Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Pearl Harbor Navy Calibration Center
Production Resource Department
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and
Intermediate Maintenance Facility
U.S. Department of the Navy
Honolulu, Hawaii
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/03/2023
Date
As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate which 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 this 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, Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Electronics Engineer, GS-0855-12, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-13 grade level. The position is assigned to the Electrical/Electronics and Calibration Shop (ES), Pearl Harbor Navy Calibration Center (NCC), Production Resource Department (PRD), Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY), 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.).
The appellant makes various statements concerning the agency’s evaluation of his position, which he believes should be graded at the GS-13 level because of the complexity of his work. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make an independent decision on the proper classification of his position. By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing the current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the claimant’s statements regarding the classification practices used by his agency to classify his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.
In his interview with OPM, the appellant sites a high volume of work as support for the requested increase in grade. However, volume of work cannot be considered when determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).
Both the appellant and his first-level supervisor certify to the accuracy of the appellant’s official PD# LQ8R301. However, our review found duties and responsibilities within the official PD which are overstated or not regularly performed by the appellant. For example, the PD indicates the position is responsible for performing a variety of professional and/or scientific duties and responsibilities such as conducting engineering studies, investigations, research, and analysis for the solution to unusual or unprecedented, complex electrical/electronic and electromechanical problems encountered in the Electronics Standards Branch (ESB). However, the appellant’s position is not responsible for performing professional and/or scientific electronics engineering duties and responsibilities. Instead, his position applies established standards and guidelines to perform technical work associated with calibrating Navy equipment and instruments which does not present unusual, unprecedented, or complex electrical/electronic problems. Furthermore, on the rare occasion he participates in studies, investigations, or research, his role is not to conduct the study, investigation, or research. Rather, his role is to provide technical support and information to project managers responsible for conducting the study, investigation, or research.
The PD indicates the position requires knowledge and application of professional electronics engineering principles, theory, and practices including mathematics and physics in the performance of his duties. However, the appellant is not required to know and apply professional and scientific electronics engineering knowledge. Instead, he applies a practical knowledge of various electrical/electronic engineering theories and techniques. The position also requires technical knowledge of the techniques and theories characteristic of electronics; knowledge of electronic equipment design, development, evaluation, testing, installation, and maintenance; and knowledge of the capabilities, limitations, operations, design, characteristics, and functional use of a variety of types and models of electronic equipment and systems sufficient for calibrating equipment and instruments used by the Navy.
The PD states the appellant plans, develops, and defines the engineering guidelines and objectives to be applied in the accomplishment of work in the electrical/electronics and related areas of work. However, although the appellant regularly updates local guidelines to reflect current agency guidelines, he is not responsible for planning, developing, or defining engineering guidelines and objectives. This responsibility rests with higher-level managers and engineers within the agency.
The PD states the appellant surveys various activities to determine new and/or special workload requirements as it affects the ESB and conducts studies of capability/feasibility of the ESB in handling new/special workloads. However, the appellant is not assigned these responsibilities. Instead, these responsibilities rest with the Naval Calibration Center Director (NCCD) or higher-level management within the agency.
The PD states the appellant prepares memoranda, correspondence, reports, and instructions pertaining to the branches and NCC operations. However, our fact-finding disclosed the appellant does not perform the full scope of those duties. Instead, all correspondence, reports, and instructions produced by him are related to his work and/or the function and operation of the EL.
The PD states under the “Guidelines” factor description that “Working under broad and general statements,” the appellant exercises “considerable judgement and ingenuity in interpreting and adapting guides that exist and in developing new and improved methods.” However, calibration by nature requires standardization of processes and consistency of results. Thus, the requirement for consistency of interpretation and implementation of existing and precise calibration-related guidelines places significant limitations on the appellant’s ability to deviate from and/or modify existing guidelines and processes. Therefore, although the appellant may make minor modifications to local processes, he is not authorized the latitude to use considerable judgment and ingenuity in interpreting and adapting existing guidelines.
Under the “Personal Contacts” factor description, the PD states the appellant has recurring contacts with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) personnel. However, the appellant is not authorized to directly contact NAVSEA personnel. This authority rests with the NCCD or higher-level management within PHNSY. Under the “Purpose of Contacts” factor description, the PD states the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is, in part, to resolve scheduling and budgetary problems and to establish and provide facilities, equipment, and engineering expertise in the development, coordination, direction, planning, implementation, and promotion of Navy Metrology and Calibration programs and its requirements. However, the appellant is not assigned these responsibilities. Instead, these responsibilities rest primarily with the NCCD or higher-level management within PHNSY. Also, under “Purpose of Contacts” the PD states the appellant uses professionalism, tact, and persuasion to negotiate various aspects of projects (e.g., budgets and scheduling goals) with customers, shipyard personnel, and private vendors. However, the appellant does not serve as project manager for the agency and does not perform the aforementioned project manager duties. Instead, within the context of projects, his primary role is to provide electrical/electronic calibration technical advice and support to project managers.
Under the “Work Environment” factor description, the PD states the appellant may be assigned to work areas where certain potentially harmful physical and chemical agents are present. However, we find the appellant is not exposed on a regular and recurring basis to harmful physical or chemical agents and spends almost all his time in an office environment.
The appellant’s PD places special emphasis on the metrological aspects of the position’s calibration work, referring to the work as calibration and metrology. However, metrology is integral to and inseparable from naval calibrations. Therefore, in acknowledgement of the incorporated nature of these facets of the appellant’s work and in an effort to be concise, we will use the word “calibration” when discussing duties and responsibilities of the position.
Based on our fact-finding and given the preceding inaccuracies described above, the appellants’ PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction. Therefore, the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.
The PHNSY is one of four naval shipyards and field level activities of NAVSEA. NAVSEA shipyards perform logistic support and work in connection with ship construction, conversion, overhaul, repair, alternation, dry docking, outfitting, manufacturing research, development, and test work. The mission of the PHNSY is to repair, maintain, and modernize the Fleet. The NCC is a component of PHNSY whose primary task is the calibration of test monitoring and diagnostic equipment (TMDE).
NCC consists of approximately 70 personnel assigned to 8 separate departments (i.e., Office of the NCCD, SISCAL Lab, Physical/Mechanical Lab, Nuclear Physical/Mechanical Lab, Physical/Dimensional Lab, Electronics Lab, RADIAC Lab, and military personnel within the Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanics Helper/Worker section), managed by the NCCD manager, i.e., Supervisory Engineering Technician, GS-0802-13. The Engineering Manager (EM) (i.e., Electronics Measurement Equipment Mechanic Supervisor, WS-2602-15), reports to the NCCD, and is delegated authority from NAVSEA to technically review and approve calibration-related work and recommendations for the NCC. The appellant is one of two employees assigned to NCC’s ES, who provide technical support, advice, and recommendations to remedy electrical/electronic issues associated with the calibration of TMDE.
He provides technical advice to the NCCD regarding various calibration-related topics and may occasionally be asked to provide technical support during projects, studies, or other research activities led by the EM in support of the Metrology and Calibration (METCAL) program. He provides recommendations to the EM and/or the NCCD regarding changes to local calibration procedures (LCPs) associated with unique Test and Monitoring Systems (TAMS) and recommends changes and/or corrections to various processes and measurement techniques used to calibrate and maintain electrical and electronic equipment. He conducts out-of-tolerances evaluations on calibration standards; analyzes out-of-tolerance calibrations; determines possible calibration effects on customer equipment and instruments. When requested, he conducts quality assurance inspections to ensure accuracy of completed calibrations and evaluates the accuracy of the calibration of equipment used by subcontractors/vendors. He updates NCC’s electrical/electronic instrument calibration procedures (ICP) to match new calibration standards; recommends the purchase of replacement calibration standards (when appropriate); and prepares memoranda and/or reports in response to inquiries received by the EM. He also submits a Calibration Problem Report (CPR), to identify technical problems or inquiries which cannot be resolved locally and recommends resolutions or requests corrective action. He provides technical assistance to NCC bench technicians to resolve technical and process-related calibration problems (e.g., troubleshooting; understanding instrument and equipment functionality, test set-up instructions, and proper application of various ICPs), and provides on-the-job training to bench technicians (e.g., calibration testing techniques and processes, and safety training), when directed. The Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Corona Division, is the NCC’s scientific and technical authority for calibration standards and the METCAL program which advises on technical and professional engineering matters.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD. Although the PD is not completely accurate, we have incorporated it by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant, his immediate supervisor, and his EM.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Electronics Engineering Series, 0855; titling it “Electronics Engineer”; and evaluating the position by application of the grading criteria in The Job Family Standard (JFS) for Professional Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800, and the appellant does not disagree. However, as discussed later in this section, we find the work assigned by management and performed by the appellant is properly classified to the Electronics Technical Series, 0856.
The Introduction and the Classifier’s Handbook (Handbook) distinguish 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 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 Handbook and the Job Family Standard (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 training 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 Introduction and the Handbook also indicate that identification of the paramount requirements (i.e., the essential, prerequisite knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform the primary duty or responsibility for which the position has been established), primary purpose (i.e., the reason for a position’s existence), and recruitment source (i.e., occupational areas that provide the best qualified applicants) may also be useful tools for determining the series of a position.
The Electronics Engineering Series, 0855, covers positions responsible for managing, supervising, leading, and/or performing professional engineering and scientific work involving electronic circuits, circuit elements, equipment, systems, and associated phenomena concerned with electromagnetic or acoustical wave energy or electrical information for purposes such as communication, computation, sensing, control, measurement, and navigation. Electronics engineering involves the generation and/or application of theories, principles, practical concepts, processes, and systems related to the science of electronics engineering and the traditional engineering science disciplines (e.g., mechanical and chemical); physical science disciplines (e.g., chemistry and physics); and advanced mathematics, computer science, and economics. Electronics engineers research, develop, test, evaluate, operate, maintain, decommission, and/or direct the fabrication, manufacture, and installation of electronic devices used in diverse technologies such as aviation, computing, transportation, commerce, and manufacturing; and industrial, academic, entertainment, communications, business, residential, and healthcare environments; and a broad range of products such as computer systems, navigational systems, programmable logic controls, sensors, magnetic imaging systems, and defense systems. Electronics engineering work typically involves electromagnetic energy transmission for purposes such as sensor processing, remote sensing, communications, guidance and control, information processing, and defense work. Electronics engineers analyze and study performance requirements against an array of diverse considerations, such as safety and human factors engineering, technical risks, functionality, reliability, failure analysis, quality assurance, maintainability, affordability of each system and device, and impact on the environment. Electronics engineers work on Federal electronics systems and devices including satellites; flight systems (e.g., auto pilots, operational flights, instrument landing); communication systems, including radios and antenna systems; navigation systems, including global positioning systems; simulators; acoustical measurement systems; industrial robots; radar and sonar systems; tracking and scheduling systems; weapon systems, including target systems; data acquisition systems and control systems for test operations; display systems; diagnostic systems (e.g., Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computerized Axial Tomography Scan); and automated logistics systems.
The Electronics Technical, 0856 series covers technical positions supervising, leading, or performing work involving applying knowledge of the techniques and theories characteristic of electronics, such as a knowledge of basic electricity and electronic theory, algebra, and elementary physics; knowledge of electronic equipment design, development, evaluation, testing, installation, and maintenance; and knowledge of the capabilities, limitations, operations, design, characteristics, and functional use of a variety of types and models of electronic equipment and systems related to, but less than, a full professional knowledge of electronic engineering.
The appellant’s position does not meet basic requirements for classification to the 0855 series. The record shows the appellant possesses a bachelor’s degree in Electronics Engineering, and fully meets the qualification requirements for placement in an Electronics Engineer position with the Federal Government. However, the classification of a position is based on the duties and responsibilities actually assigned to and performed by the employee of the position. Consequently, an employee’s educational degree can only affect the classification of a position if the skills and knowledge obtained from the degree constitute the paramount knowledge requirement to perform the primary duties of the position.
Based on our fact-finding and analysis of the actual duties and responsibilities assigned to and performed by the appellant, the position does not meet the basic requirements for classification in the 0855 series. In contrast to 0855 positions, the position does not require the appellant to manage, supervise, lead, or perform professional engineering and scientific work. His duties do not require him to generate and/or apply scientific theories, principles, practical concepts, processes, and systems related to electronics engineering and the traditional engineering science disciplines (e.g., mechanical and chemical); physical science disciplines (e.g., chemistry and physics) and advanced mathematics, computer science, and economics; research, develop, test, evaluate, operate, maintain, decommission, and/or direct the fabrication, manufacture, and installation of electronic devices for the uses identified in the occupational information section for the series; or to analyze and study professional or scientific engineering performance requirements against an array of diverse considerations, such as safety and human factors engineering; technical risks; functionality; reliability; failure analysis; quality assurance; maintainability; affordability of each system and device; and impact on the environment.
The appellant’s position fully meets the requirements for classification to the Electronics Technical Series, 0856. Like this series, the appellant’s position requires knowledge of the techniques and theories characteristic of electronics; electronic equipment design, development, evaluation, testing, installation, and maintenance; and the capabilities, limitations, operations, design, characteristics, and functionality of a variety of electronic equipment and systems sufficient to perform his calibration work, but less than that required to perform professional or scientific Electronics Engineer work.
Like the 0856 series, the primary purpose of the appellant’s position is to ensure the technical accuracy of calibration standards and to identify and correct electrical/electronic technical issues associated with the calibration of TMDE. Like this series, the paramount requirement of the position is knowledge of and ability to apply the techniques and theories characteristic of electronics (e.g., knowledge of basic electrical/electronic theory and mathematics; knowledge of electronic equipment design, development, evaluation, testing, installation, and maintenance; and knowledge of the capabilities, limitations, operations, design, characteristics, and functional use of calibration and testing equipment), in support of NCC’s calibration programs, and to provide electrical/electronic calibration technical support, advice, and recommendations to EL and NCC personnel. Similar to the 0856 series, and as discussed in the “Position information” section, the appellant uses established calibration technical standards, techniques, and tests to identify mis-calibrated equipment and instruments; determines the most applicable calibration standard to be used; and makes necessary adjustments to bring the affected equipment and/or instrument back into calibration. He also develops technical reports concerning calibration issues for distribution to other technicians within the ES. In support of our series conclusion, the NCCD stated he would consider civilian and military electronics technicians with calibration experience as well as his current bench technicians as a recruitment source for future vacancies for the appellant’s position. He noted this because the technical work performed by them (indicative of 0856 positions) is more representative of the actual work of the position than the professional/scientific Electronics Engineer duties described in the appellant’s current official PD.
Positions classified in the 0856 series are graded by reference to the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, 0800 (0800 JFS). The basic title for positions above the GS-03 grade level in this series is Electronics Technician which we have assigned to the appellant’s position. Our application of the grading criteria in the 0800 JFS to the appellant’s position follows.
The 0800 Job Family Standard (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 the knowledge.
At Level 1-7, the highest level provided in the JFS for this factor, 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, his 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 NCCD on the accuracy and applicability of current calibration standards within the context of electrical/electronic calibration, e.g., validation of measurements based on current calibration standards and direct traceability of these standards to national standards. Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant applies knowledge of analytical methods and diagnostic techniques to identify and correct electrical/electronic calibration failures in naval instruments and systems. Like Level 1-7, he uses qualitative and quantitative techniques to identify and evaluate inconsistencies in calibration standards and related calibration test results and makes recommendations for appropriate corrections, e.g., replacing outdated standards and recall or recalibration of incorrectly calibrated equipment. Comparable to Level 1-7, and within the context of extensive existing guidelines, he develops and recommends new LCPs for local TAMS in response to previously unseen electrical/electronic calibration issues and circumstances lacking sufficient applicable procedures in order to provide interim support to PHNSY customers. Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant applies knowledge of qualitative and quantitative techniques to formulate and present findings, data reports, and other correspondence to foster understanding and acceptance of findings and recommendations associated with faults in current calibration standards and the development of new local ICPs.
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 provided in the JFS for this factor, 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 work performed by the appellant. Similar 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 NWSC Corona Division (Corona). Like Level 2-4, although the appellant is an experienced Engineering Technician who performs most tasks independently within the context and established parameters of the work, the supervisor determines the parameters of the appellant’s responsibilities including those addressed in his performance standards.
Comparable to Level 2-4, the appellant determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue to resolve electrical/electronic calibration technical problems (e.g., initiating CPRS); decides the practices and methods to apply in all phases of assignments including the approach to take and the depth and intensity needed to resolve difficult electric/electronic calibration issues identified by NCC bench technicians; independently interprets and applies existing local and agency regulations and policies related to his work; applies new methods to solve complex, intricate, and unusual technical electric/electronic calibration problems, issues and conflicts which arise; coordinates with and provides technical electrical/electronic calibration-related support to NCC and PHNSY project managers; and keeps the NCCD and/or EM informed of progress and problems and issues associated with his work. He may also coordinate and/or discuss unusual calibration issues and concerns with other NCC staff prior to sending his recommendations or requests for corrective actions to ICPs to higher-level engineers within the agency.
Like Level 2-4, the appellant attends regular meetings with the NCCD and the EM and develops and submits status reports and updates regarding his work to the NCC and the EM as appropriate. Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant’s technical methods are not typically reviewed by the supervisor. However, his supervisor retains the authority to review his daily work and may conduct periodic quality assurance reviews to verify the soundness of the appellant’s overall approach; the feasibility of his recommendations; effectiveness and consistency of results; and his compliance with established requirements.
This factor is evaluated at Level 2-4 and 450 points are assigned.
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 policies, 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.
Level 3-3 is met. Like this level, guidelines available to the appellant include a variety of instructions, manuals, and standard reference material. Some of these include: NAVSEA instructions on Navy Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment, Automatic Test Systems, and Metrology and Calibration; Naval Shipyard Instructions for the METCAL program (i.e., NSYPINST 4734.1); the Pearl Harbor NCC Quality Manual (i.e., NCC-QM-001); various Naval Air Command Technical Requirements (e.g., Metrology and Calibration Support of Navy and Marine Corps Systems; Instrument Calibration Procedure Technical Manual (i.e., NAVAIR 17-20 Series); Calibration Requirements List for Shipboard Installed Instrumentation; and Corona ICPs, polices and technical bulletins.
Like Level 3-3, although guidelines are numerous and readily available, they are not always directly and completely applicable to the appellant’s work because they lack specificity relating to technical inquiries and problems encountered and presented to the appellant by NCC personnel for resolution or have gaps in specificity associated with the electric/electronic calibration issues or unresolved subcontracted/vendor calibration matters. Similar to Level 3-3, the appellant uses judgement to interpret and adapt general guidelines for local use. For example, for failed calibrations, the appellant assesses the ICPs used and adapts/modifies test set-up procedures that support valid calibration requirements. Like Level 3-3, he analyzes the results of the calibration and submits recommendations for local adaptations to be incorporated into the ICP.
Level 3-4 is not met. Unlike this level, guidelines for the work performed by the appellant are not typically stated in general terms (e.g., such as those in broad agency policy statements and precedents), nor can they be characterized as scarce or of limited use. Instead, although the appellant may exercise some local latitude with regard to the methods used to meet these standards, most technical guidance used by the appellant has a high degree of specificity and applicability to his daily tasks. Therefore, although the appellant may, in certain circumstances, make minor modifications to processes and methods used to accomplish calibrations, he does not typically deviate from established calibration technical guidelines and standards without prior approval from the NCCD or higher-level technical experts, as required by Level 3-4.
This factor is evaluated at Level 3-3 and 275 points are assigned.
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 continue 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.
Level 4-3 is met. 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 operations of standards, and test electrical/electronic equipment. Similar to Level 4-3, the appellant identifies and evaluates technical electric/electronic calibration problems and issues involved in each assignment and makes appropriate adjustments to standard work methods as needed and within appropriate limits. Comparable to Level 4-3, he coordinates and plans phases of the work to correct electrical/electronic calibration issues. For example, when providing technical assistance to bench technicians concerning failed calibrations, he examines a variety of conditions and factors (e.g., environmental laboratory conditions, such as temperature and humidity levels); instrument set-up conditions; specification of standards and test instruments; and other test parameters) leading to the invalid calibration and determines whether or not it is necessary to adjust the standard methods described in current ICPs. If the modified method or technique is successful, the appellant elevates the updated ICP to the NCCD and Corona by initiating a CPR request detailing the issue(s) and any local adjustment made to the ICP. Once the updated ICP is approved by Corona, he makes final updates to the record and opens the ICP for general use by laboratory and calibration personnel. Like Level 4-3, the appellant exercises independent judgement and skill in interpreting and applying large volumes of data. For example, he may interpret the electrical/electronic readings of various calibration instruments when participating in “data call” requests in order to coordinate in the development of new ICPs. He may also review numerous test models and measuring equipment to determine their capabilities and functions prior to recommending the upgrade of calibration standards or the purchase of additional equipment for the ES or NCC.
Level 4-4 is not met. Unlike this level, the work performed by the appellant 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 typically involve the level of assessment of unusual circumstances indicative of Level 4-4.
This factor is evaluated at Level 4-3 and 150 points are assigned.
This factor covers the relationship between the work (i.e., purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment) and the effect of the 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.
Level 5-3 is met. Like Level 5-3, 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 example, he applies established procedures to identify inconsistencies in current calibration standards, and tests and confirms the acceptability and accuracy of implemented ICPs. Consistent with Level 5-3, the appellant’s technical electric/electronic calibration findings and solutions affect the accuracy of Navy equipment and calibration standards and ensures the accuracy and dependability of diagnostic equipment and repair services provided by the NCC.
Level 5-4 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant is not engaged in establishing testing criteria, or formulating or assessing management policies or programs, e.g., evaluating operating programs of the organization to determine compliance with program policies or accomplishment of program objectives. Instead, the scope of the appellant’s work does not extend beyond providing technical support for the resolution of problems related to the accuracy of calibration standards; and testing and diagnostic methods and processes used to calibrate a variety of electrical/electronic equipment and systems for the Navy. Unlike Level 5-4, the appellant’s work does not affect a wide range of agency activities, or the operation of other agencies. Instead, his work primarily affects NCC’s ability to carry out its mission to provide accurate and timely calibration and repair of equipment to the PHNSY.
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 telephone contacts with people not in the supervisory chain. Levels are based on what is required to make the initial contacts, the difficulty in communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place. The factors are independent, 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.
Level 2 is met. Like this level, the appellant’s regular and recurring contacts are with agency employees both inside and outside of the EL and NCC at various levels such as bench technicians, lab supervisors, Quality Manager, Corona Electronics Engineers, other PHNSY personnel, and comparable staff from other naval shipyards.
Level 3 is not met. Although the appellant interacts with individuals outside the agency, (e.g., outside vendors and manufacturers), the settings of contacts are typically more structured and routine, and the roles and authorities of the various parties are more clearly defined than envisioned at Level 3.
Purpose of contact
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.
Level B is met. Like this level, contacts are typically to resolve technical calibration problems and to exchange information and advice with contractors, project managers, and technicians who are working towards mutual goals and have basically cooperative attitudes.
Level C is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant and his contacts share the same mission, goals, and objectives, i.e., the expeditious and accurate calibration of instruments and equipment to current specifications and standards. Consequently, his contacts are typically cooperative and do not require him to exercise persuasion, control, or compliance from people or groups of people who are fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative concerning calibration requirements, processes, and procedures associated with his work.
Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Levels 2 and B respectively with a combined total of 75 points assigned.
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 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.
Level 8-1 is met. 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). Like Level 8-1, although his work may require him to carry light weight test equipment, his position requires no special physical effort or ability.
Level 8-2 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work is primarily performed at his desk and does not regularly require the physical demands indicative of Level 8-2.
This factor is evaluated at Level 8-1 and 5 points are assigned.
This factor considers the discomfort and risk of danger in the employee’s physical surroundings and the safety precautions require. 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.
Level 9-1 is met. Like this level, the appellant works in a temperature-controlled office setting with adequate lighting and ventilation, and normal everyday discomforts requiring normal safety precautions.
Level 9-2 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work environment does not include regular and recurring exposure to 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. Since the appellant performs his work primarily within an office setting, he is not regularly and recurringly exposed to outdoor conditions characteristic of Level 9-2, e.g., rain, cold/hot weather, icy streams, and rivers. Unlike Level 9-2, his work environment does not require him to maintain a heightened level of alertness or to wear special protective gear or clothing.
This factor is evaluated at Level 9-1 and 5 points are assigned.
Table 1 Grade Determination
| Summary | ||
| Factor | 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. Personal Contacts | 6-2 | |
| 7. Purpose of Contacts | 7-B | 75 |
| 8. Physical Demands | 8-1 | 5 |
| 9. Work Environment | 9-1 | 5 |
| Total | 2360 |
A total of 2360 points falls within the GS-11 range (2355 - 2750) on the grade conversion table in the 0800 JFS. Therefore, the position is graded at GS-11
The appealed position is properly classified as Electronics Technician, GS-0856-11.