Washington, DC

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

---

Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


04/08/2025

---

Date

Finality of Decision

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 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 appellants’ official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD 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 (ACE), Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants’ position is classified as Quality Assurance Specialist, GS-1910-09, but they believe it should be graded at the GS-11 level. The position is assigned to the Army National Guard (ARNG), Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF), AASF-Los Alamitos, Joint Force Headquarters - California, The Adjutant General- California, Department of the Army (DA), in Los Alamitos, California. The appellants are dual status technicians of the ARNG. However, this decision pertains solely to the work they perform as civilian employees. The appellants perform essentially identical duties and are assigned to the same PD number NGD1065000. Therefore, we have processed and adjudicated this case as a group appeal. [1] We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General Issues

The appellants compare the duties of their position to a higher graded PD for a quality assurance specialist position within their agency. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the appellants’ position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellants’ position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding their appeal.

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

The appellants’ supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellants’ official PD of record (number NGD1065000), but the appellants believe their PD is inaccurate because it does not describe several duties they perform. They state the PD does not describe their training responsibilities of WG-12 Technical Inspectors. However, although the PD does not specifically state that training is provided to WG-12 Technical Inspectors, it recognizes that the position is responsible for conducting formal and refresher training of quality assurance and compliance, and maintenance quality standards. In addition, our fact-finding disclosed that training conducted by the appellants is given to new hires, maintenance supervisors, and to WG-12 technical inspectors/aircraft mechanics. The appellants also state that the PD does not mention that they prepare memorandums covering delegations of authority orders signed by the Facility Commander, distribute the orders to the respective employees, and file and maintain these memorandums. However, the processing, distribution and maintenance of these memorandums do not constitute a primary or major duty of the position, therefore do not affect its classification (The Classifiers Handbook, Chapter 3).

The appellants assert their PD does not reflect the full scope their Quality Assurance Representatives (QAR) duties because it does not specifically describe the work performed in connection with the contractors. The appellants are assigned to a standard PD used across the National Guard Bureau; therefore, it is not meant to be a comprehensive or detailed description of the work performed specifically at the appellant’s facility. However, while their PD addresses serving as a Contracting Officer Representative (COR), as discussed below, we find they do not perform that function.  

The appellants state their weight and balance program duties are broader than that described in the PD in that they use “complex wireless systems to obtain aircraft weight data.” This is in reference to the Automated Weight and Balance System (AWBS) software used by the appellants to calculate the weight and balance of an aircraft, which we have considered when evaluating their position. Further, the appellants state their PD does not mention inspections and hazard corrections they perform for the facility’s Safety Program. However, our fact-finding shows (and as confirmed by their supervisor) that, while the appellants are required to perform inspections of maintenance shops for safety and condition of equipment as stated in the PD, in their civilian position they are not assigned to conduct formal inspections and make hazard corrections on behalf of the installation’s Safety Officer who directs the facility’s Safety Program.

Based on our review, we find that the appellants’ PD is inaccurate because they do not serve as “Contracting Officer Representative (COR) for a life cycle contractor support aircraft maintenance contract to ensure compliance with written procedures as required.” Rather, the appellants’ supervisor is designated as the COR. Moreover, our fact-finding does not support the statement in the appellants’ PD that they assess “quality assurance programs of other Department of Defense (DoD) services, and analyzes commercial maintenance practices to establish a comprehensive Quality Program (QP) of the AASF.” For the preceding reasons, the appellants’ PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work. A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee. Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee. An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and not simply a PD. This decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellants.

Position Information

The mission of the AASF Los Alamitos is to provide flight and flight training operations, Aviation Unit Maintenance, Aviation Intermediate Maintenance, and aviation maintenance training for supported units. The maintenance organization is headed by the Logistics Management Officer, GS-0346-13, comprised of approximately 47 employees (civilian and Active Guard Reserve), and approximately 7 contractor employees under one contract. The organization provides maintenance and repair services to approximately 14 UH60M helicopters. The appellants are two of three specialists assigned to the quality assurance function of the organization and report to the Quality Assurance Supervisor, Chief Warrant Officer (CWO 4).

The appellants’ position directly supports the implementation of AASF quality assurance and reliability programs to ensure work processes, products, and services satisfy quality standards. Functional program areas include, but are not limited to Safety-of Flight, Aviation Safety Action Message, Army Oil Analysis, Weight and Balances, Corrosion Prevention, and Test Measurement and Diagnostics. The appellants serve as QARs for the facility, and as such, they ensure contractors fulfill performance work statements (PWS) requirements within the contract.

The appellants develop quality assurance operating instructions and other materials to ensure compliance with program plans and requirements. They maintain the AASF master library with current and complete directives and operating instructions; monitor the organization’s publication improvement system to include recommending changes to publications, blank forms, and quality deficiency reports; and review aircraft historical records and logbooks for accuracy.

The appellants conduct quality assurance inspections of maintenance and repair work performed by aircraft mechanics and contractors. In addition, they conduct command directed quality inspections for all aspects of aircraft and associated equipment as directed by the Facility Commander. They record discrepancies and recommend corrective actions through Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs). Furthermore, they review equipment inventories, conduct inspections of maintenance shops for safety and condition of equipment, and monitor calibration of shop and test equipment to confirm serviceability. Furthermore, they monitor aircraft weighing operations, verify instrument readings, resolve weight and balances problems, and certify weight and balance computations. In addition, when components are removed or installed from an aircraft the appellants weigh the aircraft and enter data into the AWBS system to compute the balance (center of gravity) of the aircraft.  

The appellants conduct formal and refresher training of quality assurance and compliance procedures and techniques for new hires, maintenance supervisors and aircraft mechanics. They provide technical advice to management (i.e., Logistics Management Officer and/or Facility Commander) and maintenance supervisors on technical maintenance procedures, inspection methods, and on other quality assurance related functions. As QARs they serve as primary point of contact between the AASF and other agency contacts on quality assurance matters.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellants and their agency including their 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 appellants and their immediate supervisor.

Series, Title, and Standard Determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Quality Assurance Series, GS-1910, titling it Quality Assurance Specialist, and evaluated it by application of the PCS for the Quality Assurance Series, GS-1910, and the appellants do not disagree. We concur with the agency’s title, series, and standard determinations. The PCS for the Quality Assurance Series, GS-1910, provides applicable evaluation criteria that we have applied below to the appellants’ position.

Grade Determination

The PCS for the Quality Assurance Series, GS-1910, uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor-level in a standard describes the minimum criteria 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 provided in the PCS.

The appellants disagree with their agency’s assignment of Factor Level 1-6 for Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position, Factor Level 2-3 for Factor 2, Supervisory controls, Factor Level 4-3 for Factor 4, Complexity, and Factor Level 6-2, for Factor 6, Personal contacts. They concur with the agency’s assignment of Factor Level 3-3 for Factor 3, Guidelines, Factor Level 5-3, for Factor 5, Scope and effect, Factor Level 7-2 for Factor 7, Purpose of contacts, Factor Level 8-2 for Factor 8, Physical demands, and Factor Level 9-2 for Factor 9, Work environment. After careful review, we concur with the agency’s assignment of the undisputed levels and thus have not addressed them separately in the discussion below. Our evaluation with respect to Factors 1, 2, 4, and 6, follows.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts which the employee must understand to do acceptable work (e.g., steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts) and the nature and extent of the skills needed to apply that knowledge. To be used as a basis for selecting a level under this factor, a knowledge must be required and applied.

In addition to the knowledge and skills described at Level 1-5, positions at Level 1-6 require:

• Knowledge of established techniques, regulations, and requirements related to a quality assurance functional program (see Occupational Information), and skill in applying this knowledge to plan and perform a variety of assignments of moderate scope and complexity for which there are precedents;
• Demonstrated skill in interpreting, explaining, and applying technical requirements and specifications to quality problems encountered in such activities as procedures evaluation, process audits, product inspections, or investigations of defective material;
• Knowledge of products having characteristics which make them less complex, including associated manufacturing processes and inspection techniques;
• Practical knowledge of conventional factfinding or investigative techniques, and skill to develop, analyze, and evaluate facts relative to unsatisfactory conditions or trends, and to prepare documented reports of findings; and
• Demonstrated skill in maintaining effective working relationships in the activity served by the quality assurance organization.

At Level 1-7, quality assurance specialist positions require:

• Comprehensive and thorough knowledge of the full range of principles, concepts, and methodology related to one or more quality assurance functional programs, and considerable skill in applying this knowledge to the planning and accomplishment of a variety of difficult and complex work assignments.
• Broad knowledge of a range of complex products including pertinent quality characteristics, manufacturing methods and techniques, special processes, interrelationship of functional parts and subassemblies, measurement and test techniques, and skill in developing plans and approaches calculated to insure effective control of product quality.
• Broad knowledge of the practices, policies, and procedures of related functional and administrative activities such as contract administration, engineering, production, procurement, and supply and skill in effecting appropriate interface/coordination of quality assurance plans and programs with these activities.
• Thorough and detailed knowledge of and skill in applying various methods and techniques for investigating, analyzing and effecting corrective action on complex quality problems.

The position meets Level 1-6. In addition to the knowledges required at Level 1-5, like Level 1-6, the appellants apply knowledge of established functional programs quality assurance procedures and techniques to plan and perform a variety of assignments involving organizational and intermediate level maintenance of aircraft and aircraft components for which precedents exist. Like this level, the appellants interpret, explain, and apply technical aircraft maintenance requirements to quality problems encountered during aircraft inspections and compliance reviews of program areas. Comparable to Level 1-6, the appellants apply knowledge of less complex products such as aircraft maintenance and repair equipment (e.g., testing, measuring, calibration tools) used for inspection of maintenance shops and assess the safety and condition of equipment. Further like Level 1-6, the appellants apply practical knowledge of investigative techniques and skills to analyze and evaluate equipment failure trends on aircraft airframes and components, and to prepare product quality deficiency reports. Furthermore, like Level 1-6, the appellants maintain effective working relationships with the units serviced by the quality assurance function of the maintenance facility, as well as with the contractor personnel.  

The position does not meet Level 1-7. The appellants state that they apply Level 1-7 knowledges due to the complexity of the aircraft serviced (model UH60M) which have electronic integrated systems. However, although the aircraft and their components and systems are complex, the nature of the work operations performed by the maintenance organization are less difficult or complex than work performed at Level 1-7 in that the organization provides organizational or intermediate level maintenance and repair limited to one type of aircraft (model UH60M). Consequently, unlike Level 1-7, the appellants work does not extend to applying a comprehensive and thorough knowledge of the full range of principles, concepts, and methodology to plan and accomplish a variety of difficult and complex work assignments. Also, unlike Level 1-7, the work performed by the facility does not require them to apply knowledge of complex products such as those having quality characteristics subject to engineering changes and modifications.  

Further, unlike Level 1-7, the appellants do not apply broad knowledge of policies and procedures related to administrative activities such as contract administration, engineering, production, procurement, and supply, and skill in effecting appropriate coordination of quality assurance plans and programs with these activities. Rather, the appellants apply knowledge of maintenance practices and procedures related to the direct maintenance of aircrafts and aircraft components to ensure quality and reliability standards meet functional program requirements. Consequently, the breadth and depth of the knowledge required by the appellants’ position does not meet that described at Level 1-7.

The position meets Level 1-6, and 950 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers: (1) the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor; (2) the employee's responsibility; and (3) the review given of completed work.

At Level 2-3, the supervisor outlines objectives of new assignments and provides general information on priorities, any unusual requirements, time constraints, and coordination with other projects. The objectives of the assignment may also be obtained by reference to applicable project documentation or contractual material. Minimal work instructions are provided for continuing assignments (e.g., to a particular product line or plant production area) and assignments which are similar to ones previously performed. The supervisor or a senior-level specialist is available to assist in unusual situations such as providing guidance on technical problems not previously encountered or to advise on situations which are not covered by established operating procedures.

At Level 2-3, the specialist plans and carries out all of the successive operations to complete assignments without direct technical assistance from the supervisor. Selects and applies established quality assurance operating procedures, accepted methods and practices (e.g., statistical sampling, surveillance and auditing procedures), utilizing generalized instructions, procedural guides, or precedent material from similar assignments and makes independent determinations on product or procedures acceptability. Initiates reports on defective products, processes, or other situations affecting quality and approves/ disapproves or coordinates corrective action.

At Level 2-3, supervisory review is accomplished through reports and discussions between the specialist and the supervisor, covering actions taken or recommended and assignments completed. Completed assignments are generally evaluated for conformance to established policies and quality assurance program requirements, timeliness of activities, and soundness of technical decisions. Specific work products may be reviewed through occasional checks of inspection reports or reports of investigations and audits. The specific technical methods and procedures used by the specialist to accomplish the work are not reviewed in detail.

At Level 2-4, the supervisor provides assignments in terms of overall objectives and any limitations on the scope of the work. The specialist consults with and advises the supervisor on such aspects as priorities, staffing, or funding requirements, and project milestones.  The specialist plans and carries out assignments independently, determines the scope and level of quality activities based on the requirements, establishes priorities, interprets and applies general agency quality assurance policies and procedures, and effects coordination/consultation with other activities as required. The specialist has developed considerable expertise in quality assurance and is responsible for resolving problems involving deviations from established procedures, unfamiliar situations, or unusual requirements on own initiative, adjusting and varying the approach based on analysis of conditions/problems encountered, making authoritative determinations on conformance with requirements, and coordinating corrective action or adjustments with the responsible activities. The specialist periodically briefs the supervisor on progress of the assignments and potentially controversial issues.

At Level 2-4, work assignments are assessed from the standpoint of overall effectiveness of quality assurance efforts through periodic status reporting, briefings, or reviews of program documentation and accomplishments. Completed work products such as technical reports, reports of investigations, or reports of facility capability surveys are controlled for timely completion, but are generally accepted as technically sound. Controversial decisions or findings are reviewed primarily so that the supervisor can become familiar with the circumstances and determine if there is a basis for modification of operating instructions or procedures.

The position meets Level 2-3. Like this level, the supervisor or Facility Commander provide objectives for new assignments or general information on priorities, any unusual requirements, time constraints, and coordination with other projects such as command directed quality inspections, and monitoring of aircraft acceptance/transfer inspections. In addition, like Level 2-3, the appellants may also obtain assignment objectives by reference to documentation or contractual materials such as orders for command directed quality inspections or PWSs for contractor work. Comparable to Level 2-3, the supervisor or appropriate Logistic Assistance Representative (LAR) is available to assist in unusual maintenance situations not previously encountered or to advise on technical situations not covered by established operating procedures.

Like Level 2-3, the appellants perform their work without direct technical assistance from the supervisor. They select and apply established quality assurance operating procedures, methods, and precedents to make determinations on quality and reliability problems. Similar to Level 2-3, the appellants report defective products and prepare documentation for return and reimbursement of product from manufacturers. In addition, they review adequacy of corrective actions taken in accordance with program regulations. Like Level 2-3, supervisory review is accomplished through discussions during morning meetings between the appellants and the supervisor. The appellants’ supervisor is generally available to discuss significant problems, although this is seldom required due to the experience of the appellants. As intended at Level 2-3, work performed and decisions made by the appellants are generally accepted as technically sound.

The position does not meet Level 2-4. Unlike this level, the appellants do not consult with and advise the supervisor on factors such as priorities, staffing, or funding requirements, and project milestones. These responsibilities are outside the scope of their position and assigned to program management level positions. Furthermore, although the appellants function with considerable independence, unlike Level 2-4, they do not have the authority to resolve problems involving deviations from established procedures, unfamiliar situations, or unusual requirements without approval from the appropriate official (e.g., Facility Commander or engineering personnel). Therefore, the appellants do not meet the range of independence and authority inherent at Level 2-4.

The position meets Level 2-3, and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

This factor covers: the nature, number, variety, and intricacy of the tasks, steps, processes, or methods involved in assuring the acceptability of the products involved; the difficulty in identifying what needs to be done to complete assignments (i.e., the facts or conditions that must be considered); and the difficulty and originality involved in performing the overall work of the position.

At Level 4-3, the work involves application of a variety of quality assurance techniques and procedures or work directions to the planning and completion of assignments. The specialist uses established methodology and accepted practices to perform a variety of such tasks as procedures review and evaluation, statistical sampling, product inspection, monitoring controls over purchased material, checking adequacy of controls over test and measuring equipment, monitoring control of nonconforming material, reviewing controls over special fabrication or treatment processes, or investigating defects and documenting conditions requiring corrective action.

This level encompasses a variety of work situations and assignments:

• A defined segment of a larger quality assurance project where the overall assignment has characteristics comparable to those described for Level 4-4;
• Responsibility for projects where the products involved are less complex; or
• Assignments of equivalent difficulty.

Assignments at this level require the section and application of different methods and procedures, depending on the phase of the project and the nature of the problems encountered. For example, the analysis of quality data may indicate areas where surveillance should be adjusted, or areas requiring further investigations, e.g., effectiveness of procedures in controlling quality or instances of noncompliance with procedures. By way of contrast, positions at Level 4-2 perform assignments that are primarily for training and developmental purposes and have few responsibilities for planning, adjusting, or modifying work assignments. Through quality data analysis, product inspection, procedures review and evaluation, and audit or surveillance of operations, the specialist develops essential facts concerning overall quality trends or the factors contributing to unsatisfactory conditions. In investigating quality problems, the specialist considers a number of factors to isolate the root cause(s). For example, a particular defect may be traceable to defective raw material, errors in work instructions or quality procedures, deficient in-process treatment, faulty handling or storage procedures, or quality of workmanship.

Documentation developed concerning defective products or other situations adverse to quality form the basis for initiating requests for corrective action.

At Level 4-4, the quality assurance specialist performs varied duties aimed at insuring the acceptability of products. The work involves application of a complete range of quality assurance principles, techniques, and methodology to plan and accomplish projects for products having complex characteristics as described under the Work Assignment Characteristics section, of the Occupational Information, to perform assignments of equivalent complexity. Broad functions concerned with planning and completing the work include: developing the overall plans and approaches based on the technical requirements; monitoring the application and effectiveness of controls and methods; and adjusting quality assurance activities as indicated by quality data trends or conditions.

Level 4-4 assignments differ from those at Level 4-3 in that work at this level typically involves greater responsibility for developing and implementing quality assurance plans and projects. By contrast, positions at Level 4-3 operate largely within plans and procedures established for specific program or product areas. The nature of the typical products involved at this level requires application of a complete range of quality assurance principles, techniques, and procedures. That is, because the products involved are complex, quality characteristics must be progressively verified through precise measurements and tests, and controls or preventive efforts are required throughout the complete production cycle. Positions at Level 4-3 are typically concerned with less complex products or with defined segments of more difficult projects typical of this level.

At Level 4-4, decisions concerning what needs to be done involve: review and analysis of project or program documents, (contract, technical work orders) to ensure that critical quality requirements are identified and provided for in terms of the appropriate specifications, procedures, or methods of quality verification; tailoring the approach to product/ project requirements, such as priorities, scheduling, and availability of quality resources; making major modifications in approach or emphasis as conditions warrant (e.g., as a result of changing technical requirements or manufacturing techniques); and coordinating resolution of nonconformances.

At Level 4-4, the work requires making many decisions concerning such things as: determining adequacy and completeness of technical data relative to achieving overall quality requirements; evaluating capabilities of contractors' manufacturing activities for producing acceptable products; evaluating adequacy of contractors' quality control system; judging the adequacy of documentation concerning quality problems (e. g., results of investigations, problem definition, identification of root cause and making authoritative interpretations of complex qualify requirements.

The appellants’ position meets Level 4-3. Like this level, the appellants apply various quality assurance techniques and procedures depending on the phase of the inspections and the nature of the problem encountered to perform a variety of tasks such as: aircraft maintenance and repair inspections; monitoring and conducting the aircraft weight and balance process, and entering data into the AWBS software to calculate aircraft center of gravity; reporting on component deficiency and coordinating disposition of nonconforming components; documenting unsatisfactory conditions encountered during inspections of maintenance shops and safety of equipment and recommending corrective actions; investigating equipment failure and trends on airframes and components; and reviewing instances of noncompliance with procedures. These tasks and work situations involve defined segments of a larger quality assurance project (e.g., inspection and testing procedures versus over process for the overhaul of an aircraft) where the overall assignment has characteristics comparable to those described for Level 4-4. Like Level 4-3, the work performed by the facility typically involves the less complex maintenance and repair activities covered by established technical specifications with limited need or opportunity to make major modifications or deviations in approaches.

Comparable to Level 4-3, the appellants develop essential facts concerning factors contributing to unsatisfactory conditions. For example, in investigating equipment failure trends, they consider factors such as condition of component, errors in work instructions or quality procedures, and employee negligence to identify the root cause of the failure or discrepancy and to collect nonconformance data for trend analysis.  Further, similar to Level 4-3, the appellants prepare QDRs to capture product quality deficiency information and initiate requests for corrective actions with the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM).

The position does not meet Level 4-4. Unlike this level, the work performed by the appellants does not involve the application of a full range of quality assurance principles, techniques and methodologies to plan and accomplish assignments where the focus is on complex products and quality characteristics (described in the Work Assignment Characteristics section, Occupational Information, of the 1910 PCS) that are progressively verified through precise measurements and tests and controls, or where preventive efforts are required throughout the complete production cycle. Rather, the appellants’ position is concerned with defined segments of more difficult projects typical of Level 4-4, for instance collecting data for trend analysis versus determining adequacy and completeness of technical data, or ensuring contractors are following PWS requirements versus evaluating capabilities of contractors’ quality control systems.

Although the appellants develop local regulations and operating instructions to implement quality assurance and reliability program requirements, unlike Level 4-4 they do not develop quality assurance program plans. Rather, they operate largely within well-established plans and procedures for specific program areas. Unlike Level 4-4, the appellants are not required to make decisions concerning the adequacy and completeness of technical data to achieve overall quality requirements, evaluate the capabilities of contractors’ manufacturing activities, quality control systems, or judge the adequacy of documentation concerning quality problems. Rather, their decisions are based on requirements in applicable TMs, DA pamphlets, and other operating instructions. Furthermore, although the appellants provide technical guidance and interpretation of TMs, unlike Level 4-4 they do not make authoritative interpretations extending to complex quality requirements or make major modification in approaches as a result of changing technical requirements. 

The position meets Level 4-3, and 150 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Personal contacts

This factor includes face-to-face contacts and telephone and radio dialogue with persons not in the supervisory chain. Personal contacts with supervisors are covered under Factor 2, Supervisory Controls. Levels described under this factor are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place, e.g., the degree to which the specialist and those contacted recognize their relative roles and authorities.

At Level 6-2, positions have regular personal contact with employees and officials within the activity served by the quality assurance organization. Contacts include personnel in production, engineering, supply, or related functions. Also included are contacts with quality assurance and program officials at higher organizational levels within the agency. While the majority of the contacts are with agency employees and officials, some contacts may occur with individuals outside the employing agency. Generally such contacts involve a structured situation, in that they are arranged by or occur in the company of a senior-level specialist.

At Level 6-3, in addition to the personal contacts described at Level 6-2, the specialist at this level has regular contacts with employees and officials of other Federal agencies and/or private industry. The individuals contacted vary according to the situation involved and require that the specialist insure the persons contacted understand their respective roles. Personal contacts with quality assurance and program officials across agency lines (e.g., where one agency is tasked to perform procurement quality functions on another agency's contracts) frequently require that the specialist identify and locate, the appropriate person(s) to establish working relationships.

The appellants’ position meets Level 6-2. Like this level, the appellants have regular contact with employees and management officials within the AASF and its functions. For example, contacts include aircraft mechanics, maintenance supervisors, production unit personnel, and contractors. Furthermore, like Level 6-2, they also have contact with program officials at higher organizational levels within the agency from AMCOM level such as LARs and engineers.

The position does not meet Level 6-3. Unlike this level, the appellants do not have regular contact with employees and officials of other Federal agencies and/or private industry, or with quality assurance and program officials across agency lines (e.g., where one agency is tasked to perform procurement quality functions on another agency's contracts) and frequently require that the specialist identify and locate, the appropriate person(s) to establish working relationships.

The position meets Level 6-2, and 25 points are assigned.

Summary

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-6	950
2. Supervisory controls	2-3	275
3. Guidelines	3-3	275
4. Complexity	4-3	150
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. Personal contacts	6-2	25
7. Purpose of contacts	7-2	50
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-2	20
Total Points		1915

 

A total of 1915 points falls in the GS-09 range (1855-2100) in accordance with the grade conversion table in the 1910 PCS. Therefore, the appellants’ position is graded at the GS-09 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Quality Assurance Specialist, GS-1910-09.

[1] Initially this group appeal also included another appellant. However, effective May 3, 2024, he resigned from his agency. Since he is no longer officially assigned to the appealed position, he has no standing to continue this appeal (5 CFR 511.607(b)(1)), and consequently we cancelled his appeal.

 

Back to Top