Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


03/19/2021

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate which 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).

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Engineering Technician (Drafting), GS-0802-06, and is assigned to the Engineering Division (ED), Directorate of Public Works (DPW), U.S. Army Garrison Fort Buchanan (USAGFB), U.S. Army Installation Management Command, U.S. Department of the Army (DA), Fort Buchanan, in Puerto Rico.  The appellant believes his position should be classified as Architect, GS-0808-11/12.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s classification review process and compares his position to other higher-graded positions within his agency.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing the appellant’s current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Therefore, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to other positions that may or may not be properly classified as a basis for deciding his appeal.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the position.  Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellant’s statements regarding the classification practices used by his agency to classify his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.

Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines.  The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions.  If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to his agency’s headquarters human resources office.  In doing so, he should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  If the positions are found to be basically the same as his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others. 

The appellant refers to duties and responsibilities associated with past projects he participated in (some performed more than 5 years ago) as support for the requested change in the classification of his position.  However, only duties which are currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time, such as one year, can be considered when determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook (Handbook), Chapter 3; and 5 U.S.C. 5112).

The appellant places emphasis on Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) work performed by him to support his appeal.  However, COR duties can be assigned to any Federal position with the technical knowledge and skill necessary to determine if contracted work is being performed appropriately.   For example, a certified Electrician COR may monitor contracted electrical work, or a Computer Programmer COR may monitor contracted computer repair and upgrade work.  Thus, COR duties are an extension of the knowledge and skill required to perform the primary work of the position to which the COR duties are assigned.  Consequently, there is no specific guidance for grading COR duties, and they must be evaluated against the appropriate PCS for the position to which the COR duties are assigned.  In addition, the COR duties performed by the appellant constitute approximately 10 percent of his overall work.  However, duties occupying less than 25 percent of an employee’s time cannot be considered when determining the grade of a position (Handbook, Chapter 5 and Introduction).

The appellant requests that OPM direct his agency to include technical drafting duties and responsibilities in his annual performance evaluations.  However, OPM’s position classification appeal authority under 5 U.S.C 5112 does not include the authority to determine which elements should be included in an employee’s performance plan and annual evaluation.  The appellant’s agency has primary responsibility for ensuring that performance elements and standards for annual evaluations are developed consistent with current Federal guidelines.  If the appellant believes specific elements of his annual performance evaluation are incorrect, he may formally pursue the matter with his agency.

The appellant believes his personal qualifications (i.e., bachelor’s degree and experience in the field of Architecture) should be considered when determining the series, title, and grade of his position.  However, only qualifications that are required to perform current duties and responsibilities of the position, and not qualifications that appellants personally possess, may be considered when classifying a position.  Therefore, we cannot consider the appellant’s personal qualifications, except insofar as they are required to perform his current duties and responsibilities.  To the extent that they are needed for this purpose, we carefully considered them along with all other information furnished by the appellant and his agency.   

Although the appellant’s supervisor has certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s official position description (PD) number GV290858, the appellant believes it is inaccurate because it does not detail specific duties and responsibilities associated with his drafting and COR work such as interpreting preliminary architectural plans and designs; developing drawings of architectural features and structures using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) programs; and developing cost estimates for projects, etc.  A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee.  Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellant. 

Position information

DPW’s mission is to maintain, repair, and improve services to roads, grounds and real property assets within USAGFB.  DPW is composed of six public works divisions (e.g., Master Planning; Business Operations and Integration; Housing Management; Environment and Natural Resources; Operations and Maintenance; and Engineering/Energy (ED)).  ED is responsible for designing, reviewing, approving, and managing all construction and renovation projects, and for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all Federal construction and renovation contracts performed within USAGFB.

The appellant spends approximately 90 percent of his time providing technical support to ED architectural and engineering project managers (PMs).  He uses his substantial training and experience in the methods, practices, and regulatory requirements of technical drafting to gather and interpret information and data from a variety of sources, such as rough sketches, notes, drawings, and verbal descriptions.

He uses standard formulas (e.g., three-dimensional rectangular parallelepiped, frustum of a right circular cone, and sector of a circle), tables, manuals, and other information, as well as a variety of precision instruments (e.g., T-square, Set Squares, Protractor), equipment (e.g., laser distance measuring devices), and computer programs (e.g., CAD and CADD) to develop detailed preliminary and final scale drawings of buildings, structures, roads, utilities, mechanical and electrical systems (e.g., emergency generators, HVAC systems, security and surveillance systems, and lighting), equipment, and the orientation of buildings based on characteristics of land, such as contours and drainage patterns.  Data and information derived from his technical drawings may be used by the PM or CO to determine the type and quantities of materials needed for assigned projects and to estimate costs and timelines.  He makes note of any obvious flaws and deficiencies (e.g., incompatible materials, systems, and structural components, substandard building methods) within existing architectural and engineering plans and develops and submits proposed corrections and modifications to the PM for consideration.  He provides recommendations to the PM regarding the most efficient use of limited space, the optimal orientation of architectural features, or the placement of features and fixtures (e.g., windows, doors, and light fixtures) to take advantage of natural light or to enjoy the best views.  He also briefs the PM on the technical details of his drafts prior to project presentations and briefings to higher-level managers and administrators.

The appellant spends approximately 10 percent of his time serving as a COR for ED by acting as a technical liaison between various Federal contractors and DPW’s CO.  He performs contract pre-award tasks such as preparing work statements, arranging for and coordinating the use of Government resources, and providing technical guidance concerning the performance requirements for project-related contract work.  He receives, reviews, and submits a variety of contract-related data, documents, and reports (e.g., progress reports, selected invoices, and final reports) to the CO for consideration and action.  He also uses his experience and technical judgment as an Engineering Technician (Drafting) to help the CO monitor the performance and progress of contracted work and makes recommendations for project-related contract changes.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD which we find sufficient for purposes of classification and have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant, his supervisor, and staff of his servicing human resources office. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency placed the appellant’s position in the Engineering Technical Series, 0802, titling it Engineering Technician (Drafting).  The appellant believes his position should be classified in the Architecture Series, 0808.  However, for the reasons discussed below the appellant’s position is appropriately placed in the 0802 series.

The Architecture Series, 0808, covers positions responsible for managing, supervising, leading, and/or performing professional architecture work involving the art and science of conceptualizing, planning, developing, and implementing designs to ensure buildings and structures are responsive to human activities and needs; structurally sound and permanent; and economical to acquire, operate, and maintain.

The Engineering Technical Series, 0802, covers technical positions primarily requiring application of a practical knowledge of:  (1) the methods and techniques of engineering or architecture; and (2) the construction, application, properties, operations, and limitations of engineering systems, processes, structures, machinery, devices, and materials.  Engineering technicians work in a variety of unique work situations, often aligned with professional engineering and architecture fields and each with a fairly distinct set of knowledge and skill requirements.  The work involves functions such as research, development, design, evaluation, construction, inspection, production, application, standardization, testing, or operation of engineering facilities, structures, systems, processes, equipment, devices, or materials.  Basic knowledge and skills are transferable from one specialization to another.  Engineering Technical, 0802, positions do not require professional knowledge and abilities for full performance and therefore do not require training equivalent in type and scope to that represented by completing a professional curriculum leading to a bachelor’s degree in engineering or architecture.

The appellant believes his position should be placed in the 0808 series because he possesses a bachelor’s degree and experience in the field of Architecture.  However, the paramount knowledge to perform his primary work and recruitment strategies associated with the appellant’s position do not support placement in the 0808 series.  Instead, the paramount knowledge to perform his primary duties and sources of recruitment to fill the position supports placement in the Engineering Technical Series, 0802.

Unlike the 0808 series, the primary work of the appellant’s position does not require knowledge of professional architecture nor does he perform the typical architectural duties previously described in the 0808 series definition, e.g.,  work involving the art and science of conceptualizing, planning, developing, and implementing designs to ensure buildings and structures are responsive to human activities and needs, etc.  Such duties are assigned to the ED Architect and Engineer PMs.  Instead, like positions in the 0802 series, the appellant spends approximately 90 percent of his work time portraying engineering and architectural ideas and related project information through a variety of technical drawings of buildings, structures, systems, and ornamental features.  Similar to 0802 positions, the appellant provides the PMs with a variety of project-related information such as estimates of the types and quantities of construction materials needed for specific designs; possible issues which may occur as the result of integrating new and old structures and systems; suggestions regarding the optimal orientation of structures within available land; and estimates of project timelines.

Unlike 0808 positions, the appellant’s work does not require a formal education (i.e., bachelor’s degree) and/or professional experience in the field of Architecture.  Instead, like 0802 positions, the appellant applies a practical knowledge of technical drafting methods, processes, and technology and understanding of the detailed characteristics of the items being drawn (e.g., buildings, structures, systems, and ornamental features) sufficient to develop drawings, layouts, and drafts, which comply with ED PM design parameters and Federal, State, and local codes and guidelines.  In support of this conclusion, both the appellant’s supervisor and staff of his servicing human resources office indicated that professional architects are not considered a recruitment source when filling the position.  Instead, the pool of candidates for the position are limited to individuals possessing knowledge and experience in the full range of drafting methods, tools, processes, and techniques.  Based on the preceding analysis, the appellant’s position is appropriately classified in the Engineering Technical Series, 0802. 

The basic title for positions in the 0802 series grade 4 and above is Engineering Technician.  In addition, for positions like the appellant’s  the parenthetical title of (Drafting) is added to the basic title for work involving portraying engineering and architectural ideas and information through drawings and drafting assignments requiring comprehension of the detailed characteristics of the item being designed and associated with accepted design practices.  Therefore, the appellant’s position is appropriately titled Engineering Technician (Drafting).  Positions classified in the 0802 series are evaluated by use of the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800.  Our application of the position grading criteria in the Technical 0800 JFS follows. 

Grade determination

The 0800 JFS is written in Factor Evaluation System (FES) format.  Positions graded under the FES are compared to nine factors.  Levels are assigned for each factor, and the points associated with the assigned levels are totaled and converted to a grade level.  Under the FES, each factor-level description describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  If a position fails to fully meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some respects and still not be credited at a higher level.

By application of the grading criteria in the JFS for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800, the agency credited Level 1-5 for Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position; Level 2-2 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls; Level 3-2 for Factor 3, Guidelines; Level 4-2 for Factor 4, Complexity; Level 5-3 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect; Level 6-1 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts; Level 7-A for Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts; Level 8-2 for Factor 8, Physical Demands; and Level 9-2 for Factor 9, Work Environment.    However, in his response to the agency’s classification evaluation in its administrative report to OPM, the appellant applied the grading criteria in both the JFSs for Technical and Professional Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800, concurring with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 8 and 9, but disagreeing with its evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 asserting they should be evaluated at Levels  1-7, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-3, and 7-C or D (Professional 0800 JFS).   Nevertheless, because we find this position does not perform professional work in the 0800 Group, application of the grading criteria in the JFS for Professional Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800, is not appropriate to this position.  Using the grading criteria in the Technical 0800 JFS we concur with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 8 and 9 at Level 8-2 and 9-2 respectively, but disagree with its evaluation of Factors 1 and 2.  Therefore, our analysis focuses on Factors 1 through 7 which are in dispute. 

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts an employee must understand to do acceptable work (e.g., steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts) and the nature and extent of the skills necessary to apply that knowledge.

At Level 1-4, the employee uses a practical knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of standard procedures or operations requiring extended training or experience in technical engineering methods and practices within the area of specialization sufficient to select the most efficient methods and procedures; carry out standard procedures based on assignments; use, adapt, or adjust equipment for optimum operation; interpret plans and specifications; apply and use data with consideration of the source characteristics; inspect and test a variety of equipment and materials; extract data from a variety of sources; complete very exact measurements using standard formulas; determine results not susceptible to precise, quantitative measures but instead requiring subjective determinations; recognize and report errors, inconsistencies, and other deficiencies in technical data; select the method for presenting data for internal use to include such forms as drawings, models, or tables; keep records and prepare reports; and review findings and make recommendations to colleagues and supervisors.

At Level 1-5, the employee uses practical knowledge of, and skill in applying, standardized rules or operations requiring substantial training or experience in methods and practices sufficient to perform limited projects involving specialized or complicated procedures; apply a wide variety of test and inspection techniques to various engineering aspects to make on-site determinations; interpret drawings, plans and specifications; identify and correct deficiencies; resolve operational problems not fully covered by precedents; ensure appropriate interaction between components; recommend improved procedures; modify parts, instruments, and equipment; employ a variety of complex precision instruments, gauges, and methods; perform work on critical units or multiple subunits of a system or device; take actions or make recommendations based on preliminary data interpretation or analysis; prepare and present inspection and testing reports and documentation requiring a high-degree of precision and using a variety of projection techniques to portray unusual or complex designs; develop and initiate changes in prescribed procedures to expedite corrective action, and provide continuous operation when required; and work primarily with subsystems that are notably complex by reason of miniature size, density of circuitry, lack of available documentation, etc.

Level 1-4 is met.  Like Level 1-4, the appellant uses his extensive training and experience as well as a practical knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of standard architectural and engineering practices to select the most appropriate and efficient techniques, technology, methods, and procedures for developing 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional preliminary and final technical drawings and layouts for assigned construction and renovation projects.  Similar to Level 1-4, the appellant reviews and compares the qualities and characteristics of a variety of building materials and construction methods.  He gathers and interprets project-related data and information (e.g., dimensions, materials, and timelines) from a variety of sources (e.g., rough sketches, notes, drawings, and verbal descriptions) and recognizes and reports technical data errors and inconsistencies to the supervisor, PM, or CO.  Comparable to Level 1-4, the appellant considers the architectural and engineering requirements and characteristics of each construction and renovation project when developing technical drawings, such as the structure’s purpose, occupancy requirements, projected volume of foot and vehicular traffic, and required lifespan of the product.  Like Level 1-4, the appellant uses a variety of formulas, instruments, tools, methods, and techniques to obtain precise measurements and dimensions.  He also considers project-related factors which may be difficult to measure using standard formulas, such as sound transference, natural light, and aesthetics.  Like Level 1-4, the appellant keeps detailed records of all data and information related to assigned projects and selects the most effective method for providing updates and reports and for presenting technical drawings to the supervisor, PM, and CO.  For example, if the appellant is submitting a routine project update to the PM, he may decide to email him a rough 2-dimensional draft for their review.  However, if the PM is preparing for a formal project presentation to the supervisor, the appellant may develop a video presentation with interactive CAD or CADD graphics.  Similar to Level 1-4 the appellant reviews project data and information and provides project-related suggestions and recommendations to the PM, such as changing the number and location of windows; changes to the orientation of new construction, adding or subtracting light features, and the substitution of various construction materials.

Level 1-5 is not met.  Unlike Level 1-5, the appellant does not typically perform limited projects involving specialized or complicated procedures.  Instead, most architectural and engineering projects performed at USAGFB are routine construction and renovation projects such as updates and/or additions to existing buildings.  The PM and CO are directly responsible for managing all aspects of construction and renovation projects at USAGFB and within this context the appellant uses standard methods, processes, and technology to develop technical drawings in support of PMs or for comparing work performed by Federal contractors to specific contract requirements determined by the CO.  Unlike Level 1-5, the appellant does not test the engineering aspects of work performed for ED projects or Federal contracts.  Instead, the PM, CO, or an assigned ED engineer is directly responsible for developing and testing the engineering aspects of projects and contracts.  Unlike Level 1-5, the appellant is not responsible for resolving operational problems and procedures, correcting design deficiencies, ensuring continuous construction operations, or resolving operational problems associated with ED projects or Federal contract work performed at USAGFB.  These responsibilities rest with the PM, CO, supervisor, or higher-level agency managers.

Since the knowledge required by the appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-5, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to compare his position to the Level 1-7 criteria which he seeks but exceeds the knowledge necessary to perform his work. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-4 and 550 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee’s responsibility and the review of the work completed. The primary components of this factor are how work is assigned, the employee responsibility, and how the work is reviewed.

At Level 2-3, the supervisor or designated employee outlines possible problem areas; defines objectives, plans, priorities and deadlines and provides assistance on controversial or unusual situations with no clear precedents.  The employee independently plans and carries out the assignments in conformance with accepted policies and practices; resolves commonly encountered work problems and deviations by exercising judgment in selecting appropriate instructions, policies, guidelines, or accepted practices; and brings controversial information and findings to the supervisor’s attention for direction.  The supervisor or designated employee reviews completed work for conformity with policy, the appropriateness of the employee’s approach, technical soundness, and adherence to deadlines.

At Level 2-4, the supervisor outlines overall objectives and available resources; discusses the projects and timeframes with the employee; and determines the parameters of the employee’s responsibilities.  The employee determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue; decides the practices and methods to apply in all phases of assignments including the approach to take and the depth and intensity needed; interprets regulations or policy frequently on own initiative; applies new methods to solve complex, intricate, sensitive, and/or unprecedented problems and resolves most conflicts as they arise; coordinates projects or cases across units, organizations, or agencies; and keeps the supervisor informed of progress and of potentially controversial matters.  The supervisor reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach; effectiveness in producing results; feasibility of recommendations; and adherence to requirements.

Level 2-3 is met.  Like Level 2-3, the PM or CO outline possible problem areas; define objectives, plans, priorities and deadlines; and provide assistance on controversial or unusual situations with no clear precedents.  Similar to Level 2-3, the appellant plans and carries out assignments independently, within PM design parameters, COR operational parameters, and a number of established guidelines and practices.  He uses judgment to resolve common technical drafting problems and issues.   Like Level 2-3, the appellant brings controversial information and findings to the attention of the PM or CO for guidance and direction.  Comparable to Level 2-3, the PM or CO determine the appropriateness of the appellant’s approach and the technical soundness of his work and reports.  They also ensure he adheres to project deadlines and review his work to ensure it conforms with all applicable Federal, State, and USAGFB regulations, policies, procedures, building codes, and/or COR guidelines.

Level 2-4 is not met.  Unlike this level, the guidance and direction provided to the appellant by his supervisor is more structured and specific than the level of guidance described at Level 2-4.  For example, unlike Level 2-4 the supervisor does not simply outline overall objectives and available resources with the appellant, nor does he just outline project timeframes and parameters with the appellant.  Unlike Level 2-4, the appellant is not responsible for deciding the practices and methods of all aspects of assigned ED projects or Federal contract work.  Instead, responsibility for deciding aspects of assigned ED projects rests with the PM and responsibility for deciding aspects of Federal contracts rest with the CO.  Unlike Level 2-4, because the regulations, policies, and precedents governing the type of architectural and engineering drafting performed by the appellant are not subject to frequent change there is no need to regularly interpret them.  The existing regulations, policies, and precedents are well known by the appellant and are sufficient to guide him in his daily work.  Unlike Level 2-4, the appellant is not faced with solving complex, intricate, sensitive, and/or unprecedented project or contract-related problems or conflicts which may arise.  Instead, he reports all project or contract issues, problems, and conflicts to the PM or CO, respectively, for consideration and direction.  In contrast to Level 2-4, the appellant does not coordinate projects across units, organizations, or agencies.  This responsibility rests with the PM, CO, his supervisor, or higher-level management officials within USAGFG.

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-3 and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor covers the nature and extent of guidelines for performing the work and the judgment needed to apply the guidelines or develop new guidelines.

At Level 3-2, the employee uses a number of established procedures and guidelines directly applicable to assignments. Guidelines prescribe established procedures and provide clear precedents. The employee is familiar with many written guidelines, oral instructions, and other reference material and is expected to exercise judgment in selecting and applying the most appropriate. The employee is expected to be able to determine when minor deviations from the existing guidelines are appropriate.

At Level 3-3, the employee uses a variety of guidelines, manuals, and standard reference materials; however, they are not completely applicable to the work or have gaps in specificity. The employee uses judgment and initiative in interpreting and adapting guidelines, such as agency policies, regulations, precedents, and work directions for application to specific cases or problems.  The employee analyzes results and recommends changes.

Level 3-2 is met.  Like Level 3-2, the appellant uses established procedures and guidelines (e.g., Architectural Graphic Standards, DB Contractor’s Construction Quality Control Plan, Unified Facilities Criteria, and verbal instruction from the PM and CO), which provide specific clear instructions and precedents and are directly applicable to his ED and COR assignments.  Similar to Level 3-2, the appellant is expected to exercise judgment to select and apply the most appropriate guideline for each work situation.  Comparable to Level 3-2, the appellant may make minor deviations from established guidelines when such deviations are not contrary to the intent of the PM’s design; complies with available guidelines; and does not affect the function or aesthetics of the finished product.  For example, if a PM’s building design requires the placement of a single electrical outlet in a workspace, the appellant may develop a technical drawing of the workspace with an additional electrical outlet as long as the placement of the additional electrical outlet reflects the intent and function of the PM’s design. 

Level 3-3 is not met.  Unlike Level 3-3, the appellant’s position does not require him to use judgment and initiative to interpret and adapt guidelines in order to perform his daily work.  Instead, most written and verbal guidelines and instructions related to ED projects and COR assignments are commonly used, easily understood, and directly applicable to the appellant’s daily work.

Since the guidelines associated with the appellant’s position do not meet Level 3-3, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to compare the appellant’s information to the Level 3-4 criteria which he seeks but is beyond the scope of his work guidelines. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-2 and 125 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

This factor covers the nature, number, variety and intricacy of tasks, steps, processes or methods of the work performed; the difficulty in identifying what needs to be done; and the difficulty and originality involved in performing the work.

At Level 4-2, the work consists of related steps, processes, and methods in completing assignments.  The employee chooses the appropriate approach from among established methods and procedures to complete recurring assignments.  The employee follows prescribed processes and methods as assignments increase in difficulty and recognizes the different actions to be taken depending on the source of information or any factual differences.

The 0800 JFS contains an illustration of work at Level 4-2 describing Engineering Technician (Drafting) work consisting of a variety of related drafting assignments on clearly defined projects, such as drawings of equipment, requiring applying established methods and procedures.  The employee chooses from several standard approaches to determine needed views, sections, stage of assembly, detail drawings, and supplementary design information and to prepare complete sets of drawings of equipment or facilities from incomplete sketches, layouts, or models, and supplementary verbal information.  The employee exercises limited judgment to carry out routine functions and independently resolve problems previously encountered.

At Level 4-3, work consists of a number of different and unrelated processes in completing assignments or projects.  The employee analyzes the subject, phase, or issues involved in each assignment to adjust or deviate from standard work methods based on situations and conditions at a field or work site and to coordinate and plan phases of the assignment.  The employee exercises independent judgment and skill to interpret and analyze considerable data, plan work, or refine methods and techniques to determine the best course of action for problem resolution.

The 0800 JFS contains an illustration of work at Level 4-3 describing Engineering Technician work consisting of a number of unrelated steps or tasks requiring accuracy or attention to detail in preparing original drawings for inventions or construction and equipment designs.  The employee selects the appropriate process from many alternatives to:  review drawings, the basis for the design, and the design analysis for conformance to established engineering standards and criteria set forth in manuals, codes, other guides, and the project requirements; check accuracy of calculations for loads, illumination, conductor sizes, and contractor-selected equipment; call supervisor’s attention to major deficiencies and items not covered by guides; and review revised plans to assure deficiency correction.  The employee exercises independent judgment to adjust the methods and to resolve problems.

Level 4-2 is met.  Like Level 4-2 and the work illustration, the appellant follows established guidelines, methods, processes, and verbal and written instructions to perform a variety of steps related to and necessary for producing technical drawings for construction and renovation projects and to perform COR duties associated with contract work performed at USAGFB.  Similar to the Level 4-2 work illustration, the appellant’s work consists of a variety of related drafting assignments on clearly defined projects, and he evaluates data and information from numerous sources (e.g., PM notes and verbal instructions, sketches, blueprints, and layouts) to determine the most appropriate course of action within the authority of his position and the parameters of established guidelines, protocols, and precedents.  Thus, the appellant exercises limited judgment when carrying out routine functions and independently resolves problems previously encountered when gathering and using data and information associated with developing technical drawings in support of ED construction and renovation projects, and when monitoring and reporting on the work of Federal contractors performing tasks comparable to the appellant’s position at USAGFB.

Level 4-3 is not met.  Unlike Level 4-3 and the work illustration, the work does not consist of a number of different and unrelated processes in completing assignments or projects.  Instead, the appellant’s work consists of a number of processes directly related to, and necessary for, producing technical drawings, recommendations, and reports for assigned construction and renovation projects, including reviewing project-related documents, data, guidelines, and verbal and written instructions; estimating the types, numbers, and placement of features, systems, and equipment and the types and volume of materials; considering all applicable written and verbal guidelines, including the PM’s design parameters; developing project-related technical drawings; and providing preliminary or final drafts, reports, and recommendations to the PM for consideration and direction.  Unlike Level 4-3, the appellant’s tasks do not require deviating from standard work methods and processes when developing technical drawings for related projects.  The appellant’s work must comply with the PM’s design parameters and accepted protocols, guidelines, methods, and techniques.

Since the complexity of the appellant’s position does not meet Level 4-3, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to compare this information to Level 4-4 criteria which he seeks but is beyond the complexity of his position.

This factor is evaluated at Level 4-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of work (i.e., the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment) and the effect of work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-3, work involves applying a considerable number of different basic but established methods, procedures, and techniques.  The work affects the design or operation of systems, programs, processes or equipment, and the timeliness and economy of operations, services or equipment.

A Level 5-3 work illustration in the JFS describes the scope of work of an Engineering Technician (Drafting) position including drawing preliminary layouts for renovating a school building by adapting existing building drawings and considering drawings of existing schools with similar facilities and necessary educational specifications.  Work affects the timeliness and economy of operations and services.

At Level 5-4, work involves establishing criteria, formulating projects, assessing program effectiveness, or analyzing a variety of unusual conditions, problems, or questions.  Work affects a wide range of agency activities, industrial concerns, or the operation of other agencies.

A Level 5-4 work illustration in the JFS describes the scope of an Engineering Technician position including work involving preparing designs and specifications for various utility systems, such as heating, plumbing, air conditioning, ventilating, pumping, gas supply and pneumatic control systems in support of a variety of complex buildings, such as technical laboratories, experimental buildings, and pumping stations.  The work affects the development or effective operation of entire processes at the research facility.

Level 5-3 is met.  Like Level 5-3 and the work illustration, the appellant applies a considerable number of different basic, established methods, procedures, and techniques to produce preliminary and final draft drawings of buildings, features, systems, and equipment for assigned projects.  Similar to Level 5-3, the appellant’s technical drawings affect the design of systems and equipment, such as HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and security.  For example, within applicable guidelines and PM design parameters, the appellant may determine the location of plumbing or electrical systems in order to maximize usable space, increase the number of serviced areas, and facilitate repair access to key areas of the systems.  Like the Level 5-3 work illustration, the appellant’s technical drawings affect the timeliness and economy of assigned projects by providing sufficient detail for the PM to estimate project costs and to modify the scope of the project or substitute materials in order to comply with operating budgets.

Level 5-4 is not met.  Unlike Level 5-4 and the work illustration, the scope of the appellant’s work does not involve establishing criteria, formulating projects, assessing program effectiveness, or analyzing a variety of unusual conditions, problems or questions.  In contrast to the illustration, his project assignments do not involve a variety of complex buildings, such as technical laboratories, experimental buildings, and pumping stations.  Instead, typical project assignments include renovations to existing public buildings, systems, or equipment or various features, such as roads or gardens.  Unlike Level 5-4 and illustration, the appellant’s work does not affect a wide range of agency activities, industrial concerns, or the operation of other agencies, nor does it affect the development or effective operation of entire processes at a research facility.  Instead, the appellant performs technical drafting work for ED projects which directly affect operations within USAGFB.

This factor is credited at Level 5-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factors 6 and 7, Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts

These factors cover the type and level of contacts made in carrying out the work.  These factors include face-to-face and remote dialogue (e.g., telephone, e-mail, and video conferences) with persons not in the supervisory chain.  Levels described under these factors consider what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, the setting in which the contact takes place, and the nature of the discourse.  The setting describes how well the employee and those contacted recognize their relative roles and authorities.  The nature of the discourse defines the reason for the communication and the context or environment in which the communication takes place.  The JFS instructs the same contacts are evaluated for both Factors 6 and 7.

Personal Contacts

At Level 1, contacts are with other employees within the immediate office or related units within the agency.  Contacts at this level are routine and recurring.  Contacts are limited outside the office or facility.

At Level 2, contacts are with employees and managers in the same agency, both inside and outside of the immediate office or related units, as well as members of the general public in a moderately structured setting.  Contacts with employees and managers may be from various levels within the agency, such as headquarters, regions, districts, field offices, or other operating offices at the same location.

Level 6-1 is met.  Like Level 6-1, the appellant’s contacts are primarily with other ED personnel (e.g., supervisor, PMs, other Engineering Technicians, and administrative support personnel), as well as other employees in related units (e.g., DPW Cos), and limited contacts with those outside his unit such as Federal contractors providing support to or performing work for ED.

Level 6-2 is not met.  Unlike Level 6-2, the appellant’s contacts do not include employees and managers from various levels within the agency, such as headquarters, regions, districts, and field offices.  These types of contacts rest with the supervisor or higher-level agency officials.

Since the appellant’s personal contacts do not meet Level 6-2, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to compare this information to Level 6-3 criteria which describes contacts beyond those made by the appellant.

Purpose of Contacts

At Level A, the purpose of contacts is to acquire, or exchange information or facts needed to complete an assignment. The information exchanged or acquired is typically basic or related to general policy.  Contacts at this level are directly related to recurring functions.

At Level B, the purpose of contacts is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts or to resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals and who have basically cooperative attitudes.

Level 7-A is met. Like Level 7-A, the appellant’s contacts are primarily to gather, confirm, and exchange information for the purpose of developing and displaying detailed drawings for ED construction and renovations projects, or for the purpose of monitoring/observing Federal contract work, and to provide suggestions and recommendations to the PM or CO when appropriate.

Level 7-B is not met. Unlike level 7-B, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is not to coordinate or advise on work efforts or to resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating basically cooperative individuals or groups.  Instead, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts support basic operational processes (e.g., gathering and confirming information, developing technical drawings and reports, and making recommendations) in support of ED PM’s and CO’s, whose primary responsibility is to coordinate and manage all aspects of ED construction and renovation projects and Federal contract work performed within USAGFB.  In carrying out these contacts there is typically no need for the appellant to motivate or influence individuals to accept his recommendations. 

Since the purpose of the appellant’s contacts does not meet Level 7-B, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to compare this information to Level 7-C criteria which he seeks but is beyond the type and purpose of contacts of his position. 

By application of the Point Assignment Chart in the JFS, a combination of Level-1 for Factor 6 and Level-A for Factor 7 results in a total of 30 points assigned.

Summary

Factor	Level	Points
1. Knowledge Required by the Position	1-4	550
2. Supervisory Controls	2-3	275
3. Guidelines	3-2	125
4. Complexity	4-2	75
5. Scope and Effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts	6-2, 7-a	30
8. Physical Demands	8-2	20
9. Work Environment	9-2	20
Total Points		1245

A total of 1245 points falls within the GS-06 range (1105 to 1350) on the grade conversion table in the JFS for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800. 

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as an Engineering Technician (Drafting), GS-0802-06.

Back to Top