 
This multi-level rating system has not been defined, so there is no way to determine if it will be an effective and appropriate process to rate employees. This rating system should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. 
No changes should be made to the rating systems currently used by DoD agencies until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. 
A process without a fair and credible rating system will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security. 

9901.409(b) states: “A rating of record will be used as a basis for – (3) Such other action that DoD considers appropriate, as specified in DoD implementing issuances.” 
These “other actions” have not been defined, so there is no way to determine if they will be appropriate, fair or credible to employees. All proposed uses of ratings of record should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. 
No additional uses for ratings of record should be implemented by DoD until a full comment and review period is completed, followed by a full collective bargaining process with the unions representing DoD employees. Otherwise, the rating system will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security. 

9901.409(g) states: “A rating of record may be challenged by an employee only through a reconsideration procedure as provided in DoD implementing regulations. This procedure will be the sole and exclusive method for all employees to challenge a rating of record.” 
This reconsideration process has not been defined, so there is no way to determine if it will be a fair and credible process. This process should have been defined in these regulations to allow for a meaningful review and comment period, as required by law. 
Unless there is an independent third party available to impartially review and make reconsideration decisions, no such process will be considered fair or credible by employees. Therefore, the negotiated grievance and arbitration procedures currently available to employees under 5 USC Chapter 7121 should be used to challenge ratings of record. 
A system without a fair and credible reconsideration process will be rejected by employees, and will result in distrust of management, decreased morale, and lower productivity, ultimately harming national security.