Comment from John Kinsley

**Comment on Proposed Rule Regarding Performance-Based Actions and Performance Improvement Plans** I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the proposed regulations governing performance-based reduction in grade and removal actions. While I support the stated goal of improving accountability for poor performance and ensuring the efficient operation of the Federal workforce, I am concerned that a framework emphasizing removal following a 30-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) may unnecessarily limit agencies' ability to achieve sustained performance improvement. The purpose of a PIP should be to provide employees with a meaningful opportunity to become successful contributors, not merely to establish a procedural prerequisite for removal. Performance deficiencies frequently arise from multiple factors, including inadequate training, unclear performance expectations, changes in assigned duties, workload imbalances, technological changes, or temporary personal circumstances. In many cases, these issues can be corrected through targeted interventions that are more effective than immediate separation. Accordingly, I recommend that the final rule expressly authorize agencies, following an unsuccessful 30-day PIP, to consider alternative corrective actions before initiating removal when such actions are consistent with the efficiency of the service. These alternatives could include: * Extension of the improvement period when measurable progress has been demonstrated. * Targeted retraining or coaching addressing identified deficiencies. * Reassignment to duties better aligned with the employee's demonstrated competencies when operationally feasible. * Modified performance milestones with enhanced supervisory feedback. * Temporary reassignment or developmental opportunities designed to address documented skill gaps. Providing agencies with this discretion would not diminish accountability. Rather, it would recognize that supervisors are often in the best position to determine whether an employee is capable of successful performance with additional support. Such flexibility promotes retention of experienced employees, reduces unnecessary turnover costs, preserves institutional knowledge, and minimizes litigation arising from removals where reasonable alternatives were available. Additionally, allowing agencies to document why an alternative corrective action was selected would promote transparency and consistency while preserving management's discretion. Agencies should retain the authority to proceed directly to removal in cases where the record demonstrates that further corrective efforts would not likely result in acceptable performance. A balanced approach that combines accountability with managerial flexibility better serves the statutory objective of promoting the efficiency of the service. Rather than creating an expectation that failure of a 30-day PIP should routinely result in removal, the final rule should expressly recognize corrective action as a continuum of management options, permitting agencies to select the remedy most likely to achieve lasting performance improvement while protecting the interests of the Government and the public. Thank you for considering these comments.