Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Systems Support Branch
Maintenance Division
Directorate of Logistics
Air Force Special Operations Command
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Hurlburt Field, Florida
Damon B. Ford
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/27/2021
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).
As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official core personnel document (CPD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction. Since CPDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the CPD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected CPD 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 Equipment Specialist, GS-1670-12, but the appellant believes it should be classified at the GS-13 grade level. The position is located in the Propulsion Systems Section (PSS), Systems Support Branch, Maintenance Division, Directorate of Logistics, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), U.S. Department of the Air Force (AF), in Hurlburt Field, Florida. 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 the classification review process conducted by his agency. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Therefore, we have considered the appellant’s statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison. Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.
The appellant believes the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) is unclear and open to interpretation. However, the adequacy of grade-level criteria in OPM standards is not appealable (section 511.607(b)(5) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations).
Although the appellant and his supervisor initially certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s current CPD of record (number 8JAR4130), in his response to the agency’s administrative report he states the CPD is inaccurate in identifying the organization he supervises. A CPD 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 appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a CPD. This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellant.
The appellant points out his CPD contains an inaccurate statement under the Classification Criteria section’s Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect. The write up for Program Scope states he manages the AFSOC’s Fixed-Wing Aircraft Maintenance Section, but he states he manages the PSS which our fact-finding confirmed. However, under the Purpose of Position and Organization Location section of the appellant’s CPD it accurately states his position is located under the PSS. The organizational location of the position needs to be stated correctly throughout the CPD. In addition, we find the appellant performs supervisory and program related managerial functions about 45 percent of his time rather than 30 percent. Therefore, the appellant’s CPD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise it to reflect our findings.
Position information
The appellant’s position is assigned to the AFSOC headquarters at Hurlburt Field. He supervises the PSS and oversees the AFSOC aircraft propulsion (e.g., engines and propellers) and support system (e.g., hydraulic, electrical, and fuel systems) program for the commands of five active duty wings, one AF Reserve component, two Air National Guard units, and one special operations group located within the continental U.S. and world-wide. Support is also provided to AFSOC units deployed to five locations dispersed throughout the Middle East and Africa. Aircraft supported include the CV-22B, MQ-9, and all models of C-130s.
The appellant carries out the full range of first-level supervisory responsibilities over his active-duty military subordinates. He plans work, sets and adjusts short-term priorities, and prepares assignments. The appellant assigns work to his subordinates based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and their capabilities. He evaluates their work performance. The appellant gives advice, counsel or instruction on technical and administrative matters, and interviews candidates for vacant positions. He recommends appointment, promotion, or reassignment to vacant positions. The appellant effects minor disciplinary measures, such as verbal counselling and issuing a letter of admonishment and recommends other actions in more serious cases. He identifies training needs for his subordinates and arranges for training. The appellant finds ways to increase the quality of the work directed. In addition, the appellant performs a variety of program managerial duties and oversight activities contributing to the effectiveness of his unit’s program including certain budgetary functions; provides briefings and participates in PSS strategy sessions on the activities of PSS; and functions as the technical authority for his program to staff and external functional managers and subordinate units within the command.
As the AFSOC senior aircraft propulsion manager, the appellant carries out aircraft propulsion program and oversight functions including providing technical assistance to command unit personnel to resolve system malfunctions and equipment problems. For example, when a C-130 engine starter was found to be failing earlier than normal, the appellant worked with senior engineers at an Air Logistics Center (ALC) to correct the defect and technical inspection and safety requirements were developed. After reviewing the recommendations from the engineers and the aircraft technical requirements, he approved updates to the existing maintenance procedures and included instructions on changing the engine starter. The appellant reviews AF guidance pertaining to propulsion issues and develops AFSOC specific guidance to be used by unit maintenance personnel. For instance, he developed and mandated an engine wash procedure (i.e., cleaning an engine’s compressor and turbine to remove saltwater, dirt, and corrosion) for C-130 aircraft. This was done because the majority of supported units are located in coastal regions, so he wanted to address the performance impact saltwater, dirt, and corrosion have on the aircrafts’ engines. The appellant also established C-130 specific engine run guidance by establishing the certification process maintenance personnel must go through in order to run the engines to include safety and training procedures (e.g., power settings to use and the number of engines to run). Currently, the appellant is participating in an investigation to determine why C-130 aircraft experience an engine surge (i.e., the compressor stalls or backfires). He participates in monthly meetings which, for example, recently determined to prescribe placing sensors on the aircraft so its conditions can be monitored. Consequently, when problems are located and improvements recommended, the appellant will review them for acceptance. Because this is considered a major engine failure, final approval of recommended improvements is made by higher-level management officials.
A few times a year the appellant advises the AFSOC Commander on any safety issues he is working with the units to resolve. He advises higher-level managers of the impact aircraft modifications will have on aircraft availability and meeting the command’s mission. The appellant prepares and presents a yearly briefing to Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Equipment Management Directorate-level managers to provide the status on the equipment and aircraft issues/problems he is working to resolve with directorate engineers. During the annual Product Improvement Working Group, which AF command-level propulsion technical advisors attend, the appellant prepares and presents a briefing on the various C-130J modifications and safety issues that developed and/or were resolved over the previous year.
The appellant serves as the aircraft propulsion and support system subject-matter-expert (SME). For example, he gathers and provides information about the engines in the command’s inventory to HQAF as requested. At the AFSOC-run Hurlburt Field Centralized Repair Facility maintenance personnel tear down legacy C-130 aircraft engines, propellers, and components, overhaul them, and return them to the unit when the unit maintenance personnel are unable to make the repairs onsite. At the facility, the appellant oversees the repair schedule to ensure critical repairs take precedence and oversees the supplies to ensure there are a sufficient number of repair parts available for the work performed. Propulsion and support system repairs for the C-130J and CV-22B aircraft are contracted out to Rolls Royce Holdings. For each contract, the appellant calculates the forecasting and funding repair requirements of the aircraft specifically for AFSOC by developing a five-year budget repair plan and computing the flying hourly rate amount, respectively. He reviews and provides input for the contracts’ workload agreements, performance work statements, and statements of work.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official CPD 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 second-level supervisor. We did not interview the appellant’s immediate supervisor because he has occupied his position less than one year (i.e., since July 2020), and would not have knowledge of the appellant’s role in the functions he has performed over the last year.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Equipment Services Series, GS-1670, titling it Supervisory Equipment Specialist. To evaluate his supervisory responsibilities and related program management and oversight tasks which we find consumes about 45 percent of his work time the agency applied the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). To evaluate his personally performed work which we find takes up about 55 percent of his work time, the agency applied the grading criteria in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Equipment, Facilities, and Services Group, GS-1600. This work includes collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and developing specialized information about equipment. The appellant does not disagree with his agency’s determination of the position’s title and series, nor its use of the grading criteria in the GSSG and the GS-1600 JFS, and we concur. Our evaluation by application of both the GSSG and the GS-1600 JFS is addressed below.
Grade determination
Evaluation using the GSSG
The GSSG is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-05 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 Effect for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect; and Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised. He agrees with his agency’s assignment of Factor Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting; Level 4A-3 for Nature of Contacts and Level 4B-3 for Purpose of Contacts for Factor 4, Personal Contacts; Level 5-6 for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed; and Level 6-4a for Factor 6, Other Conditions. We agree with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6. Therefore, we have confined our analysis below to Factors 1 and 3.
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.
At Level 1-4, a position directs a segment of a professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program which involves the development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development, or comparable, highly technical programs; or that includes major, highly technical operations at the Government’s largest, most complex industrial installations.
The appellant’s position exceeds Level 1-2 and meets Level 1-3. Like Level 1-3, the appellant directs day-to-day work that is technical in nature, in this case equivalent to work graded at the GS-11 level. Similar to this level, the appealed position oversees the AFSOC’s aircraft propulsion and support system program for the commands of five active duty wings, one AF Reserve component, two Air National Guard units, and one special operations group located within the continental U.S. and world-wide. These include bases in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and overseas in Japan and the United Kingdom. Support is also provided to AFSOC units deployed to five locations dispersed throughout the Middle East and Africa. The program’s coverage equates to a small region of several states.
Level 1-4 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant does not direct work that is professional, highly technical or complex administrative in nature. As a Chief, Aircraft PSS, he does not perform work that develops major aspects of agency-level scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development, or highly technical programs. Development of such policies is done above his organizational level. The work includes technical operations but they are not equivalent to the major, highly technical operations described at this level.
Level 1-3 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) the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.
Level 1-2 is met. Although the appellant oversees technical aircraft propulsion system support work comparable to a small region of several states, the impact of the work meets Level 1-2. Like this level, his work affects unit level propulsion and support system repairs and is limited to dealing with active duty and reserve components supported by AFSOC. For example, the appellant reviews propulsion safety findings and recommendations contained in mishap reports. If a serious mishap (e.g., aircraft crash) occurs, he provides recommendations to the comments and the report is forwarded to higher-level managers for approval due to the gravity of the accident. If a less serious mishap (e.g., minor damage to an aircraft due to a design flaw) occurs, the appellant reviews the recommendations and either approves them or provides comments to enhance them.
The appellant believes Level 1-3 is met but we disagree. Unlike this level, our fact-finding shows the appellant’s organization does not directly and significantly impact a wide range of the AF’s aircraft maintenance activities and programs, the work of other agencies (e.g., other Federal or state agencies), operations of outside interests or the general public. While the appellant’s work affects aircraft propulsion systems in various locations, it does not influence the entire AF aircraft maintenance programs and systems. Unlike Level 1-3, the appellant’s program does not directly involve or substantially impact at the field activity level the provision of essential support operations (e.g., administrative services) to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations.
Level 1-2 for effect is assigned.
To assign a factor level, both scope and effect must be met. Because the appellant’s position does not meet both the scope and effect for assignment of Factor Level 1-3, Factor Level 1-2 and 350 points are assigned.
Factor 3, Supervisory and managerial authority exercised
This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities which are exercised on a recurring basis. To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.
Factor Level 3-2 requires that the position must meet one of the paragraphs a, b, or c. Paragraph a discusses production-oriented work and paragraph b describes situations where work is contracted out. The appellant does not work in a production-oriented unit so paragraph a is not assigned. In contrast to paragraph b, while Rolls Royce Holdings contractor personnel perform repair work for C-130J and CV-22B aircraft in accordance with the agreed upon requirements in their respective contracts, the appellant has no direct technical input or oversight of them. Therefore, neither paragraphs a nor b is appropriate for this position.
At Level 3-2c, the position must have responsibility for carrying out at least three of the first four and a total of six or more of the ten authorities and responsibilities listed in the GSSG. Our analysis of the ten authorities and responsibilities follows:
Responsibility 1 is credited. It involves planning work to be accomplished by subordinates, setting and adjusting short-term priorities, and preparing schedules for completion of work. The appellant performs all of these duties.
Responsibility 2 is credited. The appellant assigns work to his subordinates based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and their capabilities.
Responsibility 3 is credited. It involves evaluating work performance of subordinates. The appellant directly evaluates the work performance of PSS’s military personnel.
Responsibility 4 is credited. It involves giving advice, counsel, and instruction to employees on both work and administrative matters. The appellant instructs his subordinate staff on technical and administrative methods and procedures.
Responsibility 5 is credited. The appellant interviews candidates for positions as needed and is granted selection authority and recommends promotion of military members.
Responsibility 6 is credited. The appellant hears and resolves complaints from subordinates, referring more serious unresolved complaints to higher level management officials.
Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellant has authority to take minor disciplinary measures, such as verbal counselling and letters of admonishment, for his direct reporting subordinates, and recommends other actions in more serious cases through his supervisor to higher level management officials for a final decision.
Responsibility 8 is credited. The appellant identifies and arranges for the training needs of his subordinates.
Responsibility 9 is credited. The appellant’s position is concerned with finding ways to increase the quality of work directed.
Responsibility 10 is not credited. The appellant does not develop performance standards for his subordinates. Performance standards are established by higher level agency headquarters staff.
The appellant is responsible for carrying out the first four and a total of nine of the ten authorities and responsibilities listed at Level 3-2c. Therefore, the position meets Level 3-2.
Factor Level 3-3 requires that the position must meet either paragraph 3-3a or 3-3b.
At Level 3-3a, a position exercises delegated managerial authority to set a series of annual, multi-year, or similar types of long-range work plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work. These positions assure implementation (by lower and subordinate organizational units or others) of the goals and objectives for the program segment(s) or function(s) they oversee. They determine goals and objectives that need additional emphasis; determine the best approach or solution for resolving budget shortages; and plan for long range staffing needs, including such matters as whether to contract out work. These positions are closely involved with high level program officials (or comparable agency level staff personnel) in the development of overall goals and objectives for assigned staff function(s), program(s), or program segment(s). For example, they direct development of data; provision of expertise and insights; securing of legal opinions; preparation of position papers or legislative proposals; and execution of comparable activities which support development of goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation.
Level 3-3a is not met. The appellant does not exercise delegated managerial authority to set long-range work plans and contracted work schedules. The repair contract for the C-130J aircraft is managed out of Robins AFB and the repair contract for the CV22B aircraft is managed out of Patuxent River Naval Air Station. His authority is limited to calculating the forecasting and funding requirements for the propulsion and support system repairs for the AFSOC’s C-130J and CV-22B aircraft. Although the appellant ensures repair procedures are implemented by the command’s supported units maintenance personnel, the PSS constitutes the lowest organizational and operating level in the organization and, unlike Level 3-3a, the appellant does not possess or been delegated supervisory authority (i.e., technical and administrative direction) over the supported units personnel. As opposed to Level 3-3a, the appellant is neither significantly involved in determining the approach or solution to resolving budget shortages, nor in planning for long-range staffing needs. He is not faced with budget shortages in major operational areas because funds for salaries and expenses and plans for long-range staffing needs are allocated and prepared by higher-level management officials. Unlike Level 3-3a, the appellant’s position is not closely involved with high-level program officials at the agency level in developing the overall goals and objectives for AFSOC.
To meet Level 3-3b, a position must exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least eight of the fifteen responsibilities listed at Level 3-3b. Our analysis of those responsibilities follows:
Responsibilities 1, 5, 6, and 8 are not credited because the appellant does not oversee subordinate supervisors, leaders, team chiefs, contractors, or comparable personnel.
Responsibility 2 is credited. The appellant frequently exercises significant responsibilities in dealing with officials of other units or organizations (e.g., Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Air Force Sustainment Centers) and advising the AFSOC Commander on the safety issues he is working with the units to resolve. He also advises higher-level AFSOC managers of the impact aircraft modifications will have on aircraft availability and meeting the command’s mission.
Responsibility 3 is not credited. Unlike that responsibility, all performance standards are standardized for military personnel and developed by higher level agency headquarters staff. Thus, there is no requirement for the appellant to ensure reasonable equity of performance standards and rating techniques because there are no civilian employees. Also, unlike responsibility 3, the appellant has no direct input or oversight of contractor personnel so there is no requirement to assure comparable equity in the assessment of their capabilities or contract work completed.
Responsibility 4 is credited. The appellant has direct authority over the AFSOC aircraft propulsion and support system program with annual resources of approximately 100 million dollars. For example, he has the authority to approve funding for airplane engine shipments processed under the Engine Transportation Allowance code. The appellant approves military interdepartmental purchase requests to obligate and de-obligate funds for the number of CV-22B aircraft engine repairs he determines will be needed.
Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellant makes selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions.
Responsibility 9 is not credited. To be credited this responsibility an employee must have the authority to hear and resolve group grievances or serious employee complaints, which requires use of a formal complaint process. While some of the appellant’s subordinates informed him they had concerns working with a newly assigned transgender soldier, he informally resolved the issue by speaking with his subordinates (i.e., five military members) on such topics as workplace professionalism. His responsibility in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 6 of Level 3-2c.
Responsibility 10 is not credited. The appellant has the authority to review and recommend but not approve serious disciplinary actions (e.g., letter of reprimand) involving nonsupervisory subordinates. Such authority lies with higher level management officials.
Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellant does not make decisions on training needs or requests for his subordinates that are out of the ordinary, costly, or controversial. The appellant stated he sends his subordinates to commercial training courses offered by engine manufacturer’s for AFSOC supported aircraft. Course attendance is required so his subordinates can perform their work, which includes assisting unit level maintenance staff with their questions/concerns regarding needed aircraft propulsion and support systems repairs. This is considered routine staff developmental training.
Responsibility 12 is not credited. The appellant does not determine whether contractor performed work meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment. While he cites validating flying hours this is only one element needed by contracting officers to award contract incentives. Maintenance repair work is performed by unit level military personnel. If they have questions regarding repairs for C-130J or CV-22B aircraft, they speak to their assigned contractor personnel. Therefore, the appellant has no direct technical input or oversight over the accomplishment of work by unit maintenance personnel (who do not report to him) or their related contract payment awards.
Responsibility 13 is not credited. To be credited this responsibility an employee must have the authority to approve expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. The appellant’s subordinates are military members and within-grade increases do not exist in the military personnel system so he does not have the authority to approve them. The appellant approves overtime as needed but it is not an expense because military members are considered on duty 24 hours a day. Thus, while he has the authority to approve travel after ensuring the funds are available at the Maintenance Division organizational level, his position does not meet the other two required responsibilities.
Responsibility 14 is not credited. The appellant can recommend awards for his nonsupervisory subordinates. However, although he can recommend a change to the military occupational specialty of a military position in the PSS, given that he has no civilian subordinates this does not equate to recommending changes in the classification of civilian positions as required by responsibility 14.
Responsibility 15 is not credited. It involves finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices; e.g., in a large production or processing unit. This would apply to large organizations whose missions would be susceptible to the application of such methodological or structural improvements. The work supervised by the applicant does not lend itself to these types of management applications. The appellant’s authority in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 9 of Level 3-2c.
The appellant’s position exercises nine of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor, but only three of the authorities and responsibilities under Level 3-3b. Therefore, the position falls short of Level 3-3b and Factor Level 3-2 is assigned.
The position meets Factor Level 3-2 and 450 points are assigned.
Summary evaluation of supervisory duties
Factor Level Points
| Factor | Level | Points |
| 1. Knowledge Required by the Position | 1-2 | 350 |
| 2. Organizational Setting | 2-1 | 100 |
| 3. Supervisory/Managerial Authority | 3-2 | 450 |
| 4. Personal Contacts | ||
| Nature of Contacts | 4A-3 | 75 |
| Purpose of Contacts | 4B-3 | 100 |
| 5. Difficulty of Work Directed | 5-6 | 800 |
| 6. Other Conditions | 6-4 | 1120 |
| Total Points | 2995 |
Total Points 2995
The total of 2995 points fall within the GS-12 point range (2755 to 3150) on the grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.
Evaluation using the JFS for the Equipment, Facilities, Services Group, GS-1600
The appellant did not contest the factor levels assigned by his agency for his personally performed work: Levels 1-7, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6&7 3c, 8-1, and 9-1. The GS-1600 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor-level description in the JFS describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level. Therefore, if a position fails to 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 aspects and still not be credited at a higher level. Each factor level has a corresponding point value. The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the GS-1600 JFS. After careful review of the record, we concur with the levels assigned by the agency and have credited the position as follows:
Summary
Factor Level Points
| Factor | Level | Points |
| 1. Knowledge Required by the Position | 1-7 | 1250 |
| 2. Supervisory Controls | 2-4 | 450 |
| 3. Guidelines | 3-4 | 450 |
| 4. Complexity | 4-2 | 75 |
| 5. Scope and Effect | 5-4 | 225 |
| 6. & 7. Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts | 3 c | 180 |
| 8. Physical Demands | 8-1 | 5 |
| 9. Work Environment | 9-1 | 5 |
| Total Points | 2790 |
Total Points 2790
The total of 2790 points falls within the GS-12 point range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the GS-1600 JFS.
Summary
The appellant’s supervisory duties and personally performed work are both evaluated at the GS-12 level. Therefore, the grade of his position is GS-12.
Decision
The appellant’s position is properly classified as Supervisory Equipment Specialist, GS-1670-12.