Washington, DC

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

---

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



04/03/2023

---

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).

Since this decision changes the classification 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 (5 CFR 511.702).  The applicable provisions of parts 536 and 752 of 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) 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), Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington DC, office.

Introduction 

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Mechanical Engineer, GS-0830-12, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-13 grade level. The position is assigned to the Electrical/Electronics and Calibration Shop, Pearl Harbor Navy Calibration Center (NCC), Production Resource Department, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (IMF), U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) in Honolulu, Hawaii. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s evaluation of his position and believes it should be upgraded to the GS-13 level based on his years of experience in the field of metrology and calibration. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Therefore, we have considered the appellant’s statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison. Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions regarding the evaluation of the appellant’s position, the agency’s approach in classifying the position is not germane to the classification appeals process. 

Position information

The appellant and his official supervisor of record (Supervisory Engineering Technician, GS-0802-13, with organizational title of Pearl Harbor NCC Director) certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD of record number LQ8R300. However, our review disclosed the appellant’s PD of record is not completely accurate because it overstates the scope of the appellant’s responsibilities and lists duties he does not perform. For example, the appellant does not work with the Director in providing managerial direction to the Physical/Mechanical Standards Branch. Rather, he provides technical support to the physical/mechanical, physical/mechanical (NUC) and physical/dimensional sections of the Pearl Harbor NCC. The PD states the incumbent of the position assumes the following two responsibilities: “First, through the exercise of Total Quality Leadership Principles, the incumbent continuously and constantly improves work processes and utilizes manpower and material resources effectively and efficiently. Second the incumbent participates in ensuring that manpower and material costs are directly linked to program/mission objectives; that expenditures remain within approved budget levels; and that positions and/or organizational structures promote maximum efficiency and economy.” However, these are program management responsibilities belonging to the appellant’s supervisor who manages the Navy’s Metrology and Calibration (METCAL) program at Pearl Harbor. Further, as explained by the appellant (and confirmed by his supervisor) his position does not require him to survey “various activities to determine new and/or special workload requirements as it affects the Physical/Mechanical Standards Branch,” or conduct “studies of capability/feasibility of the Branch in handling new/special workloads.”

Although the appellant provides on-the-job training to Federal Wage System mechanics, his position does not require him to assess “the adequacy of the training of calibration personnel.” This responsibility belongs to laboratory work supervisors and/or training instructors from the training department. Although the appellant can recommend better daily test set-ups to assure the accuracy of calibrations, he does not devise “specialized test set-ups” or develop “new measurement techniques.” Although he validates new calibration standards using bench testing results provided by mechanics, he does not develop “plans for conducting a test or series of tests to assess the initial capabilities of newly developed test instruments.” In addition, although he can write local calibration procedures (LCPs) or guides, he does not write “instrument calibration procedures.” Rather, the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Corona Division Measurement Science and Engineering Department, in Corona, California, develops, reviews, and approves instrument calibration procedures (ICPs) for Navy test equipment and calibration standards.

The appellant also does not prepare and direct “the development of physical, mechanical, optical, dimensional standards and test, measuring, and diagnostic equipment procurement requests to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona, and for the preparation of assigned Navy Instrument Calibration Procedures as funded.” This function rests with positions at the NSWC, Corona Division. The appellant does not conduct “engineering studies, investigations, research and analysis for the solution to unusual or unprecedented complex physical, mechanical, optical, dimensional and electromechanical problems encountered in the Physical/Mechanical Standards Branch.” Rather, he participates and provides technical engineering support in engineering studies and research projects conducted and led by engineering personnel from NSWC Corona Division. Moreover, as addressed later in this decision, our findings do not reflect that the appellant applies “professional knowledge of mechanical engineering concepts, principles…” when performing the duties of his position. The duties performed by the appellant are more appropriately addressed within the context of another occupational series rather than the Mechanical Engineering Series, 0830. Therefore, for all the reasons mentioned above, the appellant’s 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.

The PHNSY and IMF is one of four naval shipyards and field level activities of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). NAVSEA shipyards perform logistic support and work in connection with ship construction, conversion, overhaul, repair, alteration, dry docking, outfitting, manufacturing research, re-development and test work. The mission of the PHNSY and IMF is to repair, maintain and modernize the Fleet. Within the PHNSY and IMF is the Pearl Harbor NCC recognized as a regional calibration laboratory servicing Naval activities in Hawaii and the Western Pacific Area. The NCC is currently operational 24-hours a day with three established shifts (i.e., morning, swing and night) in a production/depot level environment. As provided by the Pearl Harbor NCC director, the mission of the NCC is to provide accurate and timely calibration and repair of electronic, mechanical, and physical dimensional equipment to its regional customers in support of the Navy’s METCAL program. The NSWC, Corona Division is the NCC’s scientific and technical authority (hereafter referred to as the “Engineering Agent”) for calibration standards and the METCAL program.

The Pearl Harbor NCC director has supervisory and oversight responsibility for the NCC’s six sections composed of approximately 70 personnel. The positions of the NCC include: two Electronics Engineers, GS-0855-12; two Mechanical Engineers, GS-0830-12 (appellant’s position and one vacant position); one Quality Assurance Specialist, GS-1910-12; one Production Controller, GS-1152-09, one Calibration Shipping and Receiving Clerk (GS-7), one Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanic Supervisor II, WS-2602-15; one Combined Trades Supervisor II, WS-4701-14, one Production Shop Planner, WD-2602-07; six Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanic Supervisors I (WS-2602-11) and Instrument Mechanic Supervisors I (WS-3359-11); 45 Electronic Measurement Equipment Mechanics (WG-2602-05 to WL-2602-11) and Instrument Mechanics (WG-3359-05 to WL-3359-11), and at times up to five Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanics Helper/Worker military personnel (E3 to E7).

The appellant provides technical support and advice for the resolution of technical problems and inquiries associated with physical/mechanical and physical/dimensional standards and test, measurement and diagnostic equipment. He recommends to the Engineering Agent changes and/or corrections to ICPs and measurement techniques used for the calibration and maintenance of physical/mechanical and physical/dimensional equipment. He writes or makes changes to LCPs for unique Test and Monitoring Systems (TAMS) for local interim use. The appellant’s Engineer Manager (i.e., Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanic Supervisor II, WS-2602-15) has delegated authority from NAVSEA to provide interim support, thus he reviews and approves all LCPs prior to the appellant forwarding to the Engineering Agent for final resolution and approval. The appellant assists mechanics in the resolution of local technical problems or deficiencies found during the calibration process. He assists the mechanics with issues such as those involving difficulties in troubleshooting, understanding function of instruments and equipment, and reviewing test set-up instructions and application of ICPs. When technical problems or inquiries cannot be resolved locally he submits a Calibration Problem Report (CPR) through an online system to the Engineering Agent with requests for corrective actions or recommendations for resolution. As requested by management, the appellant provides on-the-job training to mechanics (e.g., conducts lab exercises and safety training). Further, he is certified to conduct quality assurance inspections to ensure accuracy of completed calibrations and performs these when assigned.

The appellant conducts subcontractor/vendor evaluations which require a review of the verification method and the measurement results of each subcontractor assessment to ensure valid calibration of equipment. Similarly, he conducts out-of-tolerances evaluations on calibration standards (i.e., measuring instruments) which requires analyzing the calibration point(s) that failed to meet the required tolerance level and determine whether it affected customer equipment calibrated by that instrument. He also validates new calibration standards against ICPs to ensure the equipment can be calibrated by the laboratory. The appellant recommends the purchase of calibration standards (e.g., replacement of equipment with improved models) in support of calibration standards modernization efforts. He provides technical advice to the NCC director in matters pertaining to metrology and calibration and prepares memoranda and/or reports as requested by his supervisor in response to inquiries received by the Engineering Agent. Furthermore, the appellant is assigned to provide technical support duties during projects or studies (e.g., dew/frost point, mass and scales) or in other research activities led by the Engineering Agent in support of the METCAL program.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we find sufficient for purposes of classification when relied upon in conjunction with information obtained from our fact-finding. Therefore, we have incorporated the PD by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant, his immediate supervisor (Supervisory Engineering Technician, GS-0802-13) and his engineer manager.

Series, title, and standard determination 

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Mechanical Engineering Series, 0830, titling it Mechanical Engineer and evaluated the position by application of the grading criteria in The Job Family Standard (JFS) for Professional Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800. The appellant does not dispute these determinations. ^[1] However, for the reasons discussed below the appellant’s position is appropriately placed in the Engineering Technical Series, 0802.

Classification guidance in the Introduction and The Classifier’s Handbook describe distinctions between professional and nonprofessional series. The Introduction states professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education. Work is professional when it requires the exercise of discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility for the application of an organized body of knowledge that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations, and to improve data, materials, and methods. The Classifier’s Handbook further states that professional work involves creativity, analysis, evaluation, and interpretation. It involves applying basic or natural law, principles, or theory; evaluating the research of others; and assessing the need for and validity of proposed changes and improvements in procedures and methods. Professional responsibility involves the ability to reason from existing knowledge to unexplored areas; to adapt methods to circumstances that deviate from the standards; and to stay abreast of and evaluate technical subjects, analyses, and proposals in professional literature.

The Classifier’s Handbook and the JFS for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800 (0800 JFS) state that closely allied to professional work is work performed by nonprofessional support personnel. Their duties and responsibilities, especially at the higher levels, may appear very similar to those of professional employees in related kinds of work. The technician carries out or implements plans or projects based on extensive experience and supplemental on-the-job training rather than on formal academic education in the discipline itself. Technical or nonprofessional work is performed typically in a narrow or highly specialized area of the overall occupation and requires a high degree of practical knowledge and skill. Such positions use recurring methods, standardized procedures and practices, and established processes for a specialized engineering field; collect, observe, test, and record factual engineering data; foresee the effects of procedural changes or appraise the validity of results; and stay abreast of existing and new practical methods and applications through on-the-job and classroom training.  The experienced technician often works with considerable independence for significant periods of time. This independence, however, does not alter the nature and character of the work, which is to support a professional discipline. Positions can be considered professional only if the work requires application of professional knowledge and ability. Neither the desirability of such qualifications nor the employee’s possession of them is a factor in determining the series.

The Mechanical Engineering Series, 0830, covers two-grade interval professional positions managing, supervising, leading, and/or performing professional engineering and scientific work involving the design, development, commission, manufacture, operation, maintenance, and disposal of mechanical devices and systems and their equipment and/or components; and concerning principles of motion, energy, force, and material properties to ensure mechanical devices and systems and their equipment and/or components function safely, reliably, efficiently, and economically. Mechanical engineering work involves the generation and/or application of theories, principles, practical concepts, systems, and processes related to:  the science of mechanical engineering (e.g., design, fluid dynamics, manufacturing processes, machine design, thermodynamics, and heat transfer), design standards, industry codes, and techniques; traditional engineering science disciplines (e.g., civil, electrical, and chemical); and advanced mathematics, physical science disciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry, and materials science), environmental science, and social science disciplines (e.g., economics). Mechanical engineering contributes to the daily and extraordinary needs of societies, industries, and Government, and to new and extended theoretical knowledge and understanding of physical phenomena.

Mechanical engineers in the Federal government also perform technical design and development project work, program management work for a significant technological field or particular emphasis area, and engineering advisory services.  Work situations for these mechanical engineers usually include some of the following: (1) providing agency program management for a mechanical engineering emphasis program; (2) performing and executing a variety of engineering projects from conception to completion; (3) conducting in-depth studies and analyses of specific issues or specialty areas within the mechanical engineering discipline; and (4) serving as a consultant and advisor on mechanical engineering science issues and concerns. 

The Engineering Technical Series, 0802, covers one-grade interval technical positions supervising, leading, or performing work involving applying a practical knowledge of the: methods and techniques of engineering or architecture; and construction, application, properties, operations, and limitations of engineering systems, processes, structures, machinery, devices, and materials. Engineering technicians work in a variety of unique work situations, often aligned with professional engineering and architecture fields and each with a fairly distinct set of knowledge and skill requirements. The work involves functions such as research, development, design, evaluation, construction, inspection, production, application, standardization, testing, or operation of engineering facilities, structures, systems, processes, equipment, devices, or materials. Basic knowledge and skills are transferable from one specialization to another.

Our fact-finding does not support placement of the appellant’s position in the Mechanical Engineering Series, 0830. We find the work assigned and performed by the appellant does not require the application of professional engineering knowledge and skills, therefore does not meet the series definition and nature of work for positions in the 0830 series. Instead, the primary duties of the position and reason for its existence are to resolve engineering technical problems associated with physical/mechanical and physical/dimensional standards and test, measurement and diagnostic equipment in support of the mission of the Pearl Harbor NCC. The paramount knowledge to perform the primary duties is a practical knowledge of the techniques and theories characteristic of mechanical, optical and physical dimensional equipment installation, operation, capabilities, and maintenance of mechanical and physical dimensional equipment and systems. Similar to technical engineering fields, much of this knowledge is obtained from on-the-job experience and supplemental training in the area of metrology and calibration or through review of agency-developed guidelines. Therefore, the work assigned to and performed by the appellant does not require professional engineering knowledge or the application of such knowledge to interpret and apply scientific theory and research as covered by the 0830 series. For instance, to resolve technical problems in calibration, the appellant is not required to explain the underlying science that underpins calibration but rather calibration practices, principles, and technical ways to reduce and/or resolve measurement errors to achieve valid calibrations. Such work does involve the application of theories, principles, systems, and processes related to the science of mechanical engineering. 

Our fact-finding shows that because the mission of the organization is to provide accurate and timely calibration and repair of electronic, mechanical, and physical-dimensional equipment, the work of the position requires only technical knowledge of metrology and calibration that can be acquired through practical experience and on-the-job activities. Like technical engineering work, the appellant uses recurring methods and standardized procedures and practices to collect, observe, test and record factual metrology data, evaluate the validity of results, and keep apprised of new practical methods through various training opportunities. Principal recruitment sources identified by the appellant’s supervisor include individuals possessing technical engineering knowledges and abilities and in-depth practical knowledge and experience in metrology and calibration. The appellant’s supervisor stated the appellant has such technical knowledge and experience gained from being in his position for over 20 years. The record also shows the appellant has taken extensive training in the principles and practices of metrology and calibration. Although the appellant works independently, like positions in the 0802 series any technical recommendations submitted through CPRs must be reviewed for technical accuracy and appropriate conclusions by the Engineering Agent. Further, when occasionally assigned, the appellant participates in research projects or studies typically led by the Engineering Agent providing technical support and data analysis. For example, the appellant discussed his participation in two research projects with a team of professionals from the Engineering Agent. ^[2]  In both of these research projects (i.e., dew/frost point and mass and scales) he gathered and compiled data (e.g., recorded calibrations performed on equipment by mechanics). Therefore, although this work supports operational requirements and affects the adequacy of research conclusions, the engineering professionals directing these projects perform the necessary and final analysis of collected data and draw scientific conclusions. Despite the fact that the appellant has acquired a formal education to meet qualifications requirements for positions in the Mechanical Engineering Series, 0830, as previously explained qualifications possessed by an employee that are not needed to perform the work assigned to the position may not be considered in determining the series of a position (The Classifiers Handbook, chapter 4). Therefore, as previously discussed our fact-finding shows the organization, structure, purpose, and parameters of the work performed by the appellant do not require the use of professional engineering knowledge and abilities of a professionally qualified employee.

For the preceding reasons we find the appellant’s work is technical in nature and appropriately classified in the 0802 series. The basic title authorized for positions in this occupation is Engineering Technician. In addition to the basic title, the parenthetical title of “Mechanical” may be used when the work is concerned with systems, plants, machines, equipment, and instruments for the generation, transmission, measurement, or utilization of heat or mechanical power. Since the appellant provides technical support and advice to resolve technical problems associated with physical mechanical and physical dimensional test, measurement and diagnostic equipment adding the subject matter specialization of “Mechanical” to the prescribed title is permissible. Positions assigned to the 0802 series are graded by reference to the grading criteria in the 0800 JFS. Our application of the grading criteria in 0800 JFS to the appellant’s position follows.

Grade determination 

The 0800 JFS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor-level description describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level. Therefore, if a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level, unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency. Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspect and still not be credited at a higher level. Each factor-level has a corresponding point value. The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the JFS.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts an 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 necessary to apply that knowledge.

At Level 1-7, the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, the employee uses a comprehensive, intensive, and practical knowledge of, and extensive experience and skill in applying: a wide range of concepts, practices, regulations, policies, and precedents; analytical and diagnostic techniques; qualitative and quantitative techniques; techniques for developing new or modified work methods, approaches, or procedures; and related emerging practices and methods sufficient to: provide comprehensive management advisory and technical services on substantive functions and practices; develop innovative methods, approaches, or procedures; identify, evaluate, and recommend appropriate solutions to resolve complex interrelated problems and issues; and formulate and present findings, briefings, project papers, status reports, and correspondence to foster understanding and acceptance of findings and recommendations.

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 1-7. Like this level, the appellant’s position requires practical knowledge of, and extensive experience and skill in applying a wide range of technical engineering and calibration concepts, practices, policies and precedents to provide comprehensive technical advice to the NCC director on substantive metrology, calibration and measurement traceability functions and practices, e.g., to validate measurements from new calibration standards to determine accuracy and traceability to national standards. Similar to Level 1-7, when performing out-of-tolerance evaluations, the appellant applies knowledge of analytical instrument calibration methods and testing diagnostic techniques to identify the calibration point(s) that failed to meet required tolerance levels and determine the interrelated effect the error the calibration standard may have had on the various calibrations performed using that standard and making recommendations accordingly, e.g., recall of affected customer equipment.

Comparable to Level 1-7, the appellant applies in-depth practical knowledge of the requirements of calibration standards and test and measurement equipment to develop new LCPs for unique TAMS without applicable procedures and provide interim support to customers. Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant applies knowledge of qualitative and quantitative measurement techniques to formulate and present findings, data reports and other correspondence to foster understanding and acceptance of findings and recommendations for the development of new ICPs as demonstrated during his participation in a study involving thermocouple sensors.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-7 and 1250 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee’s responsibility, and the degree to which the work is reviewed by the supervisor.

At Level 2-4, the highest level for this factor provided in the JFS, the supervisor outlines overall objectives and available resources; discusses the projects and timeframes with the employee; and determines the parameters of the employee’s responsibilities. The employee: determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue; decides the practices and methods to apply in all phases of assignments including the approach to take and the depth and intensity needed; interprets regulations or policy frequently on own initiative; applies new methods to solve complex, intricate, sensitive, and/or unprecedented problems and resolves most conflicts as they arise; coordinates projects or cases across units, organizations, or agencies; and keeps the supervisor informed of progress and of potentially controversial matters. The supervisor reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach; effectiveness in producing results; feasibility of recommendations; and adherence to requirements.

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 2-4. Like this level, the appellant’s supervisor exercises responsibility and oversight over all activities within the NCC and sets the overall objectives and available resources for the work of the organization, including the appellant’s technical area. Like Level 2-4, the supervisor determines the parameters of the appellant’s responsibilities including those addressed in his performance standards. Comparable to Level 2-4, the supervisor discusses projects and timeframes when applicable, or policy questions arising in the course of a special project or assignment with the NSWC Corona Division. The appellant works with a considerable degree of technical independence typical of Level 2-4, which describes the level of the experienced Engineering Technician who works largely independently within the established parameters of the work. Like Level 2-4, the appellant determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue to resolve technical problems including initiating CPRs to be sent to the Engineering Agent. He decides on the most appropriate principles, practices, and methods to apply in all phases of his work including the depth and intensity of research needed to resolve technical problems including developing LCPs for use in calibration of unique TAMS.

Like Level 2-4, the appellant interprets policy on his own initiative and keeps his supervisor informed on potential controversial problems. Comparable to this level, when participating in studies of unprecedented problems typically presented and led by the Engineering Agent, the appellant applies new ICPs and methods through bench testing and independently resolves most conflicts as they arise. Further, he coordinates or discusses work with other staff or organizations, as necessary, e.g., with Engineer Manager prior to sending his recommendations or requests for corrective actions to ICPs to the Engineering Agent. At this level, the supervisor does not review the technical methods used by the employee to complete his work functions. However, consistent with Level 2-4 the appellant’s supervisor may periodically conduct a quality assurance review of the appellant’s work actions (e.g., quality of subcontractor evaluations) to review soundness of overall approach, feasibility of recommendations, and effectiveness in producing expected results and adherence to requirements.

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-4 and 450 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment employees need to apply them.

At level 3-3, the employee uses a variety of guidelines, manuals, and standard reference materials; however, they are not completely applicable to the work or have gaps in specificity. The employee uses judgement and initiative in interpreting and adapting guidelines, such as agency polies, regulations, precedents, and work directions for application to specific cases or problems. The employee analyzes results and recommended changes.

At Level 3-4, the employee uses guidelines, manuals, and standard reference materials that are stated in general terms. Guidance for performing the work is scarce or of limited use. The employee uses judgment, initiative, and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to: modify, adapt, and/or refine broader guidelines to resolve complex and/or intricate issues and problems; treat specific issues or problems; research trends and patterns; develop new methods and criteria; and/or propose new policies and practices.

The appellant’s position meets Level 3-3. Like this level, guidelines available to the appellant include a variety of instructions, manuals, and standard reference material. These include: agency instructions on Navy Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment, Automatic Test Systems, and Metrology and Calibration; NAVSEA instructions on its Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) and Calibration Program; Naval Shipyard Instructions for the METCAL program (i.e., NSYPINST 4734.1); the Pearl Harbor Navy Calibration Center Quality Manual (i.e., NCC-QM-001); various Naval Air Command (NAVAIR) Technical Requirements (e.g., for Metrology and Calibration Support of Navy and Marine Corps Systems); Instrument Calibration Procedure Technical Manual (i.e., NAVAIR 17-20 Series); Calibration Requirements List (CRL) for Shipboard Installed Instrumentation; and NWSC Corona Division ICPs, polices and technical bulletins.

Like Level 3-3, while the preceding guidelines are available they are not completely applicable to the appellant’s work because they lack specificity relating to technical inquiries and problems encountered and those presented to the appellant by NCC staff for resolution. The guidelines used frequently have gaps in specificity such as for out-of-tolerance equipment issues and unresolved subcontracted/vendor calibrations matters. Similar to Level 3-3 the appellant uses judgement and initiative in interpreting and adapting guidelines including work directions for application to technical problems. For instance, for failed calibrations the appellant assesses the ICPs used and adapts/modifies test set-up procedures that support valid calibration requirements. Consistent with Level 3-3, in taking these actions he analyzes the results of the calibration and makes recommendations to the Engineering Agent for test set-up adaptations to be incorporated into the ICP.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-4. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work guidelines are not stated in general terms (e.g., such as those in broad agency policy statements and precedents) or characterized by their scarcity or limited use. Unlike Level 3-4, while the appellant’s guidelines are not completely applicable to his work, they are not so generally stated that he must deviate from established or accepted methods to develop new methods and criteria, propose new policies, or perform work of equivalent scale. Instead, his work requires providing practical recommendations based on sound technical engineering and calibration principles and practices, and making adaptations or minor modifications within the parameters of existing guidelines.

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-3 and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

This factor covers the nature, number, variety, and intricacy of tasks, steps, processes, or methods in the work performed; the difficulty in identifying what needs to be done; and the difficulty and originality involved in performing the work.

At Level 4-3, work consists of a number of different and unrelated processes in completing assignments or projects. The employee analyzes the subject, phase, or issues involved in each assignment to: adjust or deviate from standard work methods based on situations and conditions at a field or work site; and coordinate and plan phases of assignment. The employee exercises independent judgement and skill to interpret and analyze considerable data, plan work, or refine methods and techniques to determine the best course of action for problem resolution.

At Level 4-4, work consists of many different and unrelated processes and methods requiring ingenuity and skill to resolve a broad range of problems. The employee analyzes, selects, and adapts appropriate methods from a wide range of alternatives to: assess unusual circumstances; evaluate operations, equipment, and activities; and apply qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. The employee exercises seasoned judgment and skill to interpret considerable, incomplete, or conflicting data.

The appellant’s position meets Level 4-3. Like this level, the appellant’s work consists of a number of different and unrelated processes to complete a range of activities involving maintenance, repair, evaluation, inspection, testing and validation, and the operations of standards, and test, measurement and diagnostic equipment. Like Level 4-3, the appellant analyzes the technical problem or issue involved and makes adjustments from standard work methods based on various laboratory and/or equipment conditions, and coordinates and plans phases of the work to assure deficiency correction. For instance, when providing technical assistance to mechanics on failed calibrations, he analyzes various conditions that may have led to the invalid calibration and determines whether an adjustment from the standard methods covered in the ICP is appropriate. Factors analyzed include environmental laboratory conditions (e.g., temperature stability), instrument set-up conditions, specification of standards and test instruments and other test parameters including force, torque, pressure, mass and vibration. If a resolution is obtained after making an adjustment in a method or technique covered in the ICP, the appellant coordinates the process for resolution by initiating and forwarding a CPR requesting the incorporation of the adjustment into the ICP. Once approval is received, he assures an updated ICP is filed for use by laboratory and calibration personnel.

Like at Level 4-3, the appellant exercises independent judgement and skill to interpret and analyze considerable data such as instrument measurement readings when participating in “data call” requests from the Engineering Agent in support of the development of new ICPs, or when researching numerous types of models of test and measuring equipment including its capabilities and functions for recommending the purchase of new calibration standards or ancillary equipment for the NCC.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4-4. Unlike this level, his work does not consist of resolving problems and issues that often involve conflicting or incomplete data or information; or applying analytical techniques that frequently require adaptation of methods to accommodate a wide range of variables or alternatives. Rather, the appellant’s work is technical in nature with limited alternatives for resolution and does not involve assessing unusual circumstances or operations typical of work performed at Level 4-4.

This factor is evaluated at Level 4-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work (i.e., purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment) and the effect of work products or services both inside and outside the organization.

At Level 5-3, work requires applying a considerable number of different basic but established methods, procedures, and techniques. Work affects the design or operation of systems, programs, processes, or equipment; and the timeliness and economy of operations, services, or equipment.

At Level 5-4, work involves establishing criteria, formulating projects, assessing program effectiveness, or analyzing a variety of unusual conditions, problems, or questions. Work affects a wide range of agency activities, industrial concerns, or the operation of other agencies.

The appellant’s position meets Level 5-3. Like this level, the appellant applies a considerable number of different basic but established methods, procedures, and techniques to analyze and provide or recommend solutions to a variety of technical problems. For instance, he applies established procedures to analyze the functions, parameters, ranges and test points found in out-of-tolerance calibration standards. He applies testing methods to determine equipment capabilities and validation procedures and techniques to confirm the acceptability and accuracy of implemented ICPs. Consistent with Level 5-3, the appellant’s technical solutions affect the operation of equipment and the timeliness and operation of calibration standards and test, measurement and diagnostic equipment and repair services provided by the NCC to its regional customers.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 5-4. Unlike this level, the appellant is not engaged in establishing testing criteria, or formulating or assessing management policies or programs. For example, this would consist of evaluating operating programs of the organization to determine compliance with program policies or accomplishment of program objectives. Rather, the appellant provides technical support for the resolution of problems related to physical/mechanical and physical/dimensional standards and tests, evaluates the accuracy of measurement and diagnostic equipment, and provides advice concerning the accuracy and/or implementation of standards and equipment to support quality testing in shipboard instrumentation and systems. Moreover, unlike Level 5-4 the appellant’s work does not affect a wide range of agency activities or the operation of other agencies. Instead, consistent with Level 5-3 his work affects the ability of the NCC to carry out its mission to provide accurate and timely calibration and repair of equipment to the PHNSY and other naval activities within its region.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factors 6 and 7, Personal contacts and Purpose of contacts

Personal contacts include face-to-face and remote dialogue (e.g., telephone, e-mail, and video conferences) with people not in the supervisory chain. Levels are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty in communicating with those contacted, the setting in which the contact takes place, and the nature of the discourse. The factors are interdependent, therefore the same contacts selected for crediting Factor 6 must be used to evaluate Factor 7. The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the point assignment chart in the 0800 JFS for Factors 6 and 7.

Personal contacts

At Level 2, personal contacts are with employees and managers in the same agency, both inside and outside of the immediate office or related units, as well as members of the general public, in a moderately structured setting. Contacts with employees and managers may be from various levels within the agency, such as: headquarters; regions; districts; field offices; or other operating offices at the same location.

At Level 3, personal contacts are with individuals or groups from outside the agency, including consultants, contractors, vendors, or representatives of professional associations, in moderately unstructured settings. The purpose and extent of each is different. This level may also include contacts with agency officials who are several managerial levels removed from the employee when such contacts occur on an ad hoc basis. The employee must recognize or learn the role and authority of each party during the course of the meeting.

The appellant’s personal contacts meet Level 2. Like this level, the appellant’s regular and recurring contacts are with agency employees both inside and outside of the immediate office at various levels such as: NCC personnel (e.g., mechanics), WLs, WSs (lab supervisors), Quality and Operations Managers, and electronics engineers; personnel from other units at the shipyard, e.g., engineers and technicians from the engineering or testing divisions; NSWC Corona Division. i.e. engineers and other staff; staff from other naval shipyards; and the NCC’s regional customers.

The appellant’s personal contacts do not fully meet Level 3. While the appellant interacts with individuals outside the agency, i.e., outside vendors performing calibrations and with manufactures to address questions about equipment specifications for repair, it is not in an unstructured setting indicative of Level 3 where the employee must learn the role and authority of each party during the course of meeting with the contacts. In contrast, the appellant’s contacts are fairly routine and their role and authority is well known.

Purpose of contacts

At Level B, the purpose of contacts is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts or to resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals and who have basically cooperative attitudes.

At Level C, the purpose of contacts is to influence, persuade, or control people or groups. Contacts require skill in dealing with fearful. skeptical, or uncooperative people to obtain the desired results. Often the employee must persuade, influence, or gain compliance from others in performing tasks.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts meets Level B. Like this level, his contacts are made to resolve technical calibration problems and give advice on technical engineering matters with those who are working towards mutual goals and have basically cooperative attitudes. For example, he assists mechanics upon their request to resolve calibration problems with a mutual goal of achieving accurate calibrations. Also, when participating in research efforts with teams from the NWSC Corona Division, he provides technical support and analysis supporting the division’s goals of standards development and/or modernization.

The position does not meet Level C. Unlike this level, the appellant does not need to influence, persuade, or control people or groups who may be skeptical or uncooperative when performing the work of his position. His contacts do not require that he persuade or negotiate with others who may uncooperative. In contrast to Level C, persons contacted by the appellant are not typically fearful or skeptical.

Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Levels 6-2 and 7B respectively with a combined total of 75 points assigned.

Factor 8, Physical demands

This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment. This includes physical characteristics and abilities, e.g., agility or dexterity requirements, and the physical exertion involved in the work, e.g., climbing, lifting, pushing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, or reaching. The frequency or intensity of physical exertion must also be considered.

At Level 8-1, work is s primarily sedentary, although there is some walking in offices, production areas, utility plants, maintenance, and work areas. Work may involve carrying lightweight items, such as briefcases, notebooks, test equipment, and work papers, or operating a motor vehicle. The work does not require any special physical effort or ability.

At Level 8-2, work requires some physical exertion, such as: long periods of standing; walking over rough, uneven, rocky, or slippery surfaces; recurring bending, crouching, stooping, stretching, climbing, or similar activities; recurring lifting of light to moderately heavy items weighing less than 50 pounds (i.e., 23 kilograms), such as testing or measuring equipment; and/or regular visits to construction, industrial, marine, or other outdoor sites.

The appellant’s position meets Level 8-1. Like this level, the appellant’s work is primarily sedentary with some walking in the calibration laboratory to offices, production and work areas (e.g., bench testing areas). Comparable to Level 8-1 his work may involve carrying light weight test equipment but does not require any special physical effort or ability.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 8-2. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not require the more challenging physical demands described at that level which is more typical of work performed in an outdoor shipyard-like environment. Instead, the appellant performs work in a depot level calibration laboratory where any work requiring some physical exertion is carried out by mechanics who conduct calibrations and bench testing activities. Although the appellant uses testing and measurement equipment when assisting mechanics in resolving calibration problems, our fact-finding disclosed the appellant does not regularly lift light to heavy measuring instruments described at Level 8-2. Rather, the mechanic performs the more physically demanding bench testing while the appellant validates the procedures.

This factor is evaluated at Level 8-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Factor 9, Work environment

This factor considers the discomfort and risk of danger in the employee’s physical surroundings and the safety precautions required. Although safety regulations and techniques can reduce or eliminate some discomfort and dangers, they typically place additional demands upon the employee.

At Level 9-1, the work area is usually an office setting adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated. The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts requiring normal safety precautions.

At Level 9-2, the work involves regular and recurring exposure to moderate risks and discomforts, such as the following: dust, strong odors, or fumes from fuels, chemicals, or engine exhaust; high levels of noise and vibration, dust, grease, electrical hazards, uncovered moving parts of machinery, moving machinery; or outdoor conditions involving moderate exposure to rain, cold/hot weather, icy streams, and rivers. The work environment requires the employee to stay alert continually and to take special safety precautions including wearing special protective items of clothing.

The appellant’s position meets Level 9-1. Like this level, the appellant’s work is performed in an office setting which is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated. The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts requiring normal safety precautions. Normal safety precautions at the NCC include the use of a hard hat and work boots as used by the appellant. Although not required of the appellant’s position, the appellant states he also wears safety glasses as an additional safety precaution.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 9-2. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not involve regular and recurring exposure to moderate risk and discomforts that require him to stay alert continually and take special safety precautions. The appellant states that the mechanics are exposed to high temperatures, high pressure, high force, noise (vibration), mercury, isopropyl alcohol, hydraulic fluids and other chemicals, thus he may also be exposed to these conditions as he circulates through the calibration laboratory. However, we may not consider environmental conditions for which the appellant is not regularly exposed to and which do not place additional demands on him, i.e., the use of special safety precautions.

This factor is evaluated at Level 9-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Summary

Table 1 Grade Determination 

Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-7	1250
2. Supervisory Controls	2-4	450
3. Guidelines	3-3	275
4. Complexity	4-3	150
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	6-2/7B	75
8. Physical demands	8-1	5
9. Work environment	9-1	5
Total Points		2360

The total of 2360 points falls within the GS-11 grade level range (2355-2750) on the grade conversion table in the 0800 JFS.

Decision

The proper title, series and grade of the appellant’s position is Engineering Technician (Mechanical), GS-0802-11.

[1] Participation in these studies was several years ago (i.e., 2017 and 2018). However, 5 U.S.C. 5112 indicates we can consider only current duties and responsibilities being performed in classifying positions. OPM guidelines and previous decisions show that in evaluating positions current duties are those that have occurred within the past 12 to 18 months. Therefore, we could not consider duties performed several years ago in deciding this appeal. However, as confirmed by the appellant’s supervisor these projects are representative examples of the level of technical assistance provided by the appellant to research teams from the NSWC, Corona Division during the time he has supervised the appellant.  

[2] Nevertheless, the appellant stated in his request to OPM and similarly during his interview that his position does “not fall in line with the 830 series classification handbook” because his position “requires Metrology Science with reliance on Engineering Science” but he does not specify any other series besides the 0830.

 

Back to Top