General

No, not at all. In fact, the Office of Personnel Management anticipates that this is an area in which agencies may show considerable creativity. Agency performance appraisal programs must specify a method for deriving a rating of record and assigning a summary level. The level designators described in Part 430 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, etc.) address summary levels only.

One agency appraisal program could be designed to:

• appraise critical elements at only two levels (which must be Fully Successful and Unacceptable)
• use group-level non-critical elements with their standards written only at the Outstanding level and appraise them using at least two levels (e.g., Outstanding and Not Outstanding) and
• use summary Levels 1, 3, and 5 and assign the summary level based on appraisal of both the critical and non-critical elements.

Another program, possibly even in the same agency and under the same overall appraisal system, could be designed to:

• appraise critical elements at five levels (two of which must be Fully Successful and Unacceptable) in the interest of providing specific feedback and developing information to use in justifying appropriate individual recognition and rewards and
• use the Pass/Fail summary level pattern (Levels 1 and 3) to assign summary levels based simply on whether any critical element is appraised as Unacceptable, and
• use a variety of performance information and measurements, including appraisal of additional performance elements included in employee performance plans, to drive the distribution of awards in ways that underscore achieving the organization's objectives.

In outlining these alternatives, the Office of Personnel Management is recommending neither, but simply illustrating the flexibility the regulations provide. The particular program design choices that agencies and their subcomponents make should reflect their own situations and needs.