Washington, DC

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

---

Linda Kazinetz
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


05/04/2017

---

Date

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Industrial Property Management Specialist, GS-1103-12, and is located in the Acquisitions Operations Division, Office of Acquisitions Management, Office of the Assistant Manager for Mission Support, Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in Aiken, South Carolina.  The appellant believes her position should be classified at the GS-13 grade level.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background

The appellant asserts her position was previously encumbered by a GS-13 Industrial Property Management Specialist and she assumed the duties of that position.  In March 2016, a desk audit was conducted and completed by the Management and Performance (M&P) Service Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, but did not result in a change to the classification of her position.  In April 2016, she was given an updated position description (PD) which she believes contains numerous omissions and misleading statements, providing an inaccurate description of her work.  She filed an administrative grievance to dispute the contents of the updated PD, but the issue was unresolved.  Subsequently, she filed this appeal with OPM.

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about her agency’s evaluation of her position and asserts the grading of Industrial Property Management Specialist positions within her division is inequitable.  She asserts that former and current Industrial Property Management Specialists on her team with similar responsibilities were/are graded at the GS-13 level.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing her current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified as a basis for deciding her appeal.  Further, because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding her agency’s classification review process are not germane to this decision.

Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines.  However, the agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions.  If the appellant considers her position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, she may pursue the matter by writing to her human resources office.  In doing so, she 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 hers, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to her the differences between her position and the others.

The appellant states she possesses Personal Property Management and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Level III certifications (required of GS-13 Industrial Property Management Specialists) as a supporting factor for classification of her position to the GS-13 level.  However, possession of certifications does not in itself affect the grade of an employee’s position.  Additionally, she indicates the variations in Federal requirements for contracts, interagency agreements, grants, and cooperative agreements add to the complexity of her work but were not addressed when determining the grade of her position.  However, as discussed later in this decision, complexity of work in the GS-1103 series is based on the complexity of the contractor’s property control system(s) and the corresponding effect on the property administrator’s assignments and not on the differences in contract regulatory requirements.

The appellant believes her official PD, number 00054776, is not accurate because it does not reflect the major duties and responsibilities of her position or the complexities involved in performing her daily duties.  For example, she notes the main contractor for which she has oversight is not listed in the PD.  She also believes many of the main tasks of her position have been removed and/or simplified, and that contractual complexities and values are not addressed.  The appellant’s supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD.  However, our review revealed that the Nature of Assignments and Level of Responsibility as described in the PD are overstated and the appellant’s PD is thus not completely accurate.  For instance, the threshold indicated in the PD for the number of property line items controlled by the appellant is incorrect.  The PD also indicates that she “comments on complex property matters, historic preservation program requirements, issues regarding the implementation of important and critical DOE policies and to resolve difficult property administration matters for which there are no established guidelines or precedents.”  However, the appellant is not presented with a continuing need to resolve difficult property administration problems for which there are no established guidelines or precedents as later expanded upon in our analysis.  Further, although she implements property management program policies in the performance of her work, she does not develop new property management policies or methods as the PD appears to suggest in various part of its description, nor does she “independently review, analyze and appraise the highly complex and diverse operations of SRS and associated contractor systems . . . .”  Instead, her work is limited to evaluating specific contractor property control systems to ensure compliance with contract requirements and Federal guidelines.  Therefore, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy as addressed on pages 10-11 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and not simply a PD.  This decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant.  

Position information 

The DOE-SR is the DOE organization responsible for overseeing the work performed by specialized contractors that manage the Savannah River Site (SRS).  The SRS is a key DOE industrial complex responsible for environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup, waste management, and disposition of nuclear materials.  This site processes and stores nuclear material to support national defense and U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts.  It develops and deploys technologies to support radiological and chemical cleanup activities following 50 years of producing materials used for nuclear weapons, primarily plutonium and tritium.  The site’s center is approximately 23 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 15 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina, the two closest population centers, and covers more than 310 square miles.  Some of the major contractors include Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC (SRNS), the site management and operations contractor; Savanah River Remediation LCC (SRR), which remediates the site’s liquid waste; Parsons, which manages the Salt Waste Processing Facility; and the Centerra Group, which manages SRS security.

The appellant’s position is located in the Acquisition Operations Division at the field location described above.  Among its many authorities, the Acquisitions Operations Division is responsible for oversight of DOE’s Personal Property Management Program for contracts that require management of DOE-owned or loaned personal property on the SRS.  Personal property management systems for both contractor and Federal activities are based on Federal Property Management Regulations, DOE-HQ property management guidelines, and applicable local contract requirements.

The appellant is part of the Community Assistance and Asset Management Team, consisting of the Acquisitions Operations Manager, GS-1101-15; a Community Relations/Small Business Program Manager, GS-1101-14; a Lead Industrial Property Management Specialist, GS-1103-14; an Industrial Property Management Specialist, GS-1103-13; and two Industrial Property Management Specialists, GS-1103-12, one being the appellant’s position.  The appellant is responsible for evaluating contractor acquisition, storage, use, disposal and accounting of Government personal property to ensure compliance with contract requirements and Federal guidelines for her assigned contracts.  The contractor is directly responsible and held accountable for this property.  The contractor establishes a system to control, protect, and maintain DOE owned or loaned personal property and ensures their subcontractors comply with regulations and contract requirements.  The appellant is the designated property administrator for the liquid waste contract currently held by SRR.  SRR is a team of companies led by AECOM with partners Bechtel National, CH2M, and BWX Technologies, Inc.  She also oversees the Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL), a cooperative agreement between the University of Georgia and DOE.  The SREL conducts fundamental and applied ecological research, as well as education and outreach programs.

The appellant’s primary responsibility involves conducting onsite assessments (known as a “walkthroughs”) of SRR and SREL contractor control procedures in various contractor sites such as warehouses, lay-down yards, and nuclear industrial and administrative facilities to ensure their systems conform with approved DOE property management regulations, accepted business practices, and the regulatory requirements.  She does this by assessing the contractor’s control procedures applied to areas such as storage, tagging, security, utilization, orderliness, and excess.  When she finds deficiencies in property control procedures, she defines the deficiencies to company management, allows a period of time (i.e., suspense date) for the company to respond or improve, re-evaluates corrections or company response, and normally reaches an acceptable resolution.  She advises the Organizational Property Management Officer (OPMO) and the Contracting Officer (CO) of any contractor noncompliance with accepted procedures or other significant problems that cannot be resolved and recommends appropriate action.  Cases where companies are found to be in violation and the problem is not resolved are referred to the CO.  The appellant is also responsible for conducting annual personal property inventory validations for assigned contracts using a random sampling method to ensure the contractor periodically performs, records, and discloses physical inventory results.  Further, every three years the appellant conducts a management system review of the contractor’s personal property activities, making recommendations concerning the acceptability of the contractor personal property management systems.  Some of the categories assessed through this review include the system and procedures for acquiring, receiving, recording, storing, moving, using, maintaining, taking inventories, and disposing of property.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency including the official PD, within the context of the additional information we obtained from our fact-finding regarding the work actually being performed by the appellant.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her supervisor (i.e., Acquisition Operations Manager, GS-1101-15), including follow-up requests for additional information from the appellant.  To clarify information from the record, we also conducted an interview with the Lead Industrial Property Management Specialist, GS-1103-14 (i.e., appellant’s team leader and OPMO).   

Series, title and standard determination

The work performed by the appellant is properly classified to the Industrial Property Management Series, GS-1103.  This series includes positions that require primarily knowledge of business and industrial practices, procedures, and systems for the management and control of Government-owned property.  These positions involve technical work in the administration of contract provisions relating to the control of Government property in the possession of contractors, from acquisition through disposition.  For positions concerned primarily with the control of Government property in possession of contractors, the position classification standard assigns the title of Industrial Property Management Specialist.  The appellant does not disagree with the occupational series and title of her position.  As a further identification of the type of industrial property management position, her position meets the definition of specialists concerned with field operations as defined on page 5 of the standard.  The recognized functional title for positions, such as the appellant’s, which have full responsibility for planning and executing the total property management program for all assigned contracts is property administrator.

Grade determination

The grade-level criteria in Part I of the GS-1103 standard are directly applicable to field positions, including property administrators.  Classification criteria for industrial property management specialist positions are described in terms of Nature of Assignments and Level of Responsibility.

Nature of Assignments

This factor reflects the scope and difficulty of assignments, and the nature and purpose of personal contacts.  The complexity of the contractor’s property control system has a significant impact on the scope and difficulty of property administrator positions.  The grade-level criteria at the GS-11 and 12 levels in the standard describe characteristics which influence the complexity of a contractor’s property control system and the corresponding effect on the property administrator’s assignment.  The grade-level criteria include consideration of (1) the diversity, variety, and complexity of the contractor’s organization and operations; (2) the amount and types of Government property provided the contractor; and (3) the difficulty of property administration problems resulting from contractual provisions. 

The GS-11 and GS-12 levels describe two types of property administrator.  The “resident” property administrator has full responsibility for maintaining control of all Government property at one large contractor.  The “nonresident” property administrator, by comparison, has full responsibility for surveillance and control over Government property in a number of contractor plants or specific areas.  The complexity and difficulty of both types are similar.  While all elements of a complex property control system are typically experienced with one contractor for a resident property administrator, nonresident property administrators may encounter these complex systems throughout the range of assignments.

Although the appellant serves as property administrator for the SRR liquid waste contract and the SREL cooperative agreement, her duties and responsibilities as property administrator are characteristic of a resident property administrator, since both contractors are on site at the SRS.  However, the appellant spends the majority of her time performing duties for SRR (the large contractor).  Further, under the SREL cooperative agreement, the limited scope of the Government-provided property controlled (i.e., 620 line items as reported by the appellant) and the nature of the contractor’s operation for which the property is used compares to a “simplified or less complex property control system” as defined at the GS-9 level.  Therefore, we have evaluated the appellant’s position based on the duties and responsibilities assigned and performed by her in relation to the SRR contract.

Resident property administrators at the GS-11 level have full responsibility for maintaining control over a large amount of Government property where the contractor has a “complex property control system.”  Complex property control systems at the GS-11 level include the following characteristics:

(1) Amount and types of Government property controlled:

-          Large amounts (e.g., thousands of line items) of property are controlled.

-          Substantial quantities in each of four or five different types of property are controlled, with each type requiring different methods for management and control.  Types of Government-provided property include: (1) material, (2) special tooling, (3) test equipment, (4) military property, (5) industrial plant equipment, (6) plant equipment other than industrial plant equipment, (7) real property and (8) scrap and salvage.

-          Property is difficult to control.  For example, consumable materials for work in process are difficult to control because of their movable nature; the changes made during production, manufacture, or research processes; the ease of diversion or loss; and the difficulty of taking inventory. 

(2) Nature of contractor operations for which property is used:

-          The property is used in diversified industrial operations or the property is used to produce complex or varied items, e.g., research, development, testing, and production of components and parts.

-          The contractor’s property control records are maintained in various divisions or organizations dispersed throughout the plant and must be properly coordinated.

-          The contractor’s acquisition through disposition of Government property requires an understanding of diversified industrial operations and the different inventory control, purchasing, maintenance, and other methods used to control Government property scattered throughout the plant.

  (3)  Contractual provisions:

-          Terms of contracts include some unique and special property provisions which present difficult property administration problems requiring the use of experienced judgment in the application of guidelines, e.g., in the approval of commingling of contractor-owned and Government-owned property.

In their personal contacts, property administrators at the GS-11 level deal with a variety of top officials at contractor firms on complex property control matters.  The GS-11 property administrator meets with these individuals to ensure understanding of property management program regulations, procedures, and contractual requirements.

Resident property administrators at the GS-12 level have full responsibility for maintaining control over a large amount of Government property where a contractor has a “highly complex property control system.”  Highly complex property control systems at the GS-12 level include the following characteristics:

(1) Amount and types of Government property controlled:

-          Very large amounts (e.g., tens of thousands of line items) of Government-provided property are controlled.  These include:

-          a large amount of consumable materials for work in process; and

-          at least substantial quantities in most of the seven remaining types of property, with each type requiring distinctly different methods for management and control.

-          more types of Government property result in a much greater diversity of methods and procedures for controlling property from acquisition through disposition; and

-          the greater variety and dissimilarity of the materials, equipment, and facilities involved result in an increase in the difficulty of problems associated with the identification, use, maintenance, and disposition of the property.

(2) Nature of contractor operations for which property is used:

-          The property is used for business and industrial operations that are more complex than at the GS-11 level because of the greater diversity of operations and the greater variety or complexity of items produced.  Examples include property control connected with such complex activities as the following:

-          the research, development, testing and manufacture of space, aircraft, weapons, or other equipment systems or subsystems;

-          production and/or overhaul and maintenance of different kinds of equipment systems, subsystems, or specialized products requiring diverse manufacturing processes and plant operations which encompass more than one major commodity or industrial activity plus the fabrication of a variety of other specialized items from numerous parts or components which are Government-furnished, contractor-acquired, and contractor-fabricated.

-          Complexity of the GS-12 property administrator’s assignment in a plant with such multiple and diverse operations is inherently greater than the GS-11 level because:

-          the contractor’s control of Government property is diffused among many different organizational components or departments;

-          property control under such conditions requires an understanding of (a)  the organization, production facilities, and processes of these diverse operations; (b) the general and complex machinery, tools, materials, and other property that are used; and (c) the variety of different automated or manual control techniques, procedures, and forms required to meet the specific needs of numerous divisions, plant subdivisions, plant facilities located in outlying areas, and/or subcontractor operations.

(3) Contractual Provisions:

-          The contractor’s property control system is designed to meet the terms of the following:

-          numerous contracts which include complex property clauses (e.g., unique or special property provisions included in cost reimbursement, cost-plus fixed fee, overhaul and maintenance, fixed-priced incentive, or other contracts which present property administration problems); or

-          a continuing major contract, with numerous supplements, which presents difficult property administration problems (e.g., a contract for contractor operation of a large Government-owned plant to produce different kinds of specialized products requiring diverse manufacturing processes).

-          The GS-12 property administrator is confronted with property administration problems for which there are no guidelines or precedents.  These problems arise because of the research nature or state-of-the-art complexity of the end product, or from the diversity and complexity of the contractor’s operations.

Additionally, the scope and complexity of the work assigned at the GS-12 level are such that the GS-12 property administrator typically has some responsibility for the work of lower-graded industrial property management specialists.  This may include acting as a working leader with responsibility for training, assigning, and reviewing work of a few lower-graded specialists.

In their personal contacts, property administrators at the GS-12 level have contacts with top contractor personnel (corporate management) who are of extreme importance in achieving acceptance of new property management programs or changes to programs of large scope with substantial impact on the contractor’s operations.

Like the GS-11 level, the amount and types of property the appellant controls include thousands of line items.  The appellant reported that she had surveillance/control over a total of over 13,000 but less than 20,000 line items of Government-provided property, with a total value in excess of $100 million under the SRR contract.  The property items include substantial quantities in five types of property which include materials, special tooling, test equipment, industrial plant equipment, and other plant equipment, including property of consumable nature (i.e., chemicals and precious metals).  Limited amounts of scrap and salvage may be managed.  Also, comparable to the GS-11 level, the property is difficult to control because consumable materials are involved or there are other complicating factors such as the property is altered (e.g., property can be contaminated) during use or attached to another piece of equipment.  Further, the nature of the contractor’s operation for which the property is used also compares to the complex control system described at the GS-11 level.  The property is used in diversified industrial operations which include complex engineering, procurement, construction and the closing of waste tanks containing radioactive liquid waste.  Additionally, like this level, the contractor’s property control records are maintained in various organizations, e.g., companies that compose SRR and are dispersed throughout the SRR plants.  Moreover, SRR has a service level agreement with SRNS (management and operation contractor for SRS) for usage of their databases to track property inventory for chemicals and precious metals.  Thus, the appellant must coordinate through SRR personnel to obtain inventory information from SRNS when performing inventory validations for SRR.  The appellant’s assignment also favorably compares to the GS-11 level in that as a resident property administrator, her assignments require that she have an understanding of the different inventory control, maintenance and other methods used to control Government property scattered throughout the plant.  For instance, during system reviews, she must be able to identify equipment as idle and unneeded and determine whether the equipment could be redeployed, reassigned, placed in equipment pools, or reported as excess.

The contractual provisions characteristic of the contractor’s property control system also add complexity to the appellant’s position.  Like the GS-11 level, the liquid waste contract may contain unique or special property provisions which may present difficult property administration problems requiring the use of experienced judgment in the application of guidelines.  For instance, the appellant presented an example involving an SRR project requiring property identified as hazardous to be transferred or abandoned.  The situation involved determining which party would be responsible to remediate the hazard.  Using her experienced judgment, she identified regulations stated in DOE Personal Property Management Program Order 580.1A to support contract clauses requiring that hazardous or suspected hazardous personal property be checked for contamination by the contractor before the property can be tagged as contamination-free and released in accordance with contract and regulatory requirements.

Similar to the GS-11 level, the appellant’s contacts include Federal and contractor management level officials in different facilities including contracting officers, SRR property managers and asset management specialists, and other Federal employees and project managers.  Additionally, if unique or special circumstances require the contractor to perform a project in a foreign country, like the GS-9 specialist she may have contact with project managers in those countries to clarify or secure information needed to make sound property management determinations.

The PCS states that a differentiating characteristic between GS-11 and GS-12 property administrators is that the GS-12 controls very large amounts, e.g., “tens of thousands,” of line items of Government property, meaning over 20,000 line items.  Additionally, the GS-12 property administrator must control Government-provided property including both consumable materials and most of the seven remaining types of property.  Unlike the GS-12 level, the amount and types of Government-provided property the appellant controls does not meet this threshold necessary to meet the standard’s definition of a highly complex property control system because she does not control at least 20,000 line items, in most of the seven remaining types of property, with each type requiring distinctly different methods for management and control.  Also, unlike this level, the property is not used to perform complex activities comparable to those involving the research, development, testing, and manufacture of space, aircraft, weapons or other equipment systems.  Rather, SRR is engaged in remediating radioactive liquid waste by storing the waste in underground storage tanks; removing, treating, and dispositioning the low-level waste fraction in concrete saltstone disposal units; vitrifying the higher activity waste; and storing the vitrified waste in stainless steel canisters pending permanent disposition.  

Unlike the GS-12 level, the appellant’s duties do not require an understanding of SRR production facilities and processes of the diverse operations (described above) and their property control systems, where the greater diversity of operations and the greater variety and complexity of items are produced.  The appellant believes that the inventory of chemicals and precious metals kept in SRNS (management and operations contractor at SRS) databases adds to the knowledge required of her position.  SRNS has a service level agreement with SRR to maintain inventory information in their databases.  However, the appellant’s interaction with SRNS does not require her to have knowledge of their industrial operations or their property control techniques and procedures.  Her interaction is only for purposes of coordinating (through SRR personnel) the release of information needed when conducting inventory validations for SRR.

Assignments at the GS-12 level also require a continuing need to resolve difficult property administration problems for which there are no established guidelines or precedents.  These problems arise from the diversity and complexity of the contractor’s operations with highly complex property control systems found at the GS-12 level.  The appellant presented an example involving $300,000 of lost and damaged property which resulted in an Inspector General investigation and prosecution.  She describes her pursuit of the company to take accountability as resulting in a return of $111,000 to the Government in a plea-bargain deal and partial return of property.  Although this example may be considered a difficult and unprecedented administration problem, the GS-12 level typically reflects a continuing need for this kind of problem resolution, and the appellant is not faced with such issues on a regular and recurring basis.  Moreover, typical of GS-12 property administrators, the appellant does not have responsibility for the work of lower-graded industrial property management specialists.

Personal contacts at the GS-12 level also exceed the level of those required of the appellant. Unlike this level, the appellant does not routinely deal with  top contractor personnel (corporate management), nor are her contacts for the purpose of achieving acceptance of new property management programs or changes to programs of large scope with substantial impact on the contractor’s operations. 

Since the appellant’s assignments do not meet the criteria at the GS-12 level in terms of the complexity of the property control systems involved or the personal contacts required, this factor is evaluated at the GS-11 level.  

Level of Responsibility

This factor covers the degree of supervision received, the nature of available guidelines, and the nature and complexity of decisions and recommendations.

The GS-11 resident property administrator typically receives general administrative supervision from a supervisor with broad responsibilities for contract administration and technical supervision from staff or supervisory industrial property specialists at a regional or district headquarters.  Work assignments and objectives are generally prescribed, but methods of accomplishment are seldom reviewed or controlled while work is in progress.  The GS-11 property administrator has full authority and responsibility for developing plans and accomplishing the total property control program for assigned contractors.  This level exceeds the GS-9 level in that the employee independently makes decisions to approve or disapprove initial and continuing adequacy of more complex property control systems, and has greater authority in management of the contractor’s property control system.  The GS-11 property administrator keeps the supervisor informed on differences with the contractor that the employee is unable to resolve, any persistent lack of corrective action by the contractor or subcontractors, and unusual or unduly complex situations.

The GS-12 property administrator works under the same type of supervisory controls as described at the GS-11 level.  The essential difference between GS-11 and GS-12 positions is the greater scope and complexity of assignments at the GS-12 level.

Similar to the GS-11 level, the appellant receives administrative supervision from her supervisor, the division manager.  As a designated property administrator, she exercises initiative in independently planning and performing the work to be accomplished and making her own decisions on day-to-day work.  Therefore, work is not reviewed from a technical standpoint but rather for achievement of assigned program objectives and adequacy of results.  As at the GS-11 level, the appellant obtains any technical assistance required through contact with the OPMO or CO, and informs the OPMO (also her team leader) on controversial problems encountered with the contractor which she is unable to resolve.  However, because the appellant’s assignments do not meet the scope and complexity of the GS-12 level, her level of responsibility is not exercised within the context of GS-12 level work.  Therefore, this factor is evaluated at the GS-11 level.

Summary 

Both the Nature of Assignments and the Level of Responsibility factors for the appellant’s position are evaluated at the GS-11 grade level.  Therefore, the appropriate grade for the appellant’s position is GS-11.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Industrial Property Management Specialist, GS-1103-11.

Back to Top