Washington DC

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

---

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

10/19/2020

---

Date

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).

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Lead Fire Protection Inspector, GS-0081-09, but he believes it should be classified as Fire Protection Specialist (Fire Commissioning Agent), GS-0081, at the GS-11 grade level or higher.  The position is assigned to Fire Prevention, Fire Emergency Services, 788^th Civil Engineer Squadron, 88^th Civil Engineer Group, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Air Force Materiel Command, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Ohio.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant states the number of Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services certifications required of his position exceed those required by his immediate supervisor’s position, i.e., the Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention, GS-0081-12.  By law, we must classify a position solely by comparing its current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Other methods or factors of evaluation are not authorized for use in determining the classification of a position, such as comparison to positions which may or may not have been properly classified.  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the certifications of the appellant’s position to others as a basis for deciding his appeal, and have considered his statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison.  Moreover, personal qualifications are considered in classifying positions to the extent they are required to perform current duties and responsibilities of an employee’s position.  Therefore, we have considered the appellant’s personal qualifications only insofar as they are required to perform his current duties and responsibilities. 

The appellant also states he served as acting Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention for approximately 15 months in 2017.  However, 5 U.S.C. 5112 indicates that we can consider only current duties and responsibilities in classifying positions.  Furthermore, work performed in the absence of another employee cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (Introduction, Section III.J., and The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

Position information

The appellant’s position is assigned to the WPAFB’s firefighting organization, which is headed by the Fire Chief, a GS-0081-14 position.  The appellant’s position is assigned to Fire Prevention, which is responsible for planning, organizing, and implementing a prevention program involving fire safety inspection, fire investigation, construction review, training, and fire administration for all facilities at the WPAFB.  The Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention, GS-0081-12, directly supervises his position.

The appellant spends at least 30 percent of his time serving as the leader for five Fire Protection Inspector, GS-0081-08, positions.  The GS-08 inspectors perform regular and periodic fire protection inspections and testing, correcting deficiencies when and where necessary, on a variety of fire protection systems for assigned facilities.  In his capacity as leader, the appellant directs, coordinates, and reviews the work performed by the inspectors.  He provides advice on work processes, distributes work equally, and conducts quality control checks of completed reports within the Automated Civil Engineering System to ensure all annual inspections due each month are accurately recorded in the program.

Similar to the subordinate inspector positions, the appellant also individually performs annual fire protection inspections as required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-2001, Fire and Emergency Services Program, for five assigned facilities.  He identifies, documents, and reports fire hazards and fire safety deficiencies.  In addition, he performs the majority of design reviews required by AFI 32-2001.  As a source for authoritative technical information related to fire safety recommendations and fire code requirements, the appellant reviews design plans submitted at the 35, 65, and 100 percent completion stage for new construction and any remodeling, alterations, modifications, and repairs on existing buildings and systems at WPAFB.  He reviews plans for adherence to all fire protection codes, criteria, and regulations relating to life safety, fire barriers, fire alarm and mass notification systems, and suppression systems.  The appellant attends pre-construction and design review meetings to ensure fire safety policies and practices are being followed, as well as inspects work at various stages of completion to ensure conformance with national fire codes, local orders, and installation regulations pertaining to fire prevention and protection.  He also conducts quality assurance inspections prior to government accepting a facility or project.  This responsibility includes determining the quality of first aid firefighting appliances for all structures and assessing seating and exit capacities.  The appellant documents the results of his findings by inputting data into a variety of computer programs.  The preceding duties and responsibilities occupy up to 60 percent of the appellant’s work time. 

In addition, as part of his leader and fire inspection duties the appellant determines the need for and provides fire prevention education and instruction, including formal classroom lectures, briefings, and practical demonstrations, on a variety of prevention topics for military and civilian managers and employees, Fire Emergency Services personnel, building and facility managers, safety officers, engineers, and others.

The appellant can be assigned to any position in the fire department for on-scene operations.  For example, he can function as safety officer, fire investigator to determine origin and cause, and Emergency Medical Technician Basic (EMT-B) to provide rescue and on-scene care of injuries resulting from accidents, fire, sudden illness, or other incidents requiring immediate attention.

The appellant’s official Air Force Core Personnel Document (CPD), number 08471, and other material of record furnish more information about his duties and responsibilities and how they are performed.  The appellant and his first-level supervisor certified to the accuracy of the duties described in his official CPD.  We find the major duties as described by his CPD are adequate for classification purposes, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision. 

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency.  In addition, to help decide this appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his current first-level supervisor; his second-level supervisor (i.e., the GS-0081-13 Deputy Fire Chief), who also previously served as his first-level supervisor; and a Project Manager, the designated fire protection engineer, for the 88^th Civil Engineer Group at WPAFB.    

Series, title, and standards determination

The agency assigned the appellant’s position to the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-0081, titling it Lead Fire Protection Inspector.  The GS-0081 series requires knowledge of firefighting and fire prevention theory and techniques, as well as skill in planning, training, directing, or carrying out fire protection and prevention programs and operations.  The appellant does not contest the series but believes it should be titled as Fire Protection Specialist (Fire Commissioning Agent).  The GS-0081 PCS states that positions titled Fire Protection Specialist are those involved in developing and/or implementing protection and prevention programs.  Type A specialist positions are staff positions with responsibility for developing plans, procedures, and standards for implementation at a number of operating fire departments in an organizational or geographical area.  Type B specialists work within an operating fire department with full time staff responsibility for one phase of the total fire protection and prevention program.  For example, an individual working full time in developing and implementing training programs for all personnel of the fire department, where there is not a resident fire chief.  The appellant’s position meets neither definition.  Unlike Type A, he is not assigned to a staff position carrying out the responsibilities defined above for implementation at a number of operating fire departments in an organizational or geographical area.  In contrast to Type B specialist positions the appellant does not have full time staff responsibility for one phase of the total fire protection and prevention program.  Moreover, while he identifies training needs and conducts fire prevention training as part of his leader and inspection duties, he is not responsible for developing and implementing a training program for all personnel of his fire department where there is not a resident fire chief.  There is both a Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief assigned to WPAFB who develop and implement the organization’s training program. 

Based on careful analysis of the record we concur with the agency’s series and title determination.  As discussed in the general titling guidance of the GS-0081 PCS, the authorized title for positions like the appellant’s that involve preventing fires by physically inspecting a variety of facilities to detect or reduce or eliminate the hazards that cause fires is Fire Protection Inspector.  Because he regularly performs leader duties over a staff of three or more GS-08 Fire Protection Inspectors his position fully meets the requirements for application of Part I of the General Schedule (GS) Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) for titling and evaluation as a “leader.”  Therefore, the prefix “Lead” is added to the basic title of Fire Protection Inspector.  In addition, he also regularly personally performs fire protection inspections for his assigned facilities.  We have separately evaluated these duties by application of the grading criteria in Part II of the GS-0081 PCS. 

Grade determination

Evaluation of personally performed work using Part II of the GS-0081 PCS

The grade level criteria for the GS-0081 PCS is divided into two parts:  Part I consists of three sections used to grade fire chief, supervisory, and lead firefighter positions.  Part II contains grade level criteria for nonsupervisory firefighter and fire protection inspector positions, grade GS-03 through GS-08.  The GS-0081 PCS provides descriptions of the duties typically performed by firefighters and fire protection inspectors at each grade level.  We used Part II to evaluate the appellant’s non-leader duties and responsibilities which involve conducting inspections of a variety of buildings and structures to identify equipment, materials, operations, activities, and conditions having high potential to result in fires.  Our analysis follows.

At the GS-07 level, fire protection inspectors are responsible for areas of an installation characterized by equipment, materials, and operations involving hazards that are difficult to recognize and once identified require advanced, sometimes innovative methods to reduce or eliminate them.  They adapt accepted fire protection techniques for application to potential hazards in highly specialized and technical operations.  They must be especially alert to new or unusual types of combustibles or other hazardous materials and recognize conditions of high fire expectancy and severity.  GS-07 inspectors research technical manuals, fire codes, or trade reference books to gain additional information and ascertain the fire characteristics.  They determine measures to reduce or eliminate the potential for fire or explosion.  Many of the recommendations made by inspectors at this level are controversial in terms of their effect on the time and operating requirements of the programs and projects involved.  Inspectors are expected to maintain relationships with operating officials such that only very difficult or controversial cases need to be referred to superiors for final disposition.  Some examples of duties performed at the GS-07 level include reviewing plans for new construction and alteration and extension of existing structures, and recommending changes and additions to ensure compliance with fire protection and prevention requirements; inspecting and correcting deficiencies in a variety of fixed fire protection systems, many of which are complex and/or designed for the specific operations and hazards; maintaining thorough familiarity with the layout and contents of buildings, locations of fire protection systems, and other similar characteristics of the installation; and knowing the recognized standards covering fire prevention techniques and procedures and agency and installation manuals, rules and regulations. 

At the GS-08 level, the highest level of fire protection inspector duties and responsibilities described by the GS-0081 PCS, fire protection inspectors, in addition to performing the fire protection inspector duties described at the GS-07 level, conduct an information program and secure client involvement in fire prevention, detection, and suppression.  They emphasize fire prevention topics, develop prevention messages from actual fire incidents, and interact with a wide variety of employees and others in all aspects of fire prevention.  Inspectors at the GS-08 level coordinate established fire watch programs with designated building, facility, or installation program representatives (e.g., fire marshals) and teach school children about home fire prevention and emergency procedures.  They develop materials, provide situational and classroom training in installation fire prevention activities, and address a variety of client groups in fire program methods and goals.

The appellant’s position fully meets but does not exceed the GS-08 level including performing the fire protection inspector duties described at the GS-07 level.  The type and variety of fire hazards at an installation directly impact the difficulty of establishing and maintaining effective fire protection and prevention programs.  We note the agency, in its evaluation statement of the appellant’s position, describes the WPAFB as follows:

The geographic area covered by Fire Protection Inspector personnel consists of 8312 acres which includes over 1500 buildings, 2290 housing units and an 85-bed Regional Medical and Teaching Center, bordered by four municipalities and five townships.  The daytime population consists of approximately 30,000 civilians, military and military dependents.  Dormitories and on-base billeting houses 2,000 or more personnel.  Three on-base childcare facilities support over 500 children per day.  Additionally, WPAFB is home to the National Museum of the Air Force, with 1.5 – 2M visitors per year.  On-base facilities range in size from one to ten stories in height.  Most structures have interconnected tunnels with mechanical systems such as high-pressure water lines carrying water with 400 degree temperature, electrical equipment and miscellaneous storage.

Maintenance personnel in the underground tunnels add to the responsibility of confined-space rescue in the event of an explosion where shock may occur.  Other structures house laboratories where chemical experiments occur; rocket fuels; extremely hazardous tests involving firing live ammunition into aircraft fuel tanks; a high energy ozone generator, etc., presenting explosion and conflagration hazards.  Some warehouse storage activities are characterized by high rack storage exceeding sixteen feet without in-rack sprinkler protection.  Historical facilities and museums contain many priceless and one-of-a-kind artifacts.  There are up to 5,000 occupants in high profile facilities during daytime hours.

[WPAFB] has been established as an aerial port of embarkation, hurrivac receiving center and is the secondary basing for the National Airborne Operational Center (E-4 aircraft), a national asset, with over 13 days per month on-base rate.  There is well over 6 million gallons of flammable liquids transported and stored on base.  The base stores and uses various types of munitions, chemicals, gases and radioactive materials.  An additional responsibility consists of providing fire protection coverage and responding to emergency calls of military and civilian aircraft landing within a 25 mile radius to the north and east as provided by mutual aid agreements with other departments in the area.  A major north-south railroad system traverses the length of the installation carrying the standard variety of commercial and industrial cargo including flammable liquids and gases, highly toxic caustics, radioactive materials, Class A explosives, oxidizers and corrosives.  State Highway 444 runs alongside the base, and Interstates 70 and 675 are within a mile of the installation.  There is movement of hazardous materials shipments along the Interstate system.  The fire department must also respond to accidents involving nuclear materials along this corridor and the base is designated as a “Safe Haven”.

[WPAFB] is a Headquarters base that regularly and routinely accommodates high ranking officials and distinguished visitors in Air Force, other agencies and private industry.  By its very nature of the type of work performed and distinguished visitors at this Headquarters base, it would rank high for probability of terrorist attack.  The Fire Protection Inspectors would be first responders in that situation.

Based on the preceding description, we conclude the nature and location of the fire hazards at the WPAFB are subject to frequent change.  As at the GS-07 level, the appellant must adapt fire protection techniques for application to potential hazards in the highly specialized and technical operations performed at the WPAFB.  He must be alert to new or unusual types of combustibles or other hazardous materials and recognize conditions of high fire expectancy and severity.  He is also responsible for an installation characterized by equipment, materials, and operations involving hazards that are difficult to recognize and once identified require advanced, sometimes innovative methods to reduce or eliminate them as expected at the GS-07 level.

When conducting annual fire protection inspections, the appellant identifies, communicates, and reports on fire hazards and fire safety deficiencies.  For example, he inspects facilities to ensure personnel can enter and exit space in the event of an emergency, space is being used for its intended purpose, fire alarms and extinguishers are operating appropriately, etc.  He documents the results of his inspections, as well as communicates the fire hazards and fire safety deficiencies he identifies to the facility manager or designee.  This and other work require extensive knowledge of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), International Code Council standards, AFIs, Engineering Technical Letters, Base Facility Standard, and agency missions.  Similar to the GS-07 level, the appellant researches the various technical manuals, fire codes, trade reference books, and other guidelines to gain additional information and ascertain the fire characteristics.

The appellant asserts the agency did not properly evaluate his quality assurance work, specifically regarding his level of involvement with project engineers and others as well as his review of design plans submitted at the 35, 65, and 100 percent completion stage.  According to the appellant, the WPAFB funded $85,471,712 in 2019 and $81,421,738 in 2020 on construction and renovation projects, in addition to allocating approximately 1.03 billion dollars on projects for the next five years.  In accordance with UFC 3-600-01, the fire department is responsible for correcting fire hazards and fire safety deficiencies relating to life safety, fire barriers, fire alarm and mass notification systems, and suppression systems involving WPAFB’s construction and maintenance projects.  The appellant reviews approximately 200 to 250 designs annually to ensure required fire operation features are present and local emergency response elements are incorporated and in conformance with requirements in UFC 3-600-01, AFIs, NFPA, and other standards.  Health care and other specialized facilities carry more stringent requirements.  The appellant provides design comments relating to fire lanes, fire hydrant locations, sprinkler systems, etc.  He attends pre-construction meetings to discuss administrative and other requirements, e.g., permit requisites for hot work such as welding, cutting, and brazing; required signage; and safety standards for spaces remaining partially occupied during construction.

In addition, the appellant conducts inspections during the construction phase when requested, as well as at the end of construction.  The contractor submits a test plan to the appellant prior to his conducting the final acceptance inspection.  He reviews the adequacy of test plans, which identifies the devices to be tested, the sequence of testing, the methods to be used to test each device, equipment to be used, etc.  During the final acceptance inspection, the appellant observes the final alarm test and inspects the fire alarm and sprinkler systems, fire/smoke rated walls and barriers, mass notification systems, and other fire operation features for conformance with NFPA codes and other requirements.  For example, he inspects fire alarm and detection systems for conformance with NFPA 101, 70, and 72 requirements.  Based on his inspection, the appellant determines if the space can be occupied when no fire hazards or fire safety deficiencies are identified, or when fire hazards or fire safety deficiencies are present but pose no immediate life-saving issue.  The preceding duties favorably compare to the GS-07 level.  In addition, like this level his work requires maintaining relationships with operating officials such that only very difficult or controversial cases need to be referred to superiors for final disposition, e.g., he notifies the Fire Chief or other higher-level official in the event of facility evacuations or closures.  Otherwise, he independently communicates with project managers, construction managers, architects, and fire protection, electrical, mechanical, structural, and safety engineers on fire hazard, fire safety deficiency, and other issues.  For example, the appellant coordinated with the project manager when he identified issues with the cutting of a fire wall during a building renovation project.  His recommendations, because they deviated from NFPA standards, required concurrence and authorization from the Air Force Civil Engineer Center.  As at the GS-07 level, the appellant’s work requires determining measures to reduce or eliminate the potential for fire or explosion.  Furthermore, many of his recommendations (e.g., relating to the acceptability of a facility for occupancy) are controversial in terms of their effect on the time and operating requirements of the programs and projects involved.

The intent of the GS-08 level is to credit programs which actively involve the installation’s population in fire prevention, detection, and suppression.  We found the depth of the appellant’s involvement in the educational development aspects of the WPAFB’s fire prevention program to be equivalent to the GS-08 level.  Similar to this level, he conducts an information program and secures client involvement in fire prevention, detection, and suppression.  He determines the fire prevention topics to be emphasized and interacts with a wide variety of employees and others in all aspects of fire hazards and fire preventive measures.  For example, the appellant coordinates established fire watch programs and provides training to designated building, facility, and installation program representatives (e.g., fire marshals), instructing them on their responsibilities, fire hazard identification, proper evacuation processes, facility inspections, etc.  He also provides a variety of training for Fire Emergency Services personnel on fire prevention principles, rules, regulations, and standards.  As a fire investigator, the appellant determines the origin and cause of the fire.  If he establishes the human actions responsible for the fire, he develops and tailors prevention messages and training by instructing the affected community on the prevention of future fires, evacuation procedures, proper use of fire extinguishers, etc.  The appellant provides dormitory and family housing briefings for new personnel to the WPAFB, e.g., use of the premises, extension cord safety, and contacting emergency services.  Like the GS-08 level, because the WPAFB has three childcare centers he also provides fire safety instruction to daycare personnel on topics such as supervision of children and infants, maintaining a safe environment, and evacuation procedures.  He also presents training to engineers of his squadron and the 88^th Civil Engineer Group on the documentation and issuance of permits.  Like the GS-08 level, the appellant develops checklists and other materials, and provides situational and classroom training on fire program methods and goals.  He provides classes, briefings, and on-site visits, e.g., when conducting final acceptance inspections for construction and renovation projects, to ensure safety procedures are followed, the proper use and care of fire extinguishers, special fire dangers, etc.  Based on the above findings, the appellant’s position fully meets but does not exceed the GS-08 level.

In addition, we applied the GS-0081 PCS to the appellant’s basic life support and other firefighter work and determined that those duties and responsibilities are graded lower than his inspection work.  Since those duties are not grade-controlling, we will not discuss them further in this decision.

Evaluation of leader work using Part I of the GSLGEG

Work leaders are responsible to their supervisors for ensuring that the work assignments of other employees of the team are carried out by performing a range of duties such as:

• Distributing and balancing the workload, assuring timely accomplishment of workload, and assuring enough work is distributed to keep the team busy;
• Monitoring status and progress of work, making daily adjustments as necessary, and obtaining assistance on problems which may arise;
• Estimating and reporting on expected time of completion of work, maintaining records of work, and preparing production reports as requested;
• Instructing employees in specific tasks and job techniques and making available written instructions, reference materials, and supplies;
• Giving on-the-job training to new employees in accordance with established procedures and practices;
• Maintaining current knowledge and answering questions on procedures, policies, directives, etc., and obtaining needed information or decisions from the supervisor on problems that occur;
• Checking work in progress or spot-checking work, reviewing completed work to see that supervisor’s instructions on work sequence, procedures, methods, and deadlines have been met;
• Amending or rejecting work not meeting established standards, referring to supervisor questions or matters not covered by standards and problems in meeting performance standards;
• Monitoring working conditions such as seating, ventilation, lighting, and safety;
• Approving leave for a few hours or for emergencies;
• Informing employees of available services and employee activities;
• Resolving simple, informal complaints of employees and referring others to the supervisor;
• Reporting to supervisor on performance, progress and training needs of employees, and on behavior problems; and
• Providing information to supervisor as requested concerning promotions, reassignments, recognition of outstanding performance, and personnel needs.

The record and our interviews confirm the appellant performs a full range of leader duties on a regular and recurring basis.

According to Part I of the GSLGEG, leader positions are classified one GS grade above the highest level of non-supervisory work led.  In classifying one-grade interval leader positions, we consider only work where the leader performs substantially the full range of leader duties previously described.  The appellant leads the work of five employees whose positions are classified as Fire Protection Inspector, GS-0081-08.  In general, we assume the agency’s classification of subordinate positions is accurate when assessing the base level of an organization’s work.  Therefore, we find GS-08 is the highest level of non-supervisory work led.  By application of the GSLGEG, the appellant’s position is graded one grade above the GS-08 base level resulting in a grade of GS-09.

Summary

The record shows the appellant’s personally performed work does not exceed the GS-08 grade level. However, by application of Part I of the GSLGEG the appellant’s position is graded one grade above the GS-08 base level resulting in GS-09.  Therefore, based on applying mixed grade principles the final grade of the appellant’s position is GS-09.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Lead Fire Protection Inspector, GS-0081-09.

Back to Top