{"id":520691,"date":"2026-03-05T17:05:11","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T17:05:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/520691\/"},"modified":"2026-03-05T17:05:11","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T17:05:11","slug":"opm-revives-plan-to-increase-role-of-performance-ratings-in-rifs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/520691\/","title":{"rendered":"OPM Revives Plan to Increase Role of Performance Ratings in RIFs"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\tThe notice says that of the more than 300,000 federal employees who left in 2025, RIFs accounted for only \u201ca very small percentage\u201d\u2014on the order of 7 percent\u2014with retirements, buyouts and deferred resignation offers accounting for the rest.\t\t\t\t\t Image: kentoh\/Shutterstock.com
\n\t\t\t\tBy: FEDweek Staff<\/a><\/p>\n

OPM has revived and broadened a proposal from the first Trump administration to increase the role of performance ratings\u00a0in determining retention in reductions in force, while downplaying the roles of length of service and veterans\u2019 preference.<\/p>\n

Proposed rules in the March 5 Federal Register would fundamentally change longstanding policies regarding many aspects of the federal layoff process, which involves dividing employees in affected components into groups and applying a formula for determining who is retained, who is separated and who may be reassigned to other, often lower-graded, positions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposed rule would make the RIF regulations more streamlined, efficient, and merit-based by prioritizing performance over tenure and length of service when determining which employees will be retained in a RIF and modifying the types of employees who are excluded from RIF competition,\u201d OPM said in the notice with a 60-day comment period.<\/p>\n

Under current policy, tenure is the first retention factor, with employees on permanent appointments who have three years of service first, those on probationary periods and others with less than three years second, and those under time-limited appointments third. Preference is next given to veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more, then others with veterans status, and then non-veterans.<\/p>\n

Next is length of actual service, with performance ratings are the last factor. The ratings for the last three years are averaged and added to actual years of service. Under the most commonly used five-level rating system, a rating of \u201coutstanding\u201d (Level 5) is worth 20 years, \u201cexceeds fully successful\u201d (Level 4) 16 years; and \u201cfully successful\u201d (Level 3) 12 years.<\/p>\n

Says the notice: \u201cUnder this proposal, employees competing in a RIF will first be sorted into: their appropriate tenure group (competitive service versus excepted service); then within each tenure group, by performance in descending order based on values assigned for the employee\u2019s three most recent ratings of record. Then, performance credits would be augmented by additional points based on veterans\u2019 preference.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the proposal, the last three performance ratings would be averaged as they are now, but on a points basis\u20147 for a Level 5, 5 for a level 4, and 3 for a level 3. Veterans\u2019 preference also would be changed to a points basis, with 5 points added for a 30 percent or more service-connected disability and 3 points added for others with veterans\u2019 status.<\/p>\n

Any ties afterward would be broken by \u201ctenure subgroup\u201d\u2014with those having at least three years of creditable service ranked higher\u2014and then, if necessary, by length of service.<\/p>\n

The notice mentions that DoD\/DoW has used a similar arrangement in recent years under a separate authority, saying OPM \u201cis convinced by DoD\u2019s experience that prioritizing performance is the right approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

The notice also mentions separate recently proposed<\/a> rules to eliminate the Level 2 \u201cminimally successful\u201d rating and addresses how such a change would be incorporated if finalized. However, it does not address the much broader impact of those rules, imposing a forced distribution pattern on ratings\u2014not yet defined but potentially allowing for only 30 percent of employees to be rated at the top two levels.<\/p>\n

Said the AFGE union, \u201cBy gutting seniority protections and handing agencies sweeping new discretion over who stays and who goes, OPM is making it easier to conduct politically motivated layoffs dressed up as \u2018performance-based\u2019 decisions. But the performance system itself is being rigged by another recent proposed OPM rule that would cap how many employees can receive high ratings, ensuring that \u2018performance\u2019 reflects not actual merit but management\u2019s subjective preferences.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis rule would weaponize those ratings, making performance the dominant RIF factor, letting agencies use subjective awards to sort employees, and stripping many workers out of RIF protections entirely,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

In raising the value of performance ratings over veterans preference and length of service, the rules mirror those proposed<\/a> late in 2020 but not finalized before the start of the Biden administration, which withdrew them. However, the latest proposal goes farther in some ways, for example by:<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 Allowing agencies to define a \u201ccompetitive area\u201d for a RIF as within the lines of \u201cany organizational unit, or combination of organizational units, on an agency\u2019s official organizational chart\u201d including by field office, or by geographic location.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 Excluding from RIF procedures employees serving initial probationary periods and those are serving temporary or time-limited appointments of 1 year or less, who typically are the first to go\u2014which would make it more likely that they could be retained. (Those serving an additional probationary period after promotion to manager or supervisor would be included in an RIF affecting those positions.)<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 Excluding from the requirement to use RIF procedures for furloughs of 30 days or more any furloughs caused by funding lapses; furloughs due to agency moves to save money would remain covered.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 Ending a requirement to use RIF procedures because jobs are reclassified due to \u201cerosion of duties\u201d in certain circumstances.<\/p>\n

The notice says that of the more than 300,000 federal employees who left in 2025, RIFs accounted for only \u201ca very small percentage\u201d\u2014on the order of 7 percent\u2014with retirements, buyouts and deferred resignation offers accounting for the rest.<\/p>\n

The proposal meanwhile addresses numerous technical matters, such as situations where an employee has been under different performance ratings systems during the pertinent four years; where the employee has not had at least three formal ratings in that time; those hired under the post-secondary student hiring authority; eligibility for career transition programs and for re-employment priority; and more.<\/p>\n

IRS Cancels NTEU Union Representation Rights<\/a><\/p>\n

I Fund Continues to Lead TSP Returns in February, Up Over 12% YTD<\/a><\/p>\n

Court Leaves Trump Orders against Unions in Place as Challenges Continue<\/a><\/p>\n

OPM Moves to Implement Forced Ratings Distributions across Federal Workforce<\/a><\/p>\n

MSPB Says It Will Not Hear Appeals of Conversions to Schedule Policy\/Career<\/a><\/p>\n

OPM Outlines Next Steps in Carrying Out Trump Orders against Unions<\/a><\/p>\n

See also,<\/p>\n

How Long Will it Take OPM to Process My Retirement and Pay My Pension<\/a><\/p>\n

The Best Way for Feds to Minimize Taxes for Themselves, and Family<\/a><\/p>\n

Why Standard Social Security Optimization Falls Short for Federal Employees<\/a><\/p>\n

How Withdrawal Order Affects Taxes for Federal Retirees<\/a><\/p>\n

Federal Retirement Income Calculator<\/a><\/p>\n

2026 FERS Retirement & Thrift Savings Plan Handbook<\/a><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The notice says that of the more than 300,000 federal employees who left in 2025, RIFs accounted for…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":520692,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[64,63,99,186,184,185],"class_list":{"0":"post-520691","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-au","9":"tag-australia","10":"tag-business","11":"tag-finance","12":"tag-personal-finance","13":"tag-personalfinance"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=520691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520691\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/520692"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}