Security Clearance Jobs Blog

The General Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report on the cost of “Background Investigations” (GAO-12-197) conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  The first sentence of the report declared:

OPM’s reported costs to conduct background investigations increased by almost 79 percent, from about $602 million in fiscal year 2005 to almost $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011 (in fiscal year 2011 dollars).

The news media chose to publish articles that focused on the overall increase in the amount spent on background investigations, rather than the actual increase in the price of various investigative products offered by OPM.  It’s not until you get down to page 47 of the GAO report that you see the weighted average price increase for investigative products only went up 5.1% per year from 2005 to 2012.  2005 and 2006 were transition years for OPM.  In 2005 OPM accepted the transfer of about 1,700 Defense Security Service personnel and the responsibility for all Department of Defense (DOD) background investigations.  During 2004 OPM had conducted a portion of DOD’s background investigations and knew that their existing price structure wouldn’t cover the actual cost of these investigations, so they entering into a special agreement with DOD whereby OPM charged DOD an extra 25% over their standard prices.  The DOD investigations increased OPM’s caseload by 200%.  OPM was able to readjust their prices down a little in 2006.  If you back out the two transition years of 2005 and 2006, OPM increased their average weighted price of investigations about 4% per year during the past five years.  This was a pretty remarkable feat considering that they significantly reduced turnaround time on their investigations during the same period.

It’s a fallacy to ascribe to OPM the increase in the total cost of all investigations, because OPM has no control over the number or types of investigations they are requested to conduct.  GAO also claimed that the total cost of OPM investigations continued to gradually increase from 2005 to 2011, even though the number of investigations conducted by OPM declined about 30% from 2008 to 2011.  But GAO failed to report the types of investigations that OPM had conducted.  When a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) at $4,005 costs about 14 times more than a National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC) at $228, an increase in the number of expensive investigations can more than offset a large decease in the total number of cheaper investigations.

GAO doesn’t always get it right, and in my opinion this is one of those times that they got it wrong.  There may very well be cost accounting and lack of transparency problems at OPM, but GAO failed to focus on these issues.

49 Comments »

On December 1, 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented testimony before a House subcommittee. The testimony was presented in the form of a report (GAO-11-232T) entitled: “Personnel Security Clearances: Overall Progress Has Been Made to Reform the Governmentwide Security Clearance Process.” The testimony covered 3 major long standing issues: a single federal database for clearance information, reciprocity, and timeliness.

The “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” (IRTPA) “required that no later than 12 months after the date of its enactment, the Director of OPM and the Director of OMB establish and commence operating and maintaining a single, integrated database of security clearance information.” No single integrated database exists or is planned. Instead, OPM’s Central Verification System (CVS) provides a “single search” capability for about 90% of all investigations and clearances. Integrating the remaining 10% of Intelligence Community (IC) clearances remains problematic.

Government agencies reported requiring additional investigation and/or adjudication on some currently cleared individuals for reasons that are not permitted by existing reciprocity rules. Due to the absence of government-wide metrics for reciprocity, GAO was unable to measure the degree of non-compliance with clearance reciprocity requirements.

GAO acknowledged that significant improvements in timeliness of clearances had been made and that overall timeliness requirements of the IRTPA had been met. GAO noted that of the agencies they reviewed DOD, DOE, and NGA had consistently met the 60-day IRPTA requirement during the first three quarters of FY2010 (October 2009 to June 2010), and 11 other agencies had not. A chart on page 7 of GAO-11-232T reported timeliness for seven IC agencies and seven non-IC agencies.

22 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regarding security clearances and our regular contributors of present and former clearance investigators and adjudicators will try to answer them. The rules are listed below. Failure to abide by them will mean your question will be deleted.

NOTE: Due to the volume of questions we receive, we cannot answer all of them. Selected questions that have not been answered in the past will likely be answered.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to a week for the question to be “live” on the site and our panelists to see it and answer it.

1. Please do not address a contributor by name to ensure anyone who has knowledge might answer.
2. Do not include your own name, email address, or other information that can identify you. This is a public forum and clearance holders have a responsibility for covertness.
3. If you have questions regarding careers, job hunting, salaries, interviewing, or other career-related topics, see the other threads dedicated to this purpose.
4. Provide full details about your case in your initial question thread.
5. Do not post your questions in previous versions of this thread.
6. Understand that the suggestions and comments contributors provide are their opinions only. The owners of this site are not responsible for the suggestions and guidance from outside contributors.

Note: If your post does not appear on this site, you may not be following the rules above.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

Related Articles:

• Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance
• Criminal Conduct and Security Clearances
• Drug Involvement and Security Clearances
• Rebutting and Appealing Security Clearance Denials
• Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances
• Personal Finances and Security Clearances

80 Comments »

On September 15, 2009 a hearing was held before a Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Federal government’s security clearance reform process. Testifying before the subcommittee were representatives of OMB, OPM, DOD, ODNI, and GAO. Transcripts of their prepared statements are posted at the Senate subcommittee’s website.

Here are some highlights from the prepared statements:

• 90% of initial clearance investigations by OPM are done in an average of 37 days.
• Average investigation for a Top Secret clearance now takes 79 days.
• Average investigation for a Secret clearance now takes 47 days.
• Security clearance investigation backlog (cases older than 180 days) has been eliminated.
• E-Adjudication of Secret clearances was implemented for DOD industrial cases in September 2009 (originally planned for May 2009). This capability will be extended to the Air Force and Navy adjudication facilities by December 2009.

Here are some of the lowlights:

• 11% of initial clearance eligibility decisions took more than 300 days to complete in FY08.
• Only 260,000 of the estimated 3 million active security clearances are currently in OPM’s Clearance Verification System.
• The new Federal Investigative Standards that were approved in December 2009 (but not yet implement) will be changed.
• The new SF86, originally expected to be approved by January 2009, won’t even be available for public comment until late September 2009 (a lengthy process required before final approval).
• According to GAO, long-term funding requirements for the reformed process still have not been identified.

27 Comments »

PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCES: An Outcome-Focused Strategy Is Needed to Guide Implementation of the Reformed Clearance Process (GAO-09-488), May 2009:

The security clearance reform process has already been underway for several years, and various agencies involved have created and revised several plans for improvement. Although the high-level leadership and governance structure of the current reform effort distinguish it from previous efforts, without a strategic framework that fully addresses the long-standing security clearance problems and incorporates key practices for transformation including the ability to demonstrate progress leading to desired results the effort is at risk of losing momentum and not being fully implemented.

The GAO report made several recommendations for establishing a strategic framework for the joint reform effort, including clearer goals, outcome-focused performance measures, formal communications strategy, further definition of roles and responsibilities for implementation of IT strategy, and determining funding requirements.

Somewhat disturbing was the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) response to the draft version of GAO-09-488:

OPM believes that it is important not to conflate the suitability and security clearance processes. Nonetheless, it recognizes that there are areas of commonality between the two and agrees that both processes should be administered efficiently and aligned where appropriate. The means by which these goals are accomplished, however ”whether through the governance structure established by Executive Order 13467 (and studied by the GAO) or in some other fashion”is currently under review by the new Administration, as are the reform initiatives discussed in the draft report. This review may result in a new governance structure and/or new goals and standards. For that reason, while the critiques discussed in GAO’s report will certainly merit consideration going forward, I do not believe that it would be productive at this time to address with greater specificity the concerns it expresses about the past management of the reform process.

A new governance structure and/or new goals and standards?

4 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regarding security clearances and our regular contributors of present and former clearance investigators and adjudicators will try to answer them. The rules are listed below. Failure to abide by them will mean your question will be deleted.

NOTE: Due to the volume of questions we receive, we cannot answer all of them. Selected questions that have not been answered in the past will likely be answered.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to a week for the question to be “live” on the site and our panelists to see it and answer it.

1. Please do not address a contributor by name to ensure anyone who has knowledge might answer.
2. Do not include your own name, email address, or other information that can identify you. This is a public forum and clearance holders have a responsibility for covertness.
3. If you have questions regarding careers, job hunting, salaries, interviewing, or other career-related topics, see the other threads dedicated to this purpose.
4. Provide full details about your case in your initial question thread.
5. Do not post your questions in previous versions of this thread.
6. Understand that the suggestions and comments contributors provide are their opinions only. The owners of this site are not responsible for the suggestions and guidance from outside contributors.

Note: If your post does not appear on this site, you may not be following the rules above.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

Related Articles:

• Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance
• Criminal Conduct and Security Clearances
• Drug Involvement and Security Clearances
• Rebutting and Appealing Security Clearance Denials
• Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances
• Personal Finances and Security Clearances

96 Comments »

On 20 May 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (GAO-09-400) on Department of Defense (DoD) security clearances, announcing, “Comprehensive timeliness reporting, complete clearance documentation, and quality measures are needed to further improve the clearance process.”

According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DoD, the top 90% of initial security clearances for DoD personnel took an average of 124 days to process in 2008. GAO came up with a number different than OPM and DoD, but they measured processing time in terms of the percentage of cases that took more than 120 days. GAO also found that 87% of Top Secret clearances adjudicated in July 2008 were missing one or more elements required by the national investigative standards.

The report is a follow-up to a 19 December 2008 GAO report (GAO-09-261R), DoD Personnel Clearances: Preliminary Observations about Timeliness and Quality. The new report provides more details regarding GAO’s findings from their earlier report. Interestingly, the new report alludes to the February 2009 annual report required by Title III of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), but this report has not been made publicly available on the internet.

4 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regaring security clearances and our regular contributors of present and former clearance investigators and adjudicators will try to answer them. The rules are listed below. Failure to abide by them will mean your question will be deleted.

NOTE: Due to the volume of questions we receive, we cannot answer all of them. Selected questions that have not been answered in the past will likely be answered.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to a week for the question to be “live” on the site and our panelists to see it and answer it.

1. Please do not address a contributor by name to ensure anyone who has knowledge might answer.
2. Do not include your own name, email address, or other information that can identify you. This is a public forum and clearance holders have a responsibility for covertness.
3. If you have questions regarding careers, job hunting, salaries, interviewing, or other career-related topics, see the other threads dedicated to this purpose.
4. Provide full details about your case in your initial question thread.
5. Do not post your questions in previous versions of this thread.
6. Understand that the suggestions and comments contributors provide are their opinions only. The owners of this site are not responsible for the suggestions and guidance from outside contributors.

Note: If your post does not appear on this site, you may not be following the rules above.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

82 Comments »

107 Comments »

A February 18, 2009 article at Tradingmarkets.com reported that ATS Corporation (ATSC) was awarded a new $6 million contract with the Defense Security Service (DSS) for the Secure Web Fingerprint Transmission (SWFT) system.

ATSC will develop, deploy and maintain a web-enabled biometric system to transmit electronic fingerprints to DSS and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) as part of the security clearance background investigation process.

The SWFT system will enable federal contractors to submit electronic fingerprints and identifying information for security clearance applicants. A pilot project for the system was conducted in 2008. Implementation and deployment of the new system will begin this year.

3 Comments »

135 Comments »

A 20 January 2009 article in Federaltimes.com reported that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is ready to handle clearance investigations for the Obama administration’s approximately 6,000 to 7,000 new politically appointed officials. Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director of OPM’s Federal Investigative Services Division was reported as saying, “Piece of cake. . . .The influx of Obama staffers will be a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 2.3 million background checks OPM is expected to handle this year.”

In reality OPM currently conducts about 600,000 security clearance investigations a year. Two-thirds of the often cited 2 million “checks” involve only a fraction of the work required for a security clearance investigation. Nevertheless 6,000 only represents 1% of OPM’s annual clearance investigation workload, and OPM is adequately staffed to absorb much more than a 1% increase.

The 6,000 to 7,000 Obama officials are also expected to be spread out over the next few months, which mitigates the surge effect, Dillaman said. OPM is ready to offer [investigative] employees overtime or bring on some additional [investigative] contractors in case clearances start to back up, she said.

31 Comments »

A GovExec.com article on the 17 Dec 08 Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team (JSSRT) report reviewed the progress made toward improving the clearance system and reducing turnaround time. Although most of the changes to the system are scheduled to be implemented during 2009; full implementation will not be achieved until September 2010. Some of the highlights of the plan include:

Reducing the types of initial investigations from 15 to 3.

Reducing the types of reinvestigations from 5 to 2.

Using eAdjudication on about 25% of all Secret clearances.

Revising the clearance application form.

Replacing periodic reinvestigations with Continuous Evaluation.

Training and certification of security clearance professionals.

Improving the method of measuring performance.

Comments Off

In a report dated December 19, 2008 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided a preliminary assessment of the timeliness and quality of the Department of Defense‘s (DoD) personnel security clearance program. GAO found that in fiscal year 2008 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) completed 80% of all initial clearance investigations in 87 days. Although this represents a significant improvement over prior years; the existing clearance process may not be able to meet the December 2009 requirement of 90% in 60 days as mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Using a sample of 100 favorably adjudicated investigations, GAO found that an estimated 87% of the OPM investigations in July 2008 for Top Secret clearances were missing at least one investigative element required by federal standards. The numbers of elements missing from the 100 investigations were:

The report acknowledged the current clearance reform project that is scheduled to be implemented over the next 20 months, including two new tools for assessing investigative and adjudicative quality.

GAO’s representation of missing investigative elements is somewhat misleading. For instance in the report’s footnotes GAO explained that the 12 investigations missing a Subject Interviews were due to the Subject’s [military] deployment. OPM routinely closes such cases and forward them to the requestor without conducting the Subject Interview. It is then the responsibility of the requestor to have the investigation reopened when the Subject returns from deployment. How many employment and social references were not interviewed because they too were deployed with the same military unit as the Subject? How many of the missing forms were financial or medical releases that have absolutely no adjudicative value?

When one or more elements of an investigation are missing, it doesn’t always mean that the investigation is deficient. Likewise, granting a security clearances based on such investigations due to military exigencies is often justifiable and permitted by DoD regulation. GAO’s report claims to assess quality, but it admits that it made no judgments about the adequacy of the investigative reports to support [adjudicative] decisions. Were they just counting beans?

10 Comments »

On 30 July 2008 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported (GAO-08-1050T) their review of personnel security clearance reform efforts to a congressional subcommittee. Their observations and recommendation were based on the recently issued Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team’s Initial Plan, the appendix to that plan, and Executive Order 13467.

GAO reported, “The level of direction in the executive order and the establishment of a very specific, centralized structure make this latest reform effort stand out from past efforts.”

GAO’s review was generally laudatory, but identified four areas that the executive order and the Initial Plan failed to properly address: 1) how the need for a clearance is validated, 2) processes for assuring quality, 3) specific metrics for evaluating quality, and 4) long-term funding requirements.

9 Comments »