Washington, DC

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

---

Lakshmi Bouchard
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


10/23/2018

---

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).

Since this decision lowers the grade of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision, as permitted by 5 CFR 511.702.  The applicable provisions of parts 351, 432, 536, and 752 of title 5 CFR must be followed in implementing the decision.  If the appellant is entitled to grade retention, the two-year retention period begins on the date this decision is implemented.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected position description (PD) reflecting the change in the grade of the appealed position as discussed in this decision and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Medical Supply Technician (Sterile Processing), GS-0622-8.  The appellant believes her position should be classified at the GS-09 grade level and the title be changed to Assistant Chief of Sterile Processing Service. The position is located in the Sterile Processing Service (SPS), Associate Director for Patient Care Services, Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant raises concerns about the agency’s classification review process.  She alludes to classification inconsistency by stating in her appeal her position was previously graded at the GS-9 grade level and was told during Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) and National Office of Sterile Processing inspections the duties she performs are above her position’s current grade level.  By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of her position.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the agency’s classification review process is not germane to this decision.

Like OPM, the appellant’s 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 appellant considers her position so similar to higher graded positions at other VAMC’s that they all warrant the same classification, she may pursue the matter by writing to her headquarters agency human resources office.  In doing so, she should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  If the positions are found to be basically the same as hers, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to her the differences between her position and the others.

Position information

The appellant supervises the SPS, which is responsible for providing decontaminating, high-level disinfecting, and/or sterilizing critical and semi-critical reusable medical equipment (RME) and instruments before being reused on another patient.  They are used within certain clinics, rooms, or labs of the VAMC’s Medical, Nursing, Surgical, and Dental Services.  SPS also reprocesses these RME and instruments for two of the Nursing Services community based outpatient clinics (CBOCs), which are sent to the VAMC and returned to the CBOCs by courier.  The cleaning and storage of non-critical RME including specialty carts are not performed by the appellant’s subordinates but the appellant ensures they are properly maintained.  This work is accomplished utilizing eight subordinate Medical Supply Technicians (MSTs).

The appellant’s first-level supervisor’s position is classified as a Supervisory Inventory Management Specialist, GS-2010-12, which manages the SPS and reports to the Nurse Executive for the Associate Director for Patient Care Services whose position is classified to the VA title 38 system.

The appellant carries out the following SPS program functions. When the SPS needs supplies and/or equipment, the appellant researches which items best fit their requirements and discusses what she found with her supervisor.  After they come to an agreement about which purchases to request, the appellant enters them in the electronic Enterprise Equipment Request (EER) portal for consideration by the VAMC’s Voting Committee.  Throughout the year, the appellant participates in inspecting all of the VAMC’s areas using RME and instruments to ensure they are following established processes for keeping them sterile.  When noncompliance issues are found, the appellant shares the findings with the respective service chief and recommends solutions and conducts re-inspections when scheduled to ensure the service is in compliance.  The appellant develops standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all RME and instruments in the VAMC based on the manufacturer’s prescribed cleaning instructions as needed.  She also serves on various committees on an irregular basis to include the Infection Control and Critical Care Committees and shares her sterile processing knowledge with the other service chiefs.

The appellant carries out the full range of first-level supervisory responsibilities over her approved staff of approximately eight permanent MSTs.  She plans work, sets and adjusts short-term priorities, and prepares unit assignments.  She assigns work to MSTs based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the capabilities of the MSTs.  She gives advice, counsel or instruction on technical and administrative matters.  She participates in interviewing candidates for MST positions by sitting on interview panels along with her supervisor, and another supervisor such as a nurse manager.  She recommends appointment, promotion, or reassignment to MST positions.  She effects minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and reprimands, and recommends other actions in more serious cases.  She develops the MSTs performance standards.  She evaluates the MST’s work performance, which includes discussions about the quality of their work and the number of RME and instruments they reprocessed. 

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information provided by the appellant and her agency including her official PD which we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to gain more information about the actual work performed and help decide the appeal, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her acting immediate supervisor, Supervisory Inventory Management Specialist.

Series, title, and standard determination

The appellant does not question the series or use of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) to evaluate her position and we concur.  However, she believes the title of her position should be “Assistant Chief, Sterile Processing Service” rather than Supervisory Medical Supply Technician.  Position classification standards generally prescribe the titles to be used for positions in the covered series. The titles section of the PCS for Medical Supply Aide and Technician Series, GS-0622 states the title for positions at or above the GS-4 grade level is Medical Supply Technician and Supervisory is added to titles which meet the GSSG criteria.  The Introduction clearly states only prescribed titles listed in PCS’ may be used on official documents relating to the position, e.g., position descriptions and personnel actions.  Furthermore, the Introduction goes on to state an agency can establish an unofficial position title for internal agency use or for recruiting purposes.  Based on the mandatory titling requirements of the GS-0622 PCS, the appellant’s position is correctly titled as Supervisory Medical Supply Technician.

As stated in the paragraph above, the title of “Supervisory” is added to a position when the position performs supervisory work and fully meets the coverage requirements for titling as a supervisor addressed in the GSSG.  The appellant contends that she shares fully in the authority and responsibility of the SPS chief, and therefore should be titled “Assistant Chief.”  However, our fact finding shows that she only serves in this role in the SPS chief’s absence.  Additionally, titling guidance in section III H.2of the Introduction states that when supervisory qualifications and skills are needed to perform the work as defined in the guide or standard, the official title should be supplemented with the word supervisory and not Assistant Chief.

The appellant spends all of her work time performing supervisory responsibilities related to the functioning and program management elements of the SPS.  Therefore, we have solely applied the criteria in the GSSG to evaluate the grade of the supervisory duties. 

Grade determination

The GSSG is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-5 through GS-15.  The GSSG employs a factor-point evaluation method that assesses six factors common to all supervisory positions.  To grade a position, each factor is evaluated by comparing the position to the factor-level description for that factor and crediting the points designated for the highest factor level which is fully met, in accordance with the instructions specific to the factor being evaluated.  The total points assessed under all factors are then converted to a grade by using the grade conversion table in the GSSG.

The appellant disagrees with her agency’s assignment of Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting; Level 4B-2 for Factor 4, Purpose of Contacts and Level 6-1 for Other Conditions.  We reviewed the agency’s determination for Factors 1, 3, 4A, and 5.  We concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Level 4A-2 for Factor 4 and Level 5-3 for Factor 5 but do not concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 1-2 for Factor 1.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 2, 4B, and 6.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage.  It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization.  To assign a factor level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.

             Scope

This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered.  The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.

Scope is determined by both the complexity and breadth of the work or program directed.  Complexity refers to the nature of the work itself; i.e., whether it is clerical, administrative, technical, or professional.  Breadth refers to the geographic and organizational coverage of the work.

At Level 1-1, the position directs work that is procedural, routine, and typically provides services or products to specific persons or small, local organizations.  The illustration of such work in the GSSG is directing messenger, guard, clerical, or laboratory support work below grade GS-5 or equivalent that provides local services to an organizational unit, small field office, or comparable activity.

At Level 1-2, the scope of the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature.  The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments. Illustrative of such work in a field office providing services to the general public is furnishing a portion of such services, often on a case by case basis, to a small population equivalent to all citizens or businesses in a portion of a small city.  Depending on the nature of the service provided, the serviced population may be concentrated in one city or spread out over a wider geographical area.

Level 1-1 is met.  Like this level, the appellant directs work that is procedural, routine, and provides services to specific small, local organizations.  The appellant’s subordinate MSTs reprocess critical and semi critical RME and instruments used in certain clinical areas in the Medical, Nursing, Surgical, and Dental Services, which is only a limited number of activities within the VAMC.

Level 1-2 is not fully met.  The work directed by the appellant meets the degree of complexity required for evaluation at Level 1-2 in that the work is technical in nature at the GS-5 and GS-6 grade level.  Like this level, the SPS provides reprocessing services to a limited geographic area, i.e., the VAMC and two CBOCs.  However, they support only a small number of clinical areas within a small number of services and do not 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.  The appellant is also responsible for the maintenance of all non-critical RME.  They are used in some of the same and different clinical areas in the services listed above in addition to the Mental Health Service, which does not greatly impact the number of activities supported. 

Level 1-1 for Scope is assigned.

            Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or the programs described under “Scope” on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others. 

At Level 1-1, the work directed facilitates the work of others in the immediate organizational unit, responds to specific requests or needs of individuals, or affects only localized functions.

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.

Level 1-1 is met.  Like this level, the impact of the work the appellant directs affects localized functions.  The MSTs work and the appellant’s responsibility for the non-critical RME impacts the direct patient care provided by only a limited number of activities within the VAMC. 

Level 1-2 is not met.  The appellant does not provide services or products that support and significantly impact installation, area office level, or field office operations.  Rather, the work performed by the appellant impacts the immediate organizational unit.  As discussed previously, SPS provides services to a limited number of services within the VAMC and two CBOCs. 

Level 1-1 for effect is assigned.

Both scope and effect are evaluated at Level 1-1 and 175 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 2-1, the position is accountable to a position that is two or more levels below the first (i.e., lowest in the chain of command) SES, flag or general officer, equivalent or higher level position in the direct supervisory chain.

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.

Level 2-1 is met.  Like this level, the appellant’s position is accountable to a position that is two levels below the first SES.  The appellant reports to the SPS chief, a GS-12 position which, in turn, reports to the Associate Director for Patient Care Services, a VN-V position which, in turn, reports to the VAMC Director, a SES position. 

Level 2-2 is not met.  The appellant states in her appeal this level should be assigned because her position shares fully in the responsibilities and authorities of the SPS chief position and therefore, should be reporting to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES like her supervisor.  However, our fact finding shows she performs these duties only on a temporary basis in the absence of the chief.    

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-1 and 100 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

This is a two part factor which assesses the nature and the 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 B is disputed and addressed below.

Subfactor 4B: Purpose of contacts

At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent, to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization, and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others. 

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 consequences or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

Level 4B-2 is met.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is to provide accurate and consistent information about keeping RME and instruments clean in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.  The appellant attends various meetings such as the monthly Infection Control Committee meeting in which she discusses any infection control issues in SPS and the monthly Critical Care Committee in which she explains the cleaning procedures for non-critical RME not reprocessed in SPS.  She responds to questions and provides assistance to service chiefs about such issues as inspection noncompliance findings or determining which piece of RME would meet a clinic’s needs.  The appellant also provides requested information to outside parties while participating in Joint Commission- and VISN-led inspections of the VAMC’s areas using RME and instruments.

Level 4B-3 is not met.  This level requires justifying, defending, or negotiating on behalf of the organization with the necessary level of authority to commit resources and gain compliance with established policies of the organization, i.e., SPS.  In order to represent the organization in program defense or negotiations, a supervisor must have the requisite control over resources and the authority necessary to gain support and compliance on policy matters.  In short, all three of the conditions listed under Factor Level 4B-3 must be present in a position to award credit for this level.  The appellant does not have the responsibility and authority to obtain or commit resources for this section.  That responsibility resides at higher management levels.  Moreover, her contacts do not involve justifying, defending, or negotiating matters when representing her unit.

This factor is evaluated at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Other conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  There are two steps involved in assigning a level under Factor 6:(1) select the highest level that the position meets, and (2) if the level selected in step 1 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, refer to the Special Situations section of Factor 6.  If the position meets three or more of the situations, then a single level is added to the level selected in the first step.  If the level selected under step 1 is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations section does not apply, and no level is added to the one selected in step 1. 

At Level 6-1, the work supervised or overseen involves clerical, technician, or other work comparable in difficulty to the GS-6 level or lower.  This could vary from basic supervision over a stable work force performing work operations that are routine, to a level of supervision which requires coordination within the unit to ensure that timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, quality, and quantity standards are met in individual cases.

At Level 6-2, at least one of the two following conditions must be met:  (1) the work supervised or overseen involves technician and/or support work comparable in difficulty to GS-7 or GS-8, or work at the GS-4, 5 or 6 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work, which requires coordination and integration of work efforts, either within the unit or with other units, in order to produce a completed work product or service; (2) the position directs subordinate supervisors of work comparable to GS-6 or lower, where coordinating the work of the subordinate units requires a continuing effort to assure quality and service standards, limited to matters of timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, and quantity.

Level 6-1 is met.  Like this level, the appellant supervises a GS-5 and GS-6 work force performing technical reprocessing work.  She ensures manufacturer’s prescribed cleaning instructions are followed for critical and semi-critical RME and instruments, flexible endoscopes, and probes.  Our fact finding shows the appellant arranges training for the MSTs with a manufacturer representative for new RME and instruments and develops the corresponding SOPs.  She also observes the MSTs as they work to ensure they are following the new SOPs, arranges refresher training as needed, and develops the MSTs performance standards. 

Level 6-2 is not met. The appellant believes her position meets Level 6-2a because she has full and final technical authority over SPS’ work.  She states no one else in the VAMC possesses sterile processing knowledge and she ensures all RME are properly cleaned and serves as a team member inspecting the VAMC’s clinical areas using RME.  However, credit for full and final technical authority is assigned to the SPS chief as stated in the position’s evaluation statement.  Level 6-2b is also not met because the appellant does not direct subordinate supervisors.

This factor is evaluated at Level 6-1 and 310 points are assigned.

Special Situations

Supervisory and oversight work may be complicated by special situations and/or conditions.  The conditions described are (1) Variety of Work, (2) Shift Operations, (3) Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines, (4) Physical Dispersion, (5) Special Staffing Situations, (6) Impact of Specialized Programs, (7) Changing Technology, and (8) Special Hazard and Safety Conditions.  If the position meets three or more of the eight special situations, it is credited one level above that which would otherwise be assigned (e.g., at Level 6-2 in this case).

Variety of Work

This situation is credited when more than one kind of work, each kind representing a requirement for a distinctly different additional body of knowledge on the part of the supervisor, is present in the work of the unit.  A “kind of work” usually will be the equivalent of a classification series.  Each “kind of work” requires substantially full qualification in distinctly separate areas, or full knowledge and understanding of rules, regulations, procedures, and subject matter of a distinctly separate area of work.  Additionally, to credit “Variety” (1) both technical and administrative responsibility must be exercised over the work, and (2) the grade level of the work cannot be more than one grade below the base level of work used in Factor 5.

Our fact finding shows the appellant supervises one kind of work, i.e., GS-0622 Medical Supply Technician work.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Shift Operations

This situation is credited when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.

Our fact finding shows the SPS operates two shifts, Monday through Friday.  The appellant’s subordinate personnel work either the day shift from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. or the afternoon shift from 4:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.  However, only the day shift is fully staffed to include a supervisor.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines

Fluctuating work force is credited when the workforce supervised by the position has large fluctuations in size (e.g. when there are significant seasonal variations in staff) and these fluctuations impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for training, adjusting assignments, or maintaining a smooth flow of work while absorbing and releasing employees.

Constantly changing deadlines is credited when frequent, abrupt, and unexpected changes in work assignments, goals, and deadlines require the supervisor constantly to adjust operations under the pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions.

The appellant’s work force is constant.  The appellant’s reprocessing goals and responsibilities do not change as well.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Physical Dispersion

This situation is credited when a substantial portion of the workload for which the supervisor is responsible is regularly carried out at one or more locations which are physically removed from the main unit (as in different buildings, or widely dispersed locations in a large warehouse or factory building), under conditions which make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.

All of the appellant’s subordinate MSTs work in the same physical location. Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Special Staffing Situations

This situation is credited when: (1) a substantial portion of the work force is regularly involved in special employment programs, or in similar situations which require involvement with employee representatives to resolve difficult or complex human resources management issues and problems; (2) requirements for counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring; and (3) job assignments, work tasks, working conditions, and/or training must be tailored to fit the special circumstances.

The appellant’s work force is not involved in special employment programs and she does not regularly counsel nor tailor the work conditions and/or job assignments on a regular basis.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Impact of Specialized Programs

This situation is credited when supervisors are responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the level of work credited in Factor 5, provided the grades of this work are not based upon independence of action, freedom from supervision, or personal impact on the job.

The appellant does not supervise any work above the base level of GS-06.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Changing Technology

This situation is credited when work processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of the subordinate staff.

The appellant arranges training for new RME and instruments reprocessed by the MSTs, additional training for complex items, and refresher training as needed.  However, the training is not the result of constantly evolving technology and is provided by an equipment or instrument company representative.  The training helps the staff understand the manufacturer’s prescribed cleaning instructions.  Therefore, this situation is not credited.

Special Hazard and Safety Conditions

This situation is credited when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provision for significant unsafe or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization.

Our fact finding shows the appellant ensures there is a supply of personal protective equipment for the MSTs use.  In addition, the appellant has a program on her computer that displays the temperature and humidity levels throughout the SPS units thereby ensuring the functionality of the RME and instruments are not affected.  On occasion, the MSTs experience physical ailments, such as headaches and nose bleeds, when using a piece of reprocessing equipment and the appellant works with the manufacturer’s representative to find a solution and correct the problem.  Therefore, this situation is credited.

As previously stated, Level 6-1 was credited for the first step of the evaluation of this factor.  Because this position meets only one Special Situation and not three, a single additional level is not added to the level selected in the first step.

This factor is evaluated at Level 6-1 and 310 points are assigned.

Summary

  

Factor	Level	Points
1.  Program Scope and Effect	1-1	175
2.  Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.  Supervisory/Managerial Authority	3-2c	450
4.  Personal Contacts
Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5.  Difficulty of Work Directed	5-3	340
6.  Other Conditions	6-1	310
Total Points		1,500

 

The total points fall within the GS-7 point range of 1,355 to 1,600 on the grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.

Decision

Based on our review, the position is properly classified as Supervisory Medical Supply Technician, GS-0622-7.

 

Back to Top