How the OPM-GSA Merger Would Work: Outlined by the Trump administration

May 3, 2019

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″ el_class=”section section1″][vc_column_text]This week the Trump administration provided details about its proposal in regards to integrating functions of OPM into the general services administration, defense department and the executive office of the president.

According to a GSA published fiscal 2020 budget justification, GSA will receive a majority of OPM’s functions, thereby making OPM a human capital service alongside GSA’s public buildings service and federal acquisition service. There would be three employees that work on policy issues sent to the executive office of the president as an office modeled after OPM and budget Office of Federal Procurement Policy, while the majority of OPM employees would be transferred to the Pentagon.

Margaret Weichert acting OPM director on Wednesday said that the changes would take place in two broad phases. Those who work on retirement and administration of the federal employees’ health benefits program will have to wait for Congress to pass legislation.

As requested in the GSA budget the cost of transition would be $50 million in fiscal 2020. Although there are still a number of questions, the document offers some new details as to whether other OPM functions would wind up in the reorganization. An employee service would administer laws and regulations related to recruitment, pay and leave, performance management, workforce planning and programs promoting work-life balance and diversity as well.

Even though where OPM’s work to uphold merit systems principals would wind up was unclear in the initial reorganization plan, the budget justification makes it clear that it would be part of GSA as the merit system accountability and compliance office.

Weichert didn’t mention whether the OPM director would remain a Senate-confirmed presidential appointment. Whether the legislation would be part of a broader proposal to reshape collective bargaining at federal agencies is also unclear, which would most likely blunt the reorganization’s chances in Congress.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”19161″ img_size=”292×285″ style=”vc_box_shadow”][/vc_column][/vc_row]