NBIB Hiring More Background Investigators to Help Clear Up Backlog


#1

Originally published at: https://www.clearancejobsblog.com/nbib-hiring-more-background-investigators-to-help-clear-up-backlog/

The National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) conducts approximately 95% of the background investigations for the Federal Government, and also handles portions of investigations (e.g., NACs, FBI fingerprint checks) for agencies that run their own investigations. In 2016 the NBIB had a total investigator workforce of 5,843 (federal and contractor investigators) and have since increased it…


#2

I don’t see how the Phase 1 shift of work to DSS can contribute to less work and better timeliness. The work specified in Phase 1 generally do not require investigator fieldwork or involvement. I don’t expect to see any significant improvement in the case times until the Tier 4 and 5’s migrate over to DSS and even then, the competition for investigators will be a determent to case processing.


#3

Any meaningful increase in investigators will come from the Investigative Services Providers or ISPs of OPM: CACI, KeyPoint, General Dynamics (bought CSRA) and Securitas. NBIB can only add marginal numbers. When you take the increased NBIB investigative number and spread that number out across all of the OPM field offices (future DSS field offices), what’s that, an additional 1 or 2 investigators per field office? That will hardly make a dent in the investigative & adjudicative backlogs. The federal PSI program has many, many serious problems going forward.


#4

If that actually added one or two investigators to each field off, you’re right, this will do little. But, the backlog is not spread evenly across all of the field offices. The smaller office away from the cities are getting along pretty well but the DC, NVA type offices are way behind. Adding several new investigators to each of these offices will make a difference.


#5

DMV area isn’t actually too bad per Director Phalen. They’re about where they need to be.

I’d also like to add that field offices shouldn’t be talked about in the traditional sense. All FI’s are remote and don’t generally report to a physical field office, so any conversation regarding the physical field offices (as I’ve seen in some open hearings) aren’t really relevant to operational capabilities.