Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
New Orleans-Field Operations
Office of Field Operations
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Memphis, Tennessee
Ana A. Mazzi
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
11/13/2024
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 position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in Section III.E. of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must correct the PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory CBP Officer (Area Port Director), GS-1895-14, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-15 grade level. The position is assigned to the Area Port of Memphis, New Orleans-Field Operations, Office of Field Operations (OFO), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (hereafter referred to as “agency”), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Memphis, Tennessee. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.
In response to the appellant’s desk audit request, the agency headquarters’ Classification Operations Branch conducted a review of the classification of his position based on application of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). Its October 19, 2022, evaluation sustained the GS-14 grade level of the position but proposed raising the levels assigned for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, from Level 1-2 to 1-3; Factor 4, Personal Contacts, from Level 4A-2 to 4A-3; and Factor 6, Other Conditions, from Level 6-5 to 6-6(b). The agency headquarters’ Compensation Compliance, Oversight and Policy Branch conducted a subsequent review of the appellant’s position and its February 16, 2023, findings, in contrast to the previous desk audit findings, proposed lowering the levels assigned for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, from Level 3-3b to 3-2c, and Factor 4, Personal Contacts, from Level 4B-3 to 4B-2. Although it proposed raising the level assigned for Factor 6, Other Conditions, from Level 6-5 to 6-6(b), the latter evaluation concluded the appellant’s position is appropriately classified to the GS-13 grade level. However, the record shows no action was taken to implement the findings from either of the agency’s evaluations. Nevertheless, based on our review and as discussed in the “Grade determination” section of this decision, we have changed the factor levels assigned by the agency for certain factors.
The appellant believes he is performing work similar to other Area Port Director positions classified at the GS-15 grade level. By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards and guidelines. Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to other positions, which may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal.
Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has responsibility for ensuring 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. 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 its classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others.
Both the appellant and his supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD (#F0789A). However, we find that he spends far more time in supervisory and related program management responsibilities than 25 percent identified by the agency. The Area Port of Memphis is comprised of 124 full-time equivalents (FTE). While the appellant has five direct report supervisors, he serves as the second- or third-level supervisor for 14 additional supervisors. The appellant’s PD notes that in addition to direct supervision, he spends 50 percent of his time in work identified as “Enforcement Admissibility” and 25 percent performing “Facility Operations.” These duties include providing technical advice on a variety of matters affecting his organization such as interpretation of relevant laws and regulations on the admissibility of people and cargo; directing work activities; coordinating with port operation stakeholders, other DHS components, and Federal agencies; and providing guidance and training on the communication of intelligence and enforcement information. He also maintains the budget for operations and facilities, prepares required activity reports, and ensures proper maintenance and security of facilities. Therefore, we conclude the preceding duties are an integral part of his broader supervisory responsibilities and thus spends all his work time on supervision and related program management tasks.
Given the PD inaccuracies described above, the appellant’s PD does not meet the standard of adequacy described on pages 11-12 of the Introduction and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings for those tasks not directly identified by the agency as “supervisory.”
The appellant’s position serves as the Director for the Area Port of Memphis, which is responsible for conducting enforcement activities and tactical operations in support of the agency’s mission of border security, counterterrorism, and facilitation of lawful trade practices in Tennessee and Arkansas. The Area Port, which covers the 42,181 square miles of Tennessee and 53,179 square miles of Arkansas, consists of seven ports of entry (POE) in/at the following locations: Chattanooga, Knoxville, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Rogers User Fee Airport, and Tri-cities. The appellant’s organization is the second largest of the three Area Ports assigned to New Orleans-Field Operations, which is responsible for such operations across five States. The Director of Field Operations (DFO) New Orleans serves as his first-level supervisor.
The main work performed by the appellant’s Area Port occurs at the Memphis POE, which contains the FedEx Express Consignment Facility. In addition to the appellant, most of the Area Port’s FTEs are physically assigned to the Memphis POE, which is staffed with CBP officers, agriculture specialists, technicians, paralegal specialists, etc. Because of its focus on the air cargo environment, their primary work involves processing cargo shipments by identifying, detaining, and seizing contraband cargo entering or leaving the United States via the FedEx facility.
Five of the Area Port’s POEs (i.e., Chattanooga, Knoxville, Little Rock, Rogers User Fee Airport, and Tri-cities) are staffed with one to three FTEs at each location to process cargo shipments and the entrance and clearance of arriving aircraft with overflight exemptions. The Nashville POE, in addition to performing such functions, processes two daily international passenger flights and is staffed with two Supervisory CBP Officer, GS-1895-13, positions, as well as two agriculture specialists and 10 CBP officers. Furthermore, the Area Port staff assists the U.S. Army Fort Campbell, Kentucky, providing customs-related training to military personnel responsible for the entrance and clearance of military flights. They also provide support of regulatory functions to neighboring Area Ports when needed.
As previously noted, the appellant directly supervises five subordinate supervisory positions. These include a Supervisory Paralegal Specialist, GS-0950-14; Supervisory CBP Agriculture Specialist, GS-0401-14; two Supervisory CBP Officers (Assistant Port Director-Tactical/Trade/Passenger), GS-1895-13; and a Supervisory CBP Officer (Port Director), GS-1895-13.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including the official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his supervisor (DFO).
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the CBP Series, 1895, which covers positions which supervise, lead, or perform work involving detecting and preventing terrorists and instruments of terror from entering the United States, and enforcing and administering laws relating to the right of persons to enter, reside in, or depart from the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the importation/exportation of merchandise. Work requires knowledge of laws, regulations, policies, and procedures concerning the legal entry of persons and merchandise into the United States. The appellant does not disagree with the GS-1895 series designation, and we concur with the agency’s determination.
Because the appellant’s position fully meets the coverage requirements specified in the GSSG for titling and evaluation as a supervisor, we applied the grading criteria therein to evaluate his supervisory and related program management work. The prescribed title for supervisory positions classified in the 1895 series is Supervisory CBP Officer. Therefore, the correct title and series for the appellant’s position is Supervisory CBP, GS-1895. Addition of a parenthetical title is at the agency’s discretion.
The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory work in the General Schedule. The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor-level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the point-to-grade conversion chart in the guide.
In the evaluation statement attached to the appellant’s official PD dated April 9, 2021, the agency credited the supervisory work as follows: Level 1-2 for Factor 1 (Program Scope and Effect), Level 2-2 for Factor 2 (Organizational Setting), Level 3-3b for Factor 3 (Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised), Levels 4A-2/4B-3 for Factor 4 (Personal Contacts), Level 5-7 for Factor 5 (Difficulty of Typical Work Directed), and Level 6-5 for Factor 6 (Other Conditions). In the appeal to OPM, the appellant expressed disagreement with all factors credited by the agency’s official evaluation except Factor 5. He seeks an increase to Level 1-4, Level 2-3, Level 3-4, Levels 4A-4 and 4B-4, and Level 6-6. After careful review, we concur with the agency’s evaluation for Factor 5 and have credited the position accordingly. Therefore, we confined our analysis to the factors contested by the appellant.
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, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.
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 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.
At Level 1-3, the program segment directed 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 multimission military installation also falls at this level.
At Level 1-4, positions direct 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 agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 1-2, but he seeks to credit his position at Level 1-4. The agency’s evaluation supports the crediting of Level 1-2, stating that “[t]he incumbent supervises a significant portion of a typical Field Office encompassing several POEs within the Area Port [area of responsibility], which is engaged in inspection, intelligence analysis, examination, and law enforcement activities relating to arrival and departure of persons, conveyances, and merchandise at a medium to large POE and subordinate POEs.” Because its evaluation refers to his Area Port as “a significant portion of a typical Field Office,” its rationale for assigning Level 1-2 appears to be that because of the limited geographic coverage of the organization, its scope is more comparable to the “field office” described at that level rather than the Level 1-3 description of a “major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States.”
The appellant’s position is assigned to the OFO, whose mission is to detect and prevent terrorists and instruments of terror, harmful pests and diseases, illegal drugs, contraband, undocumented individuals, and illegal importations and exportations contrary to law and trade agreements from entering and exiting the United States. To perform such mission, OFO enforces laws to protect the country through the detection, interdiction, and apprehension of individuals who attempt to illegally enter, as well as facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and lawful travelers. We note the appellant’s official PD states:
This position supports the mission as a senior manager with responsibility for managing the full range of inspection, intelligence analysis, examination, and law enforcement activities, to include the investigation of violations of laws enforced by [the agency] and the apprehension, detention and arrest relating to arrival and departure.
The GSSG provides the following illustration at Level 1-2:
In a field office providing services to the general public, furnishes a portion of such services, often on a case basis, to a small population of clients. The size of the population serviced by the field office is the equivalent of all citizens or businesses in a portion of a small city. Depending on the nature of the service provided, however, the serviced population may be concentrated in one city or spread over a wider geographic area.
In contrast, the appellant directs an organizational unit carrying out a full range of the basic line functions of the agency, as confirmed by our fact-finding and statements in his official PD. While illustrations are not grade controlling, they provide context to more clearly understand the intent of a particular factor level. The illustration at Level 1-2 is not applicable as it applies to positions supervising a portion of the broader services typical of the organization.
We find the scope of the appellant’s position meets Level 1-3. In terms of complexity of the work directed, the General Schedule work directed by him encompasses professional (i.e., the General Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences Series, 0401) and complex administrative work that exceeds the “administrative, technical, complex clerical” work described at Level 1-2. Further, the majority of his subordinate staff performs law enforcement and protective work classified to the two-grade interval GS-1895 CBP Series. The nonsupervisory level of such work (i.e., the GS-12 level as credited under Factor 5) aligns with the complexity and breadth of services intended at Level 1-3.
In terms of the breadth of the program directed, the agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 1-2 based on the limited geographic coverage of a “typical agency field office.” The purpose of “scope” as defined in the GSSG is to measure geographic and organizational coverage as it affects the general complexity and breadth of the program directed. Thus, the actual geographic area covered (in terms of acreage or square miles) is not in and of itself a determinant of program scope as that term is intended in the guide. For example, although Level 1-2 describes work of “limited geographic coverage,” Level 1-3 allows a broad range of geographic coverage ranging from “a major metropolitan area” to “a small region of several States.” This underscores that the geographic subdivisions of an organization are usually a function of the complexity and breadth of the work conducted.
This is further reinforced in the illustration provided by the GSSG at Level 1-3:
In providing services directly to the general public, furnishes a significant portion of the agency’s line program to a moderate-sized population of clients. The size of the population serviced by the position is the equivalent of a group of citizens and/or businesses in several rural counties, a small city, or a portion of a larger metropolitan area. Depending on total population serviced by the agency and the complexity and intensity of the service itself, however, the serviced population may be concentrated in one specific geographic area, or involve a significant portion of a multistate population, or be composed of a comparable group.
The appellant’s position meets Level 1-3 in terms of the geographic and organizational coverage within the agency structure. The Area Port consists of seven POEs and covers 42,181 square miles of Tennessee and 53,179 square miles of Arkansas. In terms of programmatic responsibilities, management structure, and placement in the DFO’s organizational hierarchy, the Area Port of Memphis functions similarly as other Area Ports with common responsibilities and designated staff providing a full range of traditional enforcement CBP functions. We conclude the appellant’s Area Port aligns with Level 1-3 rather than the “typical agency field office” (i.e., the lowest organizational level of an agency) represented at Level 1-2. Although five POEs are characterized by minimal staff, lower traffic, and/or delivery of limited services, the Area Port nonetheless poses challenges encountered at the Memphis POE, containing the largest express consignment facility in the United States, that are not normally encountered at other POEs. Given these considerations, we conclude the scope of the appellant’s work within the agency structure meets Level 1-3 and is comparable to that level’s illustration in that his organizational unit provides a significant portion of the agency’s line program to the equivalent of “a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States.”
To meet Level 1-4, positions direct organizations in the performance of complex administrative or other work for the purpose of “development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs…” Because the workforce directed by the appellant is responsible for performing line functions at the Area Port, he is not directing activities characteristic of Level 1-4 involving the development of major agency programs. Responsibility for the type of policy development work described at Level 1-4 is performed at higher organizational levels. Further, the appellant’s organization does not involve activities comparable to major, highly technical operations carried out at the Government’s largest, most complex industrial operations.
Scope is evaluated at Level 1-3.
This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or 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, multimission 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.
At Level 1-4, the program directed impacts an agency’s headquarters operations, several bureau wide programs, or most of an agency’s entire field establishment; or facilitates the agency’s accomplishment of its primary mission or programs of national significance; or impacts large segments of the Nation’s population or segments of one or a few large industries; or receives frequent or continuing Congressional or media attention.
Level 1-2 criteria address two different scenarios, i.e., positions involved in the provision of support services internal to an organization (where effect is on installation, area office, or field office level operations), and positions involved in the delivery of externally oriented, line functions within a designated geographic area (where effect is on a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users). Regarding the first situation, the criteria is not applicable to the appellant’s situation because his organization is not involved in the provision of internal support services to the organization but rather in the conduct of the basic mission functions of the agency. As such, Level 1-2 is exceeded under the second scenario considering that his “population of clients or users” surpasses the small to moderate local population described at that level.
As senior manager of an organization tasked with performing the full range of OFO mission functions, the appellant’s position meets Level 1-3 as his Area Port performs work that directly and significantly impacts a wide range of agency activities. Given it performs work constituting the core mission of the agency (i.e., a law enforcement organization charged with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States while facilitating lawful international travel and trade), the Area Port’s conduct of such work requires direct and significant interaction with law enforcement and investigative partners, the business community, and the public. In addition to the law enforcement functions it performs, any number of examples can be cited such as communicating intelligence information, coordinating operations with port stakeholders, facilitating the import and export of shipments at the FedEx facility, establishing admissibility of travelers, and other activities that would have a direct and meaningful impact on the core functions of the appellant’s agency. As previously mentioned, we find his organization’s impact extends beyond the “limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city” described at Level 1-2. Instead, the appellant’s position is closely aligned with the Level 1-3 illustration cited earlier in its description of furnishing “a significant portion of the agency’s line program” (in this case, a full spectrum of CBP services) to a “moderate-sized population of clients” (described as being equivalent to “a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States”).
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-4. The field-level activities directed by him do not have the degree of agencywide impact expected at this level. They represent a segment of the agency’s primary line operations, not a self-contained program of national significance (e.g., a major research program or production operation that embodies or directly enables accomplishment of a large segment of the agency’s mission). Further, the Area Port’s work does not affect large segments of the nation’s population. The work directed by the appellant impacts business operations at the FedEx facility, but it does not have the degree of industrywide impact intended at Level 1-4 to the extent that the work significantly affects the way particular industries carry out their operations on a widespread basis. In addition, in contrast to the Level 1-4 illustration, he does not direct a program segment that receives frequent Congressional or media attention. While occasionally he may have contacts with Congressional staff or local media on particular incidents occurring within his POE, these do not constitute the type of nationwide attention typical of Level 1-4.
Effect is evaluated at Level 1-3.
Both Scope and Effect are credited at Level 1-3 and 550 points are assigned.
Factor 2, Organizational Setting
This factor considers the organizational situation of the supervisory position in relation to higher levels of management.
At Level 2-2, the position is accountable to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES, flag or general officer, or equivalent or higher-level position in the direct supervisory chain.
At Level 2-3, the position is accountable to a position that is SES level, flag or general officer military rank, or equivalent or higher level; or to a position which directs a substantial GS/GM-15 or equivalent level workload; or to a position which directs work through GS/GM-15 or equivalent level subordinate supervisors, officers, contractors, or others.
The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 2-2, but he seeks to credit his position at Level 2-3 because he “reports directly to a position that supervises and directs a substantial amount of GS-15 level workload, and which is also equivalent to the SES level as contemplated by the Supervisory Guide.” The record shows the appellant’s position reports directly to the DFO, a GS-1895-15 position, who in turn reports to the OFO’s Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner (a SES position).
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 2-3 because he does not meet any of the three conditions described at that level. Regarding the first condition, he is not directly accountable to a SES-level position. Because the New Orleans-Field Operations organization does not perform any nonsupervisory GS-15 or equivalent level work, the appellant’s position is not accountable to a position which directs a substantial GS-15 level workload envisioned under the second condition. Level 2-3 can be credited under the third condition when reporting to a position which directs work through GS-15 subordinate supervisors. The appellant’s first-level supervisor explained that, as DFO, he directly supervises a total of five supervisor positions. The agency conducted a classification review of the GS-301 Assistant Director of Field Operations (Mission Support) and the GS-1895 Assistant Director of Field Operations (Border Security/Trade) positions. Because the agency supported classification of both positions to the GS-15 grade level, the resulting changes to grades from the GS-14 to GS-15 levels took effect in or around January 2024. As a result, three out of the five subordinate supervisor positions reporting directly to the DFO are classified to the GS-15 grade level. The two other subordinate supervisor positions, i.e., the appealed position and the Area Port Director for Mobile, are classified to the GS-14 grade level.
Therefore, the appellant’s supervisor does not direct work through subordinate supervisors whose positions are all graded at the GS-15 level (only three out of five are at that level). Since there is an inadequate GS-15 subordinate supervisory structure to permit crediting of the third condition under Level 2-3, we conclude the appellant reports to a position that is one level below the first SES position and Level 2-2 is met.
Level 2-2 is credited for 250 points.
Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised
This factor considers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities 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 specified level.
To meet Level 3-3, a position must meet either Level 3-3a or 3-3b. The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 3-3b, but he seeks to credit his position at Level 3-4. Because each factor level is predicated on the preceding factor levels having been met, we must first compare his position to the description at Level 3-3 prior to consideration of subsequent factor levels.
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.
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a. The intent of Level 3-3a, in its reference to assuring program implementation by lower and subordinate organizational units, is to credit significant decision-making involvement in agency-wide staffing, budgetary, policy, and regulatory matters. The appellant provides input to his supervisor on resource requirements, working environment, and other basic program execution issues related to the Area Port. Unlike Level 3-3a, he has no independent authority to make the types of managerial decisions related to broad staffing, budgetary, policy, and regulatory matters affecting the overall organization. Such decision-making authority is vested with higher-level officials. For example, the OFO’s Executive Assistant Commissioner sets the overall budget for the 19 DFO organizations. The DFOs, in turn, allocate the budget assigned to their subordinate Area Ports for overtime, equipment, training, travel, and other categories. The appellant administers the budget allocated to his Area Port, ensuring expenditures in those categories are at or below budget.
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 15 responsibilities listed at Level 3-3b. Our analysis of those responsibilities follows.
Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 refer to situations where work is accomplished through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or other similar personnel. Further, the supervisor’s organizational workload must be so large and work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work. The organizational chart for his Area Port shows the appellant serves as the first-level supervisor for five positions classified by the agency as supervisors based on their meeting the requirements for coverage and evaluation by the GSSG. Given his organization is sufficiently large and complex as to require using subordinate supervisors to direct the work, his position is credited with responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8.
Responsibility 2 is credited because the appellant exercises significant responsibilities in dealing with and advising high-ranking managers, supervisors, and technical staff within the agency and other organizations.
Responsibility 4 is not credited because the appellant does not direct a program with multimillion dollar resources directly under his discretion and control. This responsibility is intended to credit supervisors that exercise direct control over a multimillion-dollar level of annual resources. In contrast, the appellant has direct control over the annual budget allocated to the Area Port by the DFO for training, travel, overtime, etc. He can approve funding requests under those categories, but he does not exercise control over a program with multimillion dollar resources as described by responsibility 4. Furthermore, although FedEx pays a flat fee per shipment to the agency for services rendered (≈$1.07), the fees are forwarded to agency headquarters and are thus not under the appellant’s discretion and control.
Responsibility 7 is credited to positions who make or approve selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions. As Area Port Director, the appellant has an active, direct role throughout the recruitment process in filling his organization’s vacancies. Responsibility 7 is credited because he makes selections for nonsupervisory positions and approves selection of applicants for bargaining unit positions who apply through merit promotion procedures.
Responsibility 9 is not credited because the appellant does not hear and resolve group grievances or serious complaints from employees. The responsibility delegated to him does not exceed the description at Level 3-2c, which is credited to supervisors who hear and resolve complaints from employees, referring more serious unresolved complaints to a higher-level supervisor or manager.
Unlike responsibility 10, the appellant does not have authority to review and approve serious disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions) involving nonsupervisory subordinates. This responsibility is exercised by higher-level agency managers in consultation with the agency’s employee relations staff.
Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellant does not regularly make decisions on nonroutine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests for subordinate staff. Instead, we find his training responsibilities do not exceed the description at Level 3-2c of supervisors identifying training needs and providing or arranging for needed training.
Responsibility 12 is not credited because the appellant does not oversee the work of contractor personnel.
Responsibility 13 is credited because the appellant is responsible for approving expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime (up to $180,000 allocated to his organization), and employee travel.
Responsibility 14 is credited because the appellant recommends awards and bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher-level officials or others.
Responsibility 15 applies to supervisory and managerial positions that oversee organizations with workloads that are so large and complex as to require attention to team building, reducing barriers to production, or improving business practices. This would apply to large organizations whose missions would be susceptible to the application of such methodological or structural improvements. We conclude the work directed (i.e., with the varied work processes performed by and between CBP officers, agriculture specialists, technicians, paralegals, etc.) and work location lends itself to such management applications and thus credit responsibility 15 to the appellant’s position. To illustrate, efforts to improve business practices and reduce barriers to production are heightened as a result of the Area Port’s work alongside the FedEx facility operations. As a result, the appellant meets with FedEx officials on a weekly basis and when required to discuss the movement of cargo through the facility and identify situations where operations can be streamlined. Employees under his direction identify and seize illegal drugs and other contraband entering or leaving the country through the FedEx facility. The appellant continually reviews their work processes for the purpose of improving drug-seizure operations at the Area Port. He implemented procedures when an item is seized, e.g., generating email notifications to a distribution list, processing items into the vault for safekeeping, inputting information into agency database for identification of new alerts or lookouts, etc. In addition, the appellant implemented work operation improvements by assigning staff to one-year rotations on teams targeting designated priorities (e.g., fentanyl), as well as pairing up senior officers with junior officers to facilitate coaching and team building.
The appellant’s position exercises all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor, and 10 of the 15 listed responsibilities under Level 3-3b.
To be considered for assignment of Level 3-4, a position must first exercise the delegated managerial and supervisory authorities included at lower levels of Factor 3. Because the appellant’s position does not meet both Levels 3-3a and 3-3b, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address Level 3-4 in this decision.
Level 3-3 is credited for 775 points.
This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts credited under Subfactor 4A and the purpose of those contacts credited under Subfactor 4B must be based on the same contacts.
Subfactor 4A-Nature of Contacts
Contacts credited under this subfactor cover the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.
At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts are with any of the following: (1) members of the business community or the general public; (2) high-ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level) or major organization level of the agency; (3) representatives of local public interest groups or case workers in Congressional district offices; (4) technical or operating level employees of State and local governments; and/or (5) reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. These contacts may be informal or may occur in meetings and conferences and may require special preparation.
At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are with any of the following: (1) high-ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency, administrative support staff at agency’s headquarters, or comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; (2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; (3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; (4) Congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; (5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; (6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or (7) State and local government managers doing business with the agency. These contacts take place in meetings and conferences or may be unplanned where the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management, and often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.
The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 4A-2, but he seeks Level 4A-4. After careful consideration, we find his contacts meet Level 4A-2. Like this level, the appellant has regular and recurring contact with the business community including the Vice President for International Shipments and other FedEx officials at the facility. He has contact with high-ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units/activities at major organization levels of the agency, e.g., the Assistant Director of Field Operations (Mission Support), Assistant Director of Field Operations (Border Security/Trade), budget officials, and other OFO staff. His contacts may be informal or formal, occurring in meetings and conferences and may require special preparation.
Level 4A-3 is not met. Unlike this level, although he has contacts with higher level civilian managers, they are not made at both the bureau level and at major headquarters organizational levels of the agency and do not occur on a regular and recurring basis. He also has only occasional contact with media representatives resulting from significant seizures and events occurring at the Area Port. These contacts are informational in nature (e.g., providing tours at the FedEx facility) and do not typically involve issues of such magnitude or contentiousness as to require extensive preparation and analysis on a regular basis typical of Level 4A-3. Because the appellant’s contacts do not meet Level 4A-3, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address Level 4A-4 in this decision.
This subfactor is evaluated at Level 4A-2 and 50 points are credited.
Subfactor 4B-Purpose of Contacts
This subfactor covers the purpose of the contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment making responsibilities related to supervision and management.
At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.
At Level 4B-4, the purpose of contacts is to influence, motivate, or persuade persons or groups to accept opinions or take actions related to advancing the fundamental goals and objectives of the program or segments directed, or involving the commitment or distribution of major resources, when intense opposition or resistance is encountered due to significant organizational or philosophical conflict, competing objectives, major resource limitations or reductions, or comparable issues. At this level, the persons contacted are sufficiently fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative that highly developed communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, leadership, and similar skills must be used to obtain the desired results.
The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 4B-3, but he believes it meets Level 4B-4. He is the focal point for communication and coordination with law enforcement and investigative partners. Like Level 4B-3, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts depends on the situation but generally involves sharing intelligence, justifying and defending actions of his Area Port, negotiating for cooperation and commitment from partners, strategizing and coordinating efforts, and obtaining compliance with laws for the mutual benefit of all parties. In addition, he works closely with FedEx officials to discuss the movement of cargo through its facility and identify situations where operations can be streamlined. When a threat is identified, in order to prioritize enforcement efforts the appellant coordinates with FedEx officials to minimize disruptions to the movement of cargo. Similar to Level 4B-3, he negotiates with FedEx officials to obtain their commitment, cooperation, and ultimately gain compliance with established objectives. When additional resources are required, the appellant is tasked with justifying and defending funding requests to OFO staff. The purpose of his regular and recurring contacts fully meets Level 4B-3.
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4B-4. While considerable communication skills, persuasion, and tact are required in dealing with parties having different perspectives concerning law enforcement, investigative, and other matters, the purpose of the appellant’s frequent contacts generally involves operational matters. The organizational level of his position (i.e., Area Port level) does not permit regular involvement in the types of broad program or policy issues expected at Level 4B-4. The purpose of his contacts does not include advancing fundamental agency goals or involving the commitment or distribution of the agency’s major resources, carried out in a highly confrontational, conflicting, uncooperative, and resistant environment.
This subfactor is evaluated at Level 4B-3 and 100 points are credited.
This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level. If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited.
Level 6-5 is met if either Level 6-5(a), (b), or (c) is credited. At Level 6-5(a), supervision and oversight require significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level. Supervision at this level involves major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed. For instance, makes major recommendations in at least three of the areas listed below or in other comparable areas:
- significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Level 6-4a;
- restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding;
- determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed;
- changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected;
- the optimum mix of reduced operating costs and assurance of program effectiveness, including introduction of labor-saving devices, automated processes, methods improvements, and similar;
- the resources to devote to particular programs (especially when staff years and a significant portion of an organization’s budget are involved);
- policy formulation, and long-range planning in connection with prospective changes in functions and programs.
At Level 6-5(b), positions supervise highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory, or comparable implications.
At Level 6-5(c), positions manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-4(a) for first line supervisors.
Level 6-6 is met if either Level 6-6(a) or (b) is credited. At Level 6-6(a), supervision and oversight require exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level. Supervision and resource management at this level involves major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organizations and programs managed. For instance, supervisors at this level make recommendations and/or final decisions about many of the management areas listed under Factor Level 6-5(a) or about other comparable areas.
At Level 6-6(b), positions manage through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-5(a) above for first line supervisors.
The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 6-5, but the appellant seeks to credit his position at Level 6-6. Factor 6 describes positions that function at various levels of supervision. Because the Area Port Director serves as a higher-level supervisor, we compared the appellant’s position to applicable criteria, i.e., Levels 6-5(c) and 6-6(b).
Regarding Level 6-5(c), the appellant’s position exceeds in one respect the grade level identified at that level since he manages the Area Port through subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 level. However, Factor 6 measures the coordination and integration required by the work of the supervisor, not simply the difficulty of the base level work determined under Factor 5. Like Level 6-5(c), the appellant manages work involving coordination by his subordinate supervisors similar to the Level 6-4(a) description for first line supervisors, which is characterized by the GSSG as follows:
- identifying and integrating internal and external program issues affecting the immediate organization, such as those involving technical, financial, organizational, and administrative factors;
- integrating the work of a team or group where each member contributes a portion of the analyses, facts, information, proposed actions, or recommendations; and/or ensuring compatibility and consistency of interpretation, judgment, logic, and application of policy;
- recommending resources to devote to particular projects or to allocate among program segments;
- leadership in developing, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and procedures to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity of the program segment and/or organization directed; or
- reviewing and improving the substance of reports, decisions, case documents, contractors, or other action documents to assure that they accurately reflect the policies and position of the organization and the views of the agency.
Work of the appellant’s subordinate supervisors requires the coordination and integration characteristic of Level 6-4(a), which is supported by our fact-finding and review of the official PDs assigned to his subordinate supervisors. For example, similar to the coordination and integration of work described above by numbers (2) and (5), the PDs describe the subordinate supervisors providing technical oversight for their respective teams or employees on a full range of CBP functions relating to the import and export of cargo and merchandise, international mail compliance, arrival or departure of aircraft, etc. Subordinate supervisors ensure problems, questions, and situations are resolved by responding to technical and operational questions. Also similar to Level 6-4(a), subordinate supervisors make resource-related recommendations regarding the function or program segment directed. Although the appellant’s position exceeds the grade level associated with Level 6-5(c), the level of coordination and integration of work exercised by subordinate supervisors fully meets Level 6-4(a).
We note the agency credited the positions occupied by the appellant and the DFO, his supervisor, at Level 6-5; however, it credited the five supervisory positions that report directly to the appellant at Level 6-6, which is the highest level identified by the GSSG. Unlike Level 6-6(b), although the appellant manages work through subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 level, such work does not require of each subordinate supervisor similar coordination as that described at Level 6-5(a). Coordination at Level 6-5(a) is characterized by the expectation that the supervisor is responsible for making major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed. To credit the appellant’s position at Level 6-6(b), all subordinate supervisors must make major recommendations or final decisions in at least three of the management areas listed under Factor Level 6-5(a) including program and policy issues, goals and objectives, program content, organizational structure, cost reduction, resource allocation (when a significant portion of the budget is involved), and policy formulation.
The appellant’s subordinate supervisors do not collectively have responsibility for making the types of program and policy recommendations involving the overall program as envisioned at Level 6-5(a). Because they are principally concerned with implementing and carrying out policies related to their immediate areas of responsibility rather than the internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall Area Port, their responsibility does not exceed the description at Level 6-4(a). In addition, three of the appellant’s subordinate supervisors have no more than 15 FTEs assigned to their components, which are responsible for carrying out a segment of a broader program. As separate entities, their individual units cannot support the level of managerial decision-making expected at Level 6-5(a). For example, major recommendations related to organizational structure would include significant changes in the structure of the Area Port itself. Therefore, recommendations made by subordinate supervisors regarding their immediate organization do not meet the intent envisioned at this level as their size does not permit flexibility in either organizational design, program content, or resource distribution. Additionally, the subordinate supervisors do not make recommendations or final decisions involving the goals, objectives, plans, and schedules resulting from changes to legislation, program authority, or funding. Instead, they are responsible for implementing and actualizing the goals and objectives established by the DFO and other higher-level organizations.
The appellant’s subordinate supervisors recommend resources to devote to particular projects for their immediate organization which is characteristic of Level 6-4(a). There is no evidence that their recommendations rise to the description at Level 6-5(a) of making resource- and staffing-related recommendations “when staff years and a significant portion of an organization’s budget are involved.” Recommendations of such significance would be the responsibility of the appellant’s Area Port Director position, who distributes funds allocated by the DFO. Lastly, although some of his subordinate supervisors contribute input on the development of agency-wide policy (e.g., the Express Consignment Cargo Facility Handbook), the organizational placement of the subordinate supervisors’ units limits the degree to which they can formulate policy and participate in the long-range planning associated with prospective changes in functions and programs. Because the full coordinative aspects required of each subordinate supervisor are not met as described by Level 6-6(b), we must credit the appellant’s position at Level 6-5(c).
Level 6-5(c) is credited for 1,225 points.
|
Factor |
Level |
Points |
|
1.Program Scope and Effect |
1-3 |
550 |
|
2.Organizational Setting |
2-2 |
250 |
|
3.Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised |
3-3b |
775 |
|
4A.Nature of Contacts |
4A-2 |
50 |
|
4B.Purpose of Contacts |
4B-3 |
100 |
|
5.Difficulty of Typical Work Directed |
5-7 |
930 |
|
6.Other Conditions |
6-5c |
1225 |
|
Total Points |
3880 |
|
A total of 3,880 points falls within the GS-14 range (3605-4050) on the Point-to-Grade Conversion Chart in the GSSG.
The appellant’s position is properly classified as Supervisory CBP Officer, GS-1895-14. Addition of a parenthetical title is at the agency’s discretion.