Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Fire District 5
Fire and Emergency Services
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Commander, Navy Region
Mid-Atlantic
U.S. Department of the Navy
U.S. Department of Defense
Colts Neck, New Jersey
GS-081-10
Damon B.Ford
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
02/07/2019
Date
As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).
Since this decision changes the classification of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision (5 CFR 511.702).
As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in Section III.E of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.
Introduction
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Fire Protection Inspector, GS-081-9. The appellant believes the duties and responsibilities warrant an upgrade to the GS-10/11 grade level. The position is located in the Fire Prevention Division (FPD), Fire District 5, Fire and Emergency Services, Naval Weapons Station Earle, Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), U.S. Department of Defense, in Colts Neck, New Jersey. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
General issues
The appellant raises concerns about the agency’s classification review process. He alludes to classification inconsistency by stating in his appeal that his duties and responsibilities are not properly classified and should be upgraded to the GS-10 or 11 grade level. By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position. Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the agency’s classification review process is not germane to this decision.
Position information
The appellant oversees the fire prevention program and supervises the FPD for District 5, which is responsible for providing fire protection and prevention services to the installations within its area of responsibility. District 5 encompasses Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey, and Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg, Naval Support Activity Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia Navy Yard Annex in Pennsylvania. While the PD lists numerous other installations, our review disclosed the appellant’s area of responsibility covers those listed above, as well as providing fire protection and prevention support to eight Naval Operational Support Centers (NOSCs) that perform Navy Reserve functions in New York and Pennsylvania. These centers were added directly to the appellant’s area of responsibility by the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic. The appellant’s work is accomplished through supervision of seven subordinate Fire Protection Inspectors (FPIs).
The appellant carries out the full range of first-level supervisory responsibilities over his subordinate FPIs. He plans work, sets and adjusts short-term priorities, and prepares assignments. He assigns and reviews work to FPIs based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the capabilities of the FPIs. He evaluates the FPIs’ work performance. He gives advice, counsel or instruction on technical and administrative matters, and interviews candidates for FPI positions. He recommends appointment, promotion, or reassignment to FPI positions. He effects minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and reprimands, and recommends other actions in more serious cases. He identifies developmental and training needs for his subordinates, provides or arranges for training, and develops the FPIs’ performance standards.
The appellant also carries out the following FPD’s fire prevention program and oversight functions. For example, when the Regional Fire Prevention Chief sends a draft regional fire prevention instruction, the appellant provides his recommendations for consideration and input into the final instruction. He develops standard operating procedures (SOPs) for serviced installation commanders wanting more stringent instructions for an aspect(s) of their local fire prevention program. Throughout the year, the appellant verifies fire prevention inspections are conducted by his subordinates as scheduled by accessing the Enterprise Safety and Management System (ESAMS). When deficiencies are found, he accesses ESAMS to verify re-inspections are conducted after they are resolved. The appellant ensures his subordinates conduct periodic special hazard inspections and issue hot work permits as needed. He works with the Fire Protection Engineer (FPE) to resolve such issues as determining why fire protection systems are not functioning properly, and oversees the Fire Warden Program at his serviced installations. The appellant keeps up-to-date on fire protection and prevention issues and discusses with his supervisor systems and/or equipment he believes should be implemented or purchased for his serviced installations. The appellant reviews all construction plans for new and revised structures, discusses the fire prevention portion of the plans with his subordinate assigned to the installation, and signs off when he is satisfied with the fire prevention aspect of the plans.
Both the appellant and his supervisor believe the appellant’s current PD of record (number 6802A) is accurate. However, our fact-finding shows the appellant conducts onsite inspections only as needed, not on a regular and recurring basis as inferred by the wording in his PD. While the appellant is directly responsible for overseeing the various elements of the fire prevention program, for reasons discussed later in this decision he does not regularly conduct the kinds of onsite installation inspections listed in the PD under the “Fire Prevention Program Management” section. Therefore, the PD should be amended to clarify the preceding section, and reflect only the installations in his area of responsibility, including the NOSCs. For these reasons, the appellant’s PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed in the Introduction, and the agency must revise it to reflect our findings.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his supervisor.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-081, titling it Supervisory Fire Protection Inspector, and used the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) to evaluate his supervisory responsibilities. He does not disagree and we concur. The agency also believes that as described in his PD the appellant performs non-supervisory fire prevention and protection duties (particularly inspections) and evaluated them at the GS-7 level using Part II of the grading criteria in the Position Classification Standard (PCS) for the GS-081 series. However, our fact-finding disclosed the appellant’s agency is currently in the process of filling several FPI vacancies in his organization, thus the appellant is only temporarily performing inspection duties, in addition to his supervisory and related program management responsibilities, until his unit is fully staffed. Section III F.2 of the Introduction states temporary duties generally do not affect the classification of a position, but the position should be reevaluated if the duties extend over several months and it can be reasonably assumed that the duties will continue to recur. Both the appellant and his supervisor stated that when the unit is completely staffed the appellant will cease performing inspection duties, and devote his time solely to supervisory and fire prevention oversight responsibilities.
Because the appellant would normally spend all of his work time performing supervisory responsibilities related to the functioning and program management elements of the FPD, we have only applied the criteria in the GSSG to evaluate the grade of his supervisory duties.
Grade determination
The GSSG is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-5 through GS-15. The GSSG employs a factor-point evaluation method that assesses six factors common to all supervisory positions. To grade a position, each factor is evaluated by comparing the position to the factor-level description for that factor and crediting the points designated for the highest factor level which is fully met, in accordance with the instructions specific to the factor being evaluated. The total points assessed under all factors are then converted to a grade by using the grade conversion table in the GSSG.
The appellant disagrees with his agency’s assignment of Level 1-2 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect; Level 4A-1 for Nature of Contacts and Level 4B-1 for Purpose of Contacts for Factor 4, Personal Contacts; and Level 6-2a for Other Conditions. We reviewed the agency’s determination for Factors 2, 3, and 5 for which the appellant does not disagree, and we concur. Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 4, and 6.
Factor 1, Program scope and effect
This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage. It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization. To assign a factor level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.
Scope
This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered. The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.
At Level 1-2, the scope of the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature. The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments. An illustration of such work is a position that directs budget, management, staffing, supply, maintenance, protective, library, payroll, or similar services which support a small Army, Navy, or Air Force base with no extensive research, development, testing, or comparable missions, a typical national park, a hospital, or a nondefense agency field office of moderate size and limited complexity. The services provided directly or significantly impact other functions and activities throughout the organizations supported and/or a small population of visitors or users.
At Level 1-3, a position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work. The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area's taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city. Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level.
Level 1-2 is met. Like this level, the appellant directs work that is technical in nature, in this case graded at the GS-8 level. Similar to Level 1-2, , the FPD provides fire protection and prevention services to all of the organizations at the installations within its area of responsibility which, although dispersed in three states, can be characterized as small to medium military installations providing a variety of support services to Navy forces, e.g., ordnance, weapons systems.
Level 1-3 is not met. The appellant states he should be assigned this level because the FPD provides fire protection and prevention services to one installation in New Jersey, three installations in Pennsylvania, and eight NOSCs in New York and Pennsylvania. However, unlike Level 1-3, the scope of the appellant’s fire prevention and inspection program work does not encompass a major metropolitan area, a state, or a small region of several states, nor does it directly affect the activities of a large or complex multi-mission military installation.
Level 1-2 for Scope is assigned.
Effect
This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or the programs described under “Scope” on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.
At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or comparable program segments; or provide services to a moderate, local or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county.
At Level 1-3, activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public. At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large serviced populations comparable to the examples below) the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.
The appellant’s position meets Level 1-2. Like this level, the fire protection and inspection services provided significantly affect the installations’ operations and objectives. This is particularly true at Naval Weapons Station Earle which provides all ordnance (ammunition) for all Atlantic Fleet Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. Highly flammable and explosive ordnance is regularly stored and issued to Fleet ships from the installation. Therefore, the appellant’s fire prevention and inspection services are critical to protecting life and property from fire, explosion, panic, and injuries in storage and loading areas. Protection from fire also directly impacts operations at major Navy supply and maintenance installations.
Level 1-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s fire protection and inspection program services do not directly and significantly impact a wide range of Department of the Navy activities, the work of other agencies, the operations of outside interests, or the general public. The appellant’s program does not directly involve or substantially impact the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations.
Level 1-2 for Effect is assigned.
This factor is evaluated at Level 1-2 and 350 points are assigned.
Factor 4, Personal Contacts
This is a two part factor which assesses the nature and the purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts, credited under Subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts, credited under Subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.
Subfactor 4A: Nature of contacts
At Level 4A-1, contacts are with subordinates within the organizational unit(s) supervised, with peers who supervise comparable units within the larger organization, with union shop stewards, and/or with the staff of administrative and other support activities when the persons contacted are within the same organization as the supervisor. Contacts are typically informal and occur in person at the work place of those contacted, in routine meetings, or by telephone.
At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts comparable to any of those below meet this level. Contacts are with: members of the business community or the general public; higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level) or major organization level of the agency; representatives of local public interest groups; case workers in congressional district offices; technical or operating level employees of State and local governments; or reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. Contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, televised, radio, or similar contact, and sometimes require non-routine or special preparation.
At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts comparable to any of those below meet this level. Contacts are with: high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local government managers doing business with the agency. Contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management. They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.
The agency assigned Level 4A-1, but our fact-finding shows that level is exceeded and Level 4A-2 is met. Like this level, not only does he deal with his subordinates, but in his related managerial program responsibilities his frequent contacts include higher ranking managers and program staff including the Fire Protection Engineer, general contractors, department-level managers, tenant command representatives, the Officer-In-Charge at the serviced installations, and the Naval Weapons Station Earle Commander. Like Level 4A-2, these contacts may be informal, occur in meetings, and through telephone and email. Sometimes special preparation is needed, e.g., reviewing construction plans and interpreting fire protection codes.
Level 4A-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s frequent contacts do not include high ranking civilian or military managers at Navy’s major organization levels; contracting officials or high level technical staff of large industrial firms; or State and local government managers. These contacts take place in meetings and conferences and often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date familiarity with complex subject matter. The appellant does not have routine contacts of this nature.
This factor is evaluated at Level 4A-2 and 50 points are assigned.
Subfactor 4B: Purpose of contacts
At Level 4B-1, the purpose of contacts is to discuss work efforts for providing or receiving services; to exchange factual information about work operations and personnel management matters; and to provide training, advice, and guidance to subordinates.
At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent, to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization, and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.
At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequences or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.
The agency assigned Level 4B-1, but our fact-finding shows that level is exceeded and Level 4B-2 is met. Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is to provide accurate and consistent information about fire protection procedures, measures, and practices that must be followed. The appellant meets with general contractors about fire safety equipment that must be present and requirements they must comply with when renovating structures. He plans and coordinates training and fire inspections with fire staff personnel at installations outside his immediate organization. The appellant reviews the fire prevention portion of construction plans to ensure they include the required elements of fire safety, such as a sprinkler or another type of water distribution system. He responds to questions and provides assistance to department-level managers about such issues as inspection noncompliance findings, resolves differences of opinions, and discusses fire safety equipment that would meet their needs.
Level 4B-3 is not met. This level requires justifying, defending, or negotiating on behalf of the organization with the necessary level of authority to commit resources and gain compliance with established policies of the organization, i.e., FPD. While the appellant may occasionally have to justify or defend program findings, he does not have the responsibility and authority to obtain or commit resources for his organization. That responsibility resides at higher management levels.
This factor is evaluated at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.
Factor 6, Other conditions
This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. There are two steps involved in assigning a level under Factor 6: (1) select the highest level that the position meets, and (2) if the level selected in step 1 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, refer to the Special Situations section of Factor 6. If the position meets three or more of the situations, then a single level is added to the level selected in the first step. If the level selected under step 1 is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations section does not apply, and no level is added to the one selected in step 1.
At Level 6-2, at least one of the two following conditions must be met: (a) the work supervised or overseen involves technician and/or support work comparable in difficulty to GS-7 or GS-8, or work at the GS-4, 5 or 6 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work, which requires coordination and integration of work efforts, either within the unit or with other units, in order to produce a completed work product or service; (b) the position directs subordinate supervisors of work comparable to GS-6 or lower, where coordinating the work of the subordinate units requires a continuing effort to assure quality and service standards, limited to matters of timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, and quantity. Coordination at this level ensures consistency of product, service, interpretation, or advice; conformance with the output of other units, with formal standards or agency policy. Supervisors typically coordinate with supervisors of other units to deal with requirements and problems affecting others outside the organization.
At Level 6-3, at least one of the two following conditions must be met: (a) the work supervised or overseen requires coordination, integration, or consolidation of administrative, technical, or complex technician or other support work comparable to GS-9 or 10, or work at the GS-7 or 8 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work. (Full and final technical authority means that the supervisor is responsible for all technical determinations arising from the work, without technical advice or assistance on even the more difficult and unusual problems, and without further review except from an administrative or program evaluation standpoint. Credit for this should be limited to situations involving an extraordinary degree of finality in technical decision making.) Directing the work at this level (cases, reports, studies, regulations, advice to clients, etc.) requires consolidation or coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-2a, but over a higher level of work. This level may also be met when the work directed is analytical, interpretive, judgmental, evaluative, or creative. Such work places significant demands on the supervisor to resolve conflicts and maintain compatibility of interpretation, judgment, logic, and policy application, because the basic facts, information, and circumstances often vary substantially; guidelines are incomplete or do not readily yield identical results; or differences in judgments, recommendations, interpretations, or decisions can have consequences or impact on the work of other subordinates. Such work also may be accomplished by a team, each member of which contributes a portion of the analyses, facts, information, proposed actions, or recommendations, which are then integrated by the supervisor; or (b) the position directs subordinate supervisors over positions in grades GS-7 or 8 or the equivalent which requires consolidation or coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-2a within or among subordinate units or with outside units.
Level 6-2a is met. Like this level, the appellant supervises technical work comparable in difficulty to the GS-8. His coordination activities ensure consistency of services provided. For example, the appellant reviews his subordinates’ inspection reports for accuracy, meets with general contractors to explain the fire safety equipment needed throughout the construction process, oversees the Fire Warden Program, and responds to questions about fire prevention issues from department-level and installation managers and tenants.
Level 6-3 is not met. The appellant believes his position meets Level 6-3a because he has supervision, oversight, and technical authority over the FPD’s work. He states he signs off on the technical fire prevention portion of construction plans and his supervisor trusts his judgment. However, our interview with the appellant’s supervisor shows credit for full and final technical authority for fire protection and prevention program products and issues is assigned to the District 5 Fire Chief, the appellant’s supervisor. The appellant states he also meets this level because the work directed is analytical, interpretive, judgmental, and evaluative. However, our fact finding shows the appellant’s work does not rise to the level of resolving conflicts and maintaining compatibility of interpretation, judgment, logic, and policy application due to information varying substantially and incomplete guidelines. Like Level 6-2, he reviews and coordinates work products and applicable governing guidance to ensure consistent application of inspection parameters and interpretation of relevant and clear fire prevention guidelines. Level 6-3b is also not met because the appellant does not direct subordinate supervisors.
This factor is evaluated at Level 6-2a and 575 points are assigned.
Special Situations
Supervisory and oversight work may be complicated by special situations and/or conditions. The conditions described are (1) Variety of Work, (2) Shift Operations, (3) Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines, (4) Physical Dispersion, (5) Special Staffing Situations, (6) Impact of Specialized Programs, (7) Changing Technology, and (8) Special Hazard and Safety Conditions. If the position meets three or more of the eight special situations, it is credited one level above that which would otherwise be assigned.
Variety of Work
This situation is credited when more than one kind of work, each kind representing a requirement for a distinctly different additional body of knowledge on the part of the supervisor, is present in the work of the unit. A “kind of work” usually will be the equivalent of a classification series. Each “kind of work” requires substantially full qualification in distinctly separate areas, or full knowledge and understanding of rules, regulations, procedures, and subject matter of a distinctly separate area of work. Additionally, to credit “Variety” (1) both technical and administrative responsibility must be exercised over the work, and (2) the grade level of the work cannot be more than one grade below the base level of work used in Factor 5.
Our fact-finding shows the appellant supervises one kind of work, i.e., GS-081 Fire Protection Inspector. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Shift Operations
This situation is credited when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.
Our fact finding shows the FPD only operates the day shift, Monday through Friday. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines
Fluctuating work force is credited when the workforce supervised by the position has large fluctuations in size (e.g. when there are significant seasonal variations in staff) and these fluctuations impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for training, adjusting assignments, or maintaining a smooth flow of work while absorbing and releasing employees.
Constantly changing deadlines is credited when frequent, abrupt, and unexpected changes in work assignments, goals, and deadlines require the supervisor constantly to adjust operations under the pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions.
The appellant’s work force is constant and he is not subject to constantly changing deadlines as described above. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Physical Dispersion
This situation is credited when a substantial portion of the workload for which the supervisor is responsible is regularly carried out at one or more locations which are physically removed from the main unit (as in different buildings, or widely dispersed locations in a large warehouse or factory building), under conditions which make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.
Five of the appellant’s seven subordinate FPIs work in different physical locations which makes daily supervision of their work more difficult. Therefore, this situation is credited.
Special Staffing Situations
This situation is credited when: (1) a substantial portion of the work force is regularly involved in special employment programs, or in similar situations which require involvement with employee representatives to resolve difficult or complex human resources management issues and problems; (2) requirements for counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring; and (3) job assignments, work tasks, working conditions, and/or training must be tailored to fit the special circumstances.
The appellant’s work force is not involved in special employment programs and he does not regularly counsel nor tailor the work conditions and/or job assignments on a regular basis. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Impact of Specialized Programs
This situation is credited when supervisors are responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the level of work credited in Factor 5, provided the grades of this work are not based upon independence of action, freedom from supervision, or personal impact on the job.
The appellant does not supervise any work above the base level of GS-8. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Changing Technology
This situation is credited when work processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of the subordinate staff.
The appellant provides or sends his subordinates to training when the National Fire Protection Association’s standards and codes are updated. While these updates impact the FPD’s work processes they do not vary constantly and are not related to changes in technology. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
Special Hazard and Safety Conditions
This situation is credited when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provision for significant unsafe or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization.
Our fact-finding shows the appellant issues a hard hat, yellow safety vest, and eye protection to the FPIs when they come onboard and explains they are to be worn at construction sites and in basements. The appellant sends monthly safety equipment reminders to the FPIs. Safety precautions must be met, but they do not reach the level of increasing the difficulty of the appellant’s position. Therefore, this situation is not credited.
As previously stated, Level 6-2a was credited for the first step of the evaluation of this factor. Because this position meets only one Special Situation and not three, a single additional level is not added to the level selected in the first step.
This factor is evaluated at Level 6-2a and 575 points are assigned.
Summary
| Factor | Level | Points |
| 1. Program Scope and Effect | 1-2 | 350 |
| 2. Organizational Setting | 2-1 | 100 |
| 3. Supervisory/Managerial Authority | 3-2c | 450 |
| 4. Personal Contacts | ||
| Nature of Contacts | 4A-2 | 50 |
| Purpose of Contacts | 4B-2 | 75 |
| 5. Difficulty of Work Directed | 5-4 | 505 |
| 6. Other Conditions | 6-2a | 575 |
| Total Points | 2,105 |
The total points fall within the GS-10 point range of 2,105 to 2,350 on the grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.
Decision
Based on our review, the position is properly classified as Supervisory Fire Protection Inspector, GS-081-10.