Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust

This executive order streamlines federal personnel vetting by requiring agencies to recognize prior fitness and suitability determinations for excepted service and contractor employees when criteria are equivalent. It also mandates periodic reinvestigation of individuals in positions of public trust under standards set by the Office of Personnel Management.

Federal Register Open PDF 74 FR 4111

Impact dates

Apr 16, 2009
Applicability to newly appointed excepted service employees and newly hired contractor employees begins
Jan 16, 2009
EO effective upon issuance

Key directives

Agencies shall grant reciprocal recognition to prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations when criteria are equivalent to OPM suitability standards and no break in employment occurred
Agency heads retain discretion to establish fitness criteria and determine equivalency to OPM suitability standards
Exceptions to reciprocity: higher investigation level required, new derogatory information, or incompatible conduct for core duties
Individuals in positions of public trust subject to reinvestigation under standards determined by OPM Director
Agencies must report background investigation and fitness determination results to OPM
OPM Director delegated implementation authority including regulation and guidance issuance

Who is ordered

Timeline

Immediate

EO effective upon issuance on January 16, 2009
OPM Director delegated authority to implement order and issue regulations/guidance

Near term (90d)

Reciprocal recognition and reinvestigation provisions become applicable to newly appointed excepted service employees and newly hired contractor employees on April 16, 2009

Long term

Ongoing reciprocal recognition of prior fitness/suitability determinations across agencies
Periodic reinvestigation of public trust positions under OPM standards

Risks & tensions

Vague 'to the extent practicable' qualifier in Section 1(a) may weaken reciprocity mandate in practice
Agency discretion over equivalency determinations (Sec. 3) could create inconsistent implementation across government
No specific reinvestigation frequency set—delegated entirely to OPM Director, creating uncertainty until standards issued
Reporting requirement to OPM (Sec. 6(a)) qualified by 'to the extent consistent with law,' potentially limiting data sharing
Exclusion of intelligence community positions (Sec. 2(c)) creates fragmented personnel vetting landscape