Washington, DC

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

---

Ana A. Mazzi
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


11/27/2024

---

Date

Finality of Decision

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Internet Managing Editor (Russian), GS-1001-13, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-14 grade level. The position is assigned to the Russian Service, Eurasia Division, Programming Directorate, Voice of America (VOA), U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), in Washington, DC. 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 employing agency’s classification review process and its evaluation of his position and compares his position to GS-14 positions in his agency. He states that his daily duties are commensurate with, and sometimes exceed, the requirements of numerous published USAGM PDs at the GS-14 grade and pay scale. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the appellant’s 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). Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal. Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding the agency’s classification review process are not germane to the classification appeal process.

Like OPM, the appellant’s employing agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to his headquarters human resources office. In doing so, he should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others.

The appellant states that in the last three years he has been assigned numerous Personnel Services Contractors (PSCs) which has increased his volume of work.  However, volume of work is a factor which cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

The appellant emphasizes his leadership experience and competence to support a higher grade for his position. He states he acts for the Chief of the Russian Service when necessary and served officially as the Acting Chief of the Russian Service in a detail assignment from November 2022 to March 2023 during the chief’s extended absence. However, work which is temporary or short-term, carried out only in the absence of another employee cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (Introduction, Section III.J., and The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

The appellant highlights work products and experience as rationale for determining the grade of his position. He discusses various written products he produced and speaking opportunities he engaged in several years ago during his career in and outside the VOA. However, 5 U.S.C. 5112 and OPM guidelines indicate we can only consider current duties and responsibilities performed within the past 12 to 18 months when 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 non-VOA or VOA duties performed several years ago in deciding this appeal, and have evaluated only those duties currently assigned by management and performed by appellant.

The appellant discusses his language skills and fluency in all three East Slavic languages (i.e., Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian). He states that because he supervises stringers based in major cities or regions outside of Russia, having knowledge of these languages and its nuances enables him to produce higher quality products. Further, he emphasizes his extensive academic training contributing to his knowledge of Russian and Eurasian political and economic affairs. Implicit in his statements is the appellant’s belief that his personal qualifications should be considered in determining the grade of his position. Qualifications are considered in classifying positions to the extent they are required to perform current duties and responsibilities assigned by management and performed by the employee. The record shows the appellant’s position only requires fluency in the Russian language. Thus, while having fluency in other languages may facilitate the work performed, we may not consider language qualifications or academic training not required to perform his current duties and responsibilities.

The appellant asserts the concept of “impact of the person on the job” should be considered in determining the classification of his position stating that he stands out from other GS-13 managers because of his knowledge and unique qualifications and expertise which facilitates the work of the Russian Service covering a wider target area than other services targeting a single country. The concept of “impact of the person on the job” is addressed in both the Introduction and The Classifier’s Handbook. This concept holds that, by virtue of exceptional competence, an employee may have such an impact on the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position that it is changed to the point where its classification must also be changed. However, the mere fact an individual in a position possesses higher qualifications or stands out from other individuals in comparable positions is not sufficient reason by itself to classify the position to a higher grade. When “impact of the person on the job” is a factor, the PD should clearly state the higher-level duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the position’s final grade must be based on comparison to grade level criteria in appropriate classification standards. In the appellant’s case, as a result of a position review, the agency added duties to his PD which the appellant believes support a higher grade level. We find that these additional duties described in his PD reflect the scope of responsibility of his position, and as addressed in this decision by application of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) have not materially changed the final classification (i.e., grade level) of it. Therefore, the concept is not applicable to the appellant’s situation.

Position Information

The appellant and his immediate supervisor, who occupies a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Russian), GS-1001-14 position (with working title of Chief of the Russian Service) agree with the accuracy of the appellant’s PD of record number V220108. However, our review disclosed the appellant’s PD is not completely accurate because it overstates the purpose of his supervisory contacts under Subfactor 4B – Purpose of Contacts, stating “Contacts are made to persuade other groups to cooperate; the incumbent must be skilled at persuading and dealing with individuals or groups.” This statement supports the agency’s assignment of Subfactor Level 4B-3. However, we found that the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is limited to ensuring shared information is accurate including coordinating work with others outside the Russian Service, and involves resolving differences of opinion among various parties. We found no indication that his contacts require persuading other individuals or groups to cooperate. Consequently, the appellant’s PD does not meet the standard of adequacy described on pages 11-12 of the Introduction and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings for Subfactor 4B discussed in the grade determination section of this decision.

The mission of USAGM is to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. The agency accomplishes its mission through two federal networks: the VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting; and four USAGM-funded grantees: Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and the Open Technology Fund. The VOA is the largest U.S. international broadcaster providing trusted and objective news and information in 48 languages to a measured weekly audience of 326 million people around the world (published on the VOA website at the time of adjudication of this appeal). The VOA pursues the agency’s mission by producing accurate, balanced and comprehensive reporting and programming, particularly to those who are denied access to open and free media. Its content is available on digital and social media platforms and traditional broadcast stations (Radio, TV) around the world.

The VOA’s Language Services has six regional divisions (Africa, Eurasia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America, Persian, and South and Central Asia). The Eurasia Division is composed of the Albanian, Armenian, Bosnian, Georgian, Macedonian, Serbian, and Russian language services. The appellant is assigned to the VOA’s Russian Language Service (Russian Service) of the Eurasia Division, which develops content for broadcast and internet dissemination in the Russian language. The multimedia content of the Service’s 24/7 Russian-language television and digital news network includes video streaming, social media native products, and expert media projects, providing important context and alternative viewpoints on important events in the United States, Russia and globally not presented by Russian-controlled TV and media outlets.

The appellant directs and oversees the development and distribution of content on the Russian Service website. He also coordinates the incorporation of website material formatted into other multimedia platforms (e.g., adaptation of portions of news articles or stories to be posted on social media such as YouTube, Facebook, etc.). He provides technical and administrative supervision to four International Broadcasters (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12, one International Broadcaster (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-11, and five PSCs. He also provides oversight and serves as a Contractor Officer Representative (COR) to four stringers (i.e., multimedia reporters) none currently in Russia due to the Russia-Ukraine war but all based overseas. The appellant assigns and reviews the work of his staff and others involved in the preparation and production of web content. He reviews work products for substance, accuracy, balance, writing style, and various other factors. He edits and approves final content on all original products prior to publishing on website ensuring news coverage is comprehensive, bias-free, and appropriate for the target audience. He ensures that all work is performed in accordance with the standards and principles of “The VOA Journalistic Code,” “The VOA Charter,” and in the “VOA Best Practices Guide.” As the COR for the stringers, he designates VOA assignments and is responsible for the final inspection and acceptance of all deliverables (e.g., website articles, blogs, breaking news and updates) submitted by them. Using the Invoice Payment Platform (IPP), he approves invoices for payment to stringers for acceptable deliverables.

The appellant tracks and monitors available data and trends to make informed editorial decisions and to recommend messaging strategies for news content or presentation of stories. He reviews news sources (e.g., news wires and social media outlets) and monitors top developments to identify items for coverage and discussions likely to attract the target audience. He coordinates content related matters with other Services in the division, sharing content related knowledge and expertise, sources, and programming material. He attends meetings and conferences upon request of management and speaks for the Service or Division on editorial matters. He recommends short and/or long-term plans for future coverage or changes to online content to his supervisor and division level management. He provides information and background on political, economic, social, and cultural developments in Russia, and where appropriate about other countries of relevance to VOA programming to his supervisor and division director.

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and the agency including his official PD which although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his immediate supervisor including follow-up requests for additional information from the appellant.

Series, Title, and Standard Determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the General Arts and Information Series, 1001, titling it Supervisory Internet Managing Editor (Russian), and evaluated the position by application of the GSSG. The appellant does not dispute these determinations. The appellant’s position is characteristic of work in the 1000 Information and Arts Group and meets the general criteria for inclusion in the General Arts and Information Series, 1001. Therefore, we concur with the agency’s series determination. Since there are no titles specified for positions in the 1001 series, the agency may construct a title in keeping with the work performed. We agree that the appellant’s supervisory responsibilities fully meet the GSSG coverage requirements for evaluation and titling as a supervisor. As instructed in the GSSG, the prefix “Supervisory” must be added to the title selected by the agency. Further, titling instructions in the Introduction state that parenthetical titles should be used when necessary to identify further the duties and responsibilities involved, and such duties and responsibilities reflect special knowledge and skills needed to perform the work. Given the requirement for the incumbent of the position to be fluent in Russian (including in writing) as stated in the PD, the parenthetical “(Russian)” to the title of the position selected by the agency is appropriate.

Grade Determination 

The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the General Schedule (GS). The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor-level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the point-to-grade conversion chart in the guide.

The appellant disagrees with the agency’s GSSG assignment of Level 1-3 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting, Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, Subfactor Level 4A-3 (Nature of Contacts), Subfactor 4B-3 (Purpose of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts, Level 5-7, for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, and Level 6-5(b) for Factor 6, Other Conditions. The appellant provides an evaluation for his position, asserting his work supports crediting at least one level higher than the agency’s evaluation for all GSSG factors. Therefore, he believes his position should be credited with Levels 1-4, 2-2, 3-3b, 4A-4, 4B-4, 5-8 and 6-6.

The appellant’s PD includes “Nonsupervisory Factor Level Descriptions” but with no agency evaluation of the duties described. Our fact-finding shows that occasionally the appellant may perform non-supervisory work performed by his staff (e.g., writing articles or other content). This may occur in the absence of an employee or during an emergency requiring coverage of breaking news. However, only duties that are performed on a regular and recurring basis and that occupy at least 25 percent of an employee’s time can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J), thus we have not separately evaluated that work. The appellant’s supervisory duties occupy all of his time and represent the highest level of work assigned to his position. Therefore, we have evaluated only the grade of the position’s supervisory duties below solely by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG to those factor levels in dispute.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

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

1. Scope

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

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work. The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city. Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level. An illustration at level 1-3 describes a position that in providing services directly to the general public, furnishes a significant portion of the agency's line program to a moderate-sized population of clients. The size of the population serviced by the position is the equivalent of a group of citizens and/or businesses in several rural counties, a small city, or a portion of a larger metropolitan area. Depending on total population serviced by the agency and the complexity and intensity of the service itself, however, the serviced population may be concentrated in one specific geographic area, or involve a significant portion of a multistate population, or be composed of a comparable group.

At Level 1-4, the supervisor directs a segment of a professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program which involves the development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs; or that includes major, highly technical operations at the Government’s largest, most complex industrial installations. An illustration at Level 1-4 describes a position that directs administrative activities (such as budget, management analysis, or personnel) conducted throughout, or covering the operations of the agency headquarters or most of its field establishment. The program segments directed materially shape or improve the structure, effectiveness, efficiency, or productivity of major portions of the agency’s primary missions, multi-region programs, headquarters wide operations, or projects of national interest.    

The appellant’s position meets Level 1-3. Like this level, the appellant directs a program segment within the VOA’s Russian Service that performs administrative work to produce independent and comprehensive news content and analysis on key global issues, and U.S. government policies and cultural developments for publication on the VOA’s Russian language website and other media platforms. The geographic coverage (target area) of the program segment and work directed encompasses the Russian Federation, as well as the Russian-speaking population of former Soviet republics and globally. For purposes of determining the serviced population we used data for measured weekly audience reach by region and country. Latest data published in the agency’s Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2022 shows regional measured weekly audience for countries in the Near East, South and Central Asia and Eurasia (which includes Russia and many of the former Soviet republics) was 98.6 million people. More specifically, by country, Russia placed in the “Top Ten Audience for International Media” with a measured weekly audience reach of 11.7 million people (adults who listen/view/use programming at least once a week based on survey data) which at least is equivalent to a small region of several states. While not grade controlling, this favorably compares to the illustration at Level 1-3, as the program segment and work directed by the appellant’s position furnishes a significant portion of the agency's language services to a weekly population of 11.7 million information deprived Russian-speaking people which could be construed as equivalent to serving a significant portion of a multistate population.

The position does not meet Level 1-4. Unlike this level, the appellant does not direct a segment of the agency’s professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program, involving the development of major aspects of key legal, administrative, regulatory, or policy development. Specifically, his work does not involve the development of major aspects of USAGM’s entire administrative program. In contrast to the Level 1-4 illustration, the appellant does not direct a variety of significant administrative activities conducted throughout the agency’s headquarters or most of its field establishment. In addition, his work does not materially shape or improve the agency’s effectiveness and efficiency of its overall administrative program. The appellant’s work is solely focused on writing, producing, adapting and editing content for the Russian Services website and other information outlets. While he supports the agency’s mission of providing audiences with timely, accurate, and balanced news coverage in targeted markets, it fails to meet the scope of operations described at Level 1-4.   

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-3.

b. Effect

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

At Level 1-3, the activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public. At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large serviced populations) the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions. 

At Level 1-4, the position impacts an agency’s headquarters operations, several bureau-wide programs, or most of an agency’s entire field establishment; or facilitates the agency’s accomplishment of its primary mission or programs of national significance; or impacts large segments of the Nation’s population or segments of one or a few large industries; or receives frequent or continuing congressional or media attention.

The appellant’s position meets Level 1-3. Similar to this level, the work accomplished within his Service directly and significantly impacts a wide range of VOA’s Russian internet services to meet the agency’s performance goals focusing on reaching audiences in countries lacking freedom and democracy or faced with disinformation or extremism, where accurate, credible news and information is lacking. For example, providing essential news content on the VOA’s Russian language website materially shapes or improves the agency’s ability to counter state-sponsored propaganda in Russia. Impact performance data from the USAGM’s Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2022 shows the weekly audience reach in Russia, an environment targeted by state-sponsored disinformation campaigns was of 10.6 percent of the adult population based on survey data. Similarly, the work products produced impact the agency’s reporting and programming activities to reach audiences subject to censorship or information-denied environments.

Furthermore, like Level 1-3, the work has a direct effect on and significantly impacts the provision of essential reporting and programming operations involving very large serviced populations which is crucial to those who are denied open and free media. Information provided on the VOA website states that in Russia, where VOA is denied direct distribution and program placement, VOA’s coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted in significant returns on various platforms. Specifically, in FY22, traffic by users to the VOA Russian website more than tripled, generating nearly 40 million article views and multimedia plays. Therefore, the program segment of the work directed by the appellant materially affects the effectiveness or productivity of major portions of the agency’s primary markets and multi-regional programs.

The position does not meet Level 1-4. As previously addressed, the work directed by the appellant significantly contributes to the agency’s Russian internet operations to reach audiences in key target areas (i.e., countries and markets) which supports the agency’s strategic goals, and impacts performance objectives and metrics described in the agency’s Performance and Accountability Report. However, in contrast to Level 1-4, the work does not directly impact agency headquarters operations, several bureau-wide programs, or most of the agency’s entire field establishment (e.g., the agency’s federal networks and its funded grantees).

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-3.

Both Scope and Effect are evaluated at Level 1-3; therefore, this factor is credited at Level 1-3 and 550 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Organizational setting

This factor considers the organizational situation of the supervisory position in relation to higher levels of management.

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

At Level 2-2, the position is accountable to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES, flag or general officer, or equivalent or higher level position in the direct supervisory chain.

The appellant’s position meets Level 2-1. Like this level, he is accountable to a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Russian), GS-1001-14 position (i.e., Chief of the Russian Service) who reports to a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Eurasia), GS-1001-15 position (i.e., Eurasia Division Director), who then reports to the Director for Programming an SES level position. Therefore, the appellant is accountable to a position that is two reporting levels below the first SES level position in the direct supervisory chain.

The appellant seeks assignment of Level 2-2 on the basis that for several years he has represented the Russian Service at the division director’s meetings during the absence of the Chief of the Russian Service. He also states that as a supervisor within the Russian Service he participates in the Eurasia Division and agency-wide and interdepartmental meetings and shares full responsibility for the success of the Russian Service. Implicit in his statements is that he considers himself accountable to the Division Director’s position based on his participation and contributions at the division level. However, although the appellant may be asked to represent the Russian Service at the division level, his position is not directly supervised by the Eurasia Division Director. Rather, he is directly accountable to the Chief of the Russian Service who is officially assigned to supervise and rate his performance.

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

Factor 3, Supervisory and managerial authority exercised

This factor considers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities exercised on a recurring basis. To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.

Level 3-2 is met if either Level 3-2a, 3-2b, or 3-2c is credited. The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 3-2c, but he believes it meets Level 3-3b. Because each factor level is predicated on the preceding factor levels having been fully met, we must first compare his position to the authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2, prior to consideration of subsequent factor levels. Level 3-2a addresses production oriented work not applicable to the appellant’s position, thus we will not address this level. Supervisors at Level 3-2c must carry out at least three of the first four, and a total of six or more of the 10 responsibilities listed at Level 3-2c in the GSSG. Based on our review, we agree with the agency that the position meets Level 3-2c which the appellant does not contest, thus we will not address the responsibilities further but incorporate them by reference into this decision. However, because the appellant supervises contractors in addition to Federal civilian employees, we have also compared his position to the authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2b as discussed below.

At Level 3-2b, where work is contracted out, the position performs a wide range of technical input and oversight tasks comparable to all or nearly all of the following:

1. Analyze benefits and costs of accomplishing work in-house versus contracting; recommend whether to contract;
2. Provide technical requirements and descriptions of the work to be accomplished;
3. Plan and establish the work schedules, deadlines, and standards for acceptable work; coordinate and integrate contractor work schedules and processes with work of subordinates or others;
4. Track progress and quality of performance; arrange for subordinates to conduct any required inspections;
5. Decide on the acceptability, rejection, or correction of work products or services, and similar matters which may affect payment to the contractor.

The appellant’s position meets Level 3-2b in that he meets nearly all of the technical and oversight tasks described at that level. Like task two (2), he provides technical instructions and descriptions of work (i.e., statements of work) to be accomplished by PSCs. These requirements and descriptions of work are used for hiring purposes and to evaluate contractor performance. Like task three (3), the appellant plans and establishes work schedules, work product priorities and deadlines for the work performed by contractors under his supervision. He also coordinates and integrates contractor work schedules and processes with that of other subordinates and VOA production staff to ensure timely posting of articles to the Service’s website and to other multimedia platform(s). Comparable to task four (4), the appellant tracks progress and quality of performance holding daily and weekly meetings with contractors to discuss status of work and make certain that all articles and other work products are suitable for final release, post, distribution and/or broadcast. Further, like task five (5), he decides on the acceptability, rejection, or correction of work products which affects payment to the contractor. The appellant reviews work products for conformance to VOA writing style and format and ensures written products maintain balance, objectivity, comprehensiveness and avoid bias. In addition, for articles that require research, verification of the accuracy of facts and/or that involve the development of significant content require editorial approval by the appellant prior to publishing of content.  

Level 3-3 is met if either Level 3-3a or 3-3b is credited. Level 3-3a describes positions which exercise delegated managerial authority to set a series of annual, multi-year, or similar types of long-range plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work. Such positions assure implementation (by lower and subordinate organizational units or others) of goals and objectives for the program segment(s) or function(s) they oversee, determining which objectives need additional emphasis, resolving budget shortages, and planning for long range staffing needs. These positions are closely involved with high level program officials in the development of overall goals and objectives for staff functions, programs, or program segments. For example, they may direct development of data; provision of expertise and insights; secure legal opinions; and prepare position papers or legislative proposals. Clearly the appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a as he serves as a first-level supervisor lacking the subordinate lower organizational units or supervisors envisioned in the organizational setting described, and does not exercise the significant and extensive managerial program authority defined at this level.   

To meet Level 3-3b, a supervisor must exercise all or nearly all of the supervisory responsibilities and authorities described at Level 3-2c (which the appellant meets), plus at least 8 of the 15 responsibilities listed under Level 3-3b of the GSSG. Our analysis of those responsibilities as compared to the appellant’s position follows.

Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 refer to situations where work is accomplished through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or other similar personnel. Further, the supervisor’s organizational workload must be so large and the work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work. The appellant is a first-level supervisor and given that the organizational workload (addressed under Factor 5, Typical Difficulty of Work Directed) of approximately 10 work years is not so large or so complex as to require using subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work, his position is not credited with responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8.

Regarding the remaining authorities, responsibility 2 is credited because the appellant exercises significant responsibilities in dealing with and advising higher ranking managers and supervisors, particularly the Service Chiefs and Division Director, and production or newsroom managers.

Responsibility 4 is not credited. It involves direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources, e.g., one at a multimillion dollar level of annual resources. The appellant does not direct a program or major program segment with multimillion dollar resources directly under his discretion and control. Given this threshold, the appellant’s responsibilities to make budget-planning related recommendations concerning the Russian Service’s annual budget for contractor work or travel would not meet Responsibility 4. The level of discretion and control expected by responsibility 4 rests at the division or Programing Director levels.

Responsibility 7 is not credited. The appellant cannot make or approve selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions. His authority is limited to making recommendations for selection or approval of nonsupervisory positions.

Responsibility 9 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to hear and resolve group grievances or serious employee complaints. His authority is limited to effecting minor disciplinary measures (e.g., warnings and reprimands)  and recommending other action in more serious cases which does not exceed the authority described by responsibility 7 of Level 3-2c.

Responsibility 10 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to review and approve serious disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions) involving nonsupervisory subordinates. This authority is held by the Division Director.

Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to make decisions on non-routine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests. Such decisions are made by the Division Director or by higher level positions at the programming directorate level. The appellant’s authority does not exceed that described in responsibility 8 of Level 3-2c, which is credited to a supervisor who identifies developmental and training needs of employees, providing or arranging for needed development and training.

Responsibility 12 is credited. It involves determining whether contractor performed work meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment. The appellant determines whether work performed by contractors for the Russian Service meets the standards of adequacy and principles of the VOA Journalistic Code and the VOA Charter, and approves timesheets necessary for authorization of payments.

Responsibility 13 is not credited. It involves approving expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. The appellant has authority to approve within-grade increases for his subordinates, but he does not have the authority to approve travel and extensive overtime. This authority is held by the Division Director.

Responsibility 14 is credited. It involves recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher level officials, supervisors, or others. The appellant may recommend awards and bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher-level officials or others.

Responsibility 15 is not credited. It involves finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices. This would apply to large organizations e.g., in a large production or processing unit. The nature of the work supervised by the appellant does not lend itself to this type of work. The appellant’s authority in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 9 of Level 3-2c, which is credited to a supervisor who finds ways to improve production or increase the quality of the work directed.

Based on the above review, the appellant performs 3 of the 15 responsibilities listed under Level 3-3b. Because the appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a or 8 of the 15 responsibilities listed in Level 3-3b, Level 3-3 is not met.

This factor is credited at Level 3-2 and 450 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Personal contacts

This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and the purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts, credited under Subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts credited under Subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

Subfactor 4A: Nature of contacts

This subfactor covers the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:

 (1) high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies;

 (2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage;

 (3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage;

 (4) congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels;

 (5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms;

 (6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local Government managers doing business with the agency.

At Level 4A-3, contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management. They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

At level 4A-4, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:

(1) influential individuals or organized groups from outside the employing agency, such as executive level contracting and other officials of major defense contractors or national officers of employee organizations;

(2) regional or national officers or comparable representatives of trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations of national stature;

(3) key staff of congressional committees, and principal assistants to senators and representatives. For example: majority and minority staff directors, chief counsels, and directors of field operations;

(4) elected or appointed representatives of State and local governments;

(5) journalists of major metropolitan, regional, or national newspapers, magazines, television, or radio media;

(6) SES, flag or general officer, or Executive Level heads of bureaus and higher level organizations in other Federal agencies.

At Level 4A-4, contacts may take place in meetings, conferences, briefings, speeches, presentations, or oversight hearings and may require extemporaneous response to unexpected or hostile questioning. Preparation typically includes briefing packages or similar presentation materials, requires extensive analytical input by the employee and subordinates, and/or involves the assistance of a support staff

The appellant’s nature of contacts meets Level 4A-3. The VOA is the largest international broadcaster and Federal media network of the USAGM. In reviewing its unique structure in relation to the agency’s, we consider the VOA like a bureau with major organizational levels. Comparable to Level 4A-3, the appellant has frequent contact with high ranking VOA civilian managers, supervisors and VOA newsroom production and technical staff. Further, like Level 4A-3, contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the appellant is designated as a contact point by higher management which may require preparation of briefing materials or data to discuss complex editorial matters.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4A-4. The appellant bases his assertion that he meets Level 4A-4 on contacts made occasionally and his participation in an international conference in 2016 where he delivered a presentation and provided comments on the VOA Russian Service strategy and achievements. Our fact-finding does not support that the appellant has regular contacts with any of those described at Level 4A-4. In addition, we may not consider contacts he made, or meetings attended several years ago. To be considered under Subfactor 4-A, contacts must have occurred on a recuring basis over the past 12 to 18 months. Further, unlike Level 4A-4, his position does not require extemporaneous response to unexpected or hostile questioning, or preparation of briefing packages requiring extensive analytical input, and/or involving the assistance of a support staff. 

This subfactor is credited at Level 4A-3 and 75 points are assigned.

Subfactor 4B: Purpose of contacts

This subfactor covers the purpose of contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment making responsibilities related to supervision and management.  

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

At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

At Level 4B-4, the purpose of the contacts is to influence, motivate, or persuade persons or groups to accept opinions or take actions related to advancing the fundamental goals and objectives of the program or segments directed, or involving the commitment or distribution of major resources, when intense opposition or resistance is encountered due to significant organizational or philosophical conflict, competing objectives, major resource limitations or reductions, or comparable issues. At this level, the persons contacted are sufficiently fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative that highly developed communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, leadership, and similar skills must be used to obtain the desired results.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts meets Level 4B-2. Comparable to this level, the appellant plans and coordinates content related matters with other chiefs and supervisors from other Services and VOA managers and technical staff providing applicable knowledge, interview sources (e.g., experts, analysts, community leaders, politicians, ordinary people) and programming material, and to coordinate work and ensure consistency in operations between program segments. Similar to Level 4B-2, he resolves difference of opinions relating to program objectives among supervisors, managers and production and/or VOA newsroom personnel.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts does not meet Level 4B-3. Unlike this level, his contacts do not involve justifying, defending, or negotiating in obtaining or committing resources, and gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. He is not delegated the authority to represent the organization in program defense or negotiations and does not control resources. In contrast to Level 4B-3, the appellant’s authority is limited to proposing the allocation of resources for his organization.  Since we find the purpose of the appellant’s contacts do not meet the criteria for Level 4B-3, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to evaluate the purpose of the appellant’s contacts to the Level 4B-4 criteria.  

This subfactor is credited at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility, either directly or through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or others. The level is determined by identifying the highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed, and which constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization.

In determining the highest level of work, developmental positions below the normal full performance levels are considered at the full performance levels. Certain work is excluded from consideration in making the determination including subordinate work that is graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties; work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3 (including such basic administrative supervisory functions as approving leave and evaluating performance); lower-level support work that primarily facilitates the basic work of the unit; and work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision.

The appellant directly supervises the work of four International Broadcasters (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12, and one International Broadcaster (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-11 and five PSCs (two International Multimedia Journalist-Level II, and three International Multimedia Journalist-Level III). Our fact-finding shows and as confirmed by the appellant and his supervisor, the appellant provides technical and administrative supervision to the PSCs. As with the GS employees, he provides instructions for assignments and technically reviews their work products as appropriate. Administratively, he approves leave requests (in Paycom) and conducts midterm and final performance evaluations. The agency did not consider work performed by the PSCs for determining the highest level of work directed by the appellant. However, as indicated in the GSSG, work performed by contractors is considered in applying the grading criteria within each factor of this guide, provided the position first meets the coverage requirements based on supervision of noncontractor personnel. Therefore, we include the work performed by the PSCs for base level determination of the position. Based on our review of the PSCs’ Work Statements, equivalent GS grade information for the PSCs provided by the agency, and discussion with the appellant and his supervisor on the level of work performed by them, we find the agency’s grade equivalency appropriate. Thus, we credit the work performed by the current PSC II positions as GS-11, and PSC III work as GS-12.  

In addition, the appellant provides oversight and serves as a COR to four overseas stringers (i.e., Multimedia Reporters). These positions are contracted under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) and paid per assignment completed and accepted by the VOA. The work is performed during uncommon working hours (e.g., shift work, weekends, evenings, holidays as necessary to accomplish the work) and stringers have no defined work hours or schedules similar to intermittent work performed without a regular schedule tour of duty. Therefore, as the stringer positions have no established work schedule or established FTE, we are unable to determine the percentage of mission oriented nonsupervisory workload derived from those positions. Consequently, we must exclude the work performed by the stringers in determining the base level of the appellant’s position which follows.

GS-12

1.0    International Broadcasters (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD number V114294)

1.0    International Broadcasters (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD number V190048)

1.0    International Broadcasters (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD number V169173)

1.0    International Broadcasters (Russian)(Online), GS-1001-12 (PD number V2108)

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist-III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist-III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist-III

7.0

GS-11

1.0   International Broadcaster (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-11 (PD number V0967)

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist-II

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist-II

3.0

Total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 10 work years. GS-12 grade level work constitutes 70 percent of the nonsupervisory workload and GS-11 grade level work constitutes 30 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. Therefore, we find the GS-12 work at 70 percent is fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory mission oriented work performed by the appellant’s unit. Using the conversion chart in the GSSG for Factor 5, a GS-12 base level equates to Level 5-7.

This factor is credited at Level 5-7 and 930 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Other conditions

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

Level 6-5 is met if either Level 6-5a, 6-5b, or 6-5c is credited.

1. Supervision and oversight at this level requires significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level. Supervision at this level involves major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed. For instance, makes major recommendations in at least three of the areas listed below or in other, comparable areas:

• significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Factor Level 6-4a;
• restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding; determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed;
• changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected;
• the optimum mix of reduced operating costs and assurance of program effectiveness, including introduction of labor saving devices, automated processes, methods improvements, and similar;
• the resources to devote to particular programs (especially when staff-years and a significant portion of an organization's budget are involved);
• policy formulation, and long range planning in connection with prospective changes in functions and programs.

OR

b. Supervision of highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory, or comparable implications.

OR

c. Managing work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-4a for first line supervisors.

Level 6-6 is met if either Level 6-6a or 6-6b is credited.

1. Supervision and oversight requires exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level. Supervision and resource management at this level involves major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organizations and programs managed.

OR

b. They manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-5a above for first line supervisors.

The appellant’s position meets Level 6-5a. Like this level, he is responsible for significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important media projects or assignments comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level (base level of the appellant’s position). For example, he oversees and coordinates the evaluation and selection of source materials to be used by GS-12 or equivalent level (i.e., PSC III) subordinate staff when developing original content to be published to the Russian Service website and social media platforms as appropriate. Like Level 6-5a, the appellant’s work involves making major recommendations that have a direct and substantial effect on the work products managed by his organization. For instance, based on analysis of audience engagement data and metrics, he makes recommendations for expert media projects to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed to change or improve messaging and/or engagement strategies in key markets.

Furthermore, like Level 6-5a, he makes recommendations for establishing particular projects or allocating of resources among VOA program segments to ensure strong news coverage, as warranted by events (e.g., Russian invasion of Ukraine) and meet urgent audience needs in areas of crisis. Comparable to Level 6-5a, the appellant makes recommendations for reorienting and recasting immediate  and/or long-range Russian Service program goals and plans to meet substantial changes in funding. He also makes specific recommendations regarding the resources to devote to his program segment regarding staff-years impacting a significant portion of the Service’s budget, particularly as it relates to the hiring of contractor personnel (e.g., proposing an increase in number of contractor positions to meet short and/or long term strategic goals).

Based on the information above, the appellant’s position makes recommendations in at least three of the seven areas listed under this level, the minimum required for crediting Level 6-5a. Therefore, his position fully meets Level 6-5a.

During his interview with OPM, the appellant stated that his position should be credited at Level 6-6 asserting that the work performed by both his immediate subordinates and contractors is equivalent to the GS-13 grade level. However, as addressed under Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, we found the positions supervised by the appellant to be properly classified at the GS-11 and 12 grade levels or equivalent for contractors. Nevertheless, we compare the appellant’s position to the Level 6-6 criteria below.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 6-6a, where supervision requires exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs with work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level. As noted above, the appellant does not supervise any GS-13 or equivalent positions, thus precluding the exceptional coordination and integration of work comparable to that grade level. In addition, unlike Level 6-6a he is not involved in major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and its programs.  

The appellant’s position also does not meet Level 6-6b because he does not manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level. Given that his position lacks this element, the level of coordination described at Level 6-6b does not apply.

This factor is credited at Level 6-5 and 1225 points are assigned.

Summary

By application of the GSSG, we have evaluated the appellant’s supervisory duties as follows:

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1. Program scope and effect	1-3	550
2. Organizational setting	2-1	100
3. Supervisory and managerial authority exercised	3-2	450
4. Personal contacts
Nature of contacts	4A-3	75
Purpose of contacts	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of typical work directed	5-7	930
6. Other conditions	6-5	1225
Total Points		3405

The total of 3405 points falls within the GS-13 grade range (3155-3600) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG. Therefore, the appellant’s position is graded at the GS-13 level.

Decision

The proper classification series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-1001-13. Title is at the agency’s discretion with the prefix “Supervisory” added.

Back to Top