Washington, DC

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

---

Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


02/06/2015

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a classification 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 5 CFR 511.605, 511.613, and 511.614, as cited in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

On June 23, 2014, OPM’s Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE)-Philadelphia accepted a position classification appeal from Mr. George A. Matray.  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Actuary, GS-1510-14, and is located in the Contractor Insurance Pension Review (CIPR) Center, Corporate and Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer Group, Cost and Pricing Center, Contracts Executive Directorate, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Department of Defense (DoD), in Garden City, New York.  The appellant believes his position should be upgraded to the GS-15 grade level.  We received the complete agency administrative report on September 15, 2014, and have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112(b) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant raises concerns about his agency’s classification review process.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing the appellant’s current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the agency’s classification review process is not germane to this decision.

Position information

The appellant supervises the CIPR Center (Center), which has an east coast office in Garden City, New York, and a west coast office in Carson, California.  The Garden City office staff consists of the appellant’s position; three Actuary, GS-1510-13, positions; three Actuary, GS-1510-12, positions; and one Insurance Examiner (General), GS-1163-12, position.  The Carson staff consists of a Supervisory Insurance Examiner (General), GS-1163-13, position; two Actuary, GS-1510-13, positions; and one Insurance Examiner, GS-1163-12, position.

The Center provides consulting services to customers who request the interpretation of laws or regulations concerning insurance and/or pension plan matters.  When requested, the Center also performs CIPR reviews which analyze the assumptions and methods used by the contractor’s actuary in developing the costs for contractor employees’ insurance and pension plans included in the contract bid to ensure the costs are accurately developed and fair.  The review consists of analyzing calculations for forward pricing, which estimates what a plan's costs should be three, five, or 10 years into the future; incurred costs, which estimates what a plan’s costs should be one year into the future; and/or curtailment, which analyzes the computations provided by the contractor against Cost Accounting Standards requirements when a contractor shuts down a plan.  Most of the review requests cover forward pricing calculations because most of the contracts are flexible price contracts which are re-negotiated each year.  This, in turn, causes the customer to request a CIPR review each year.  Customers include DCMA contracting personnel; Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) contracting and auditing staff; contracting or actuary staff in other DoD and Federal agencies; and actuaries working for contracting firms doing business with the Government.

The appellant oversees the actuarial services provided by the Center to its customers and serves as the DCMA subject matter expert (SME) on such issues.  As the Center Director, the appellant reviews each CIPR review request to ensure it is acceptable and includes the required information; e.g., insurance/pension plan design, contractor employee demographics, and the methods and assumptions used to develop each plan’s estimates.  If the request meets these requirements, the appellant forwards it to the Supervisory Insurance Examiner (General) to be assigned to an actuary who then analyzes the provided material.  The actuary adds the contractor- provided insurance/pension plan forecast costs to the shell Excel program the appellant developed for plan analysis.  The shell program takes the formulas and methods in the Acceptable Standards of Practice, established and approved by the Actuarial Standards Board, and incorporates the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Cost Accounting Standards, the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Labor (DOL).  The goal of the review is to produce a result within plus or minus five percentage points of the contractor’s results.  Should this not occur from the initial running of the program, the appellant analyzes the contractor-provided material with the actuary conducting the review to identify any discrepancies the actuary missed; e.g., a contractor retirement plan setting the retirement age at 62 instead of the actuarial assumption of age 65.  If discrepancies cannot be found to bring the review’s results within this goal, the appellant contacts the customer requesting the review and discusses the Center’s concerns with the contractor’s actuary.  When the concerns are resolved, the actuary assembles the findings and submits the report to the appellant for review.  Once approved by the appellant, the report is returned to the actuary for dissemination to the customer and the appellant’s supervisor with a copy retained in the review’s electronic folder.

The appellant serves as a consultant to his supervisor on contractor insurance and pension plan issues.  In this capacity, when laws and regulations change how insurance and/or pension costs are calculated, he advises on how they will impact overall contract costs.  He also provides similar interpretive guidance to the Center’s customers; e.g., researching IRS rules and the Cost Accounting Standards to determine how stock bonus plans are supposed to be designed when a contractor’s bid included these costs so the customer could determine whether the costs were reasonable.

Every two months the appellant holds a three-hour video teleconferencing training session for his subordinate actuary staff.  The training covers such topics as Internal Revenue Code 419(A) Qualified Assets, Defined Benefit Plan Terminations, and Health Care Reform – Affordable Care Act.  The appellant develops new training modules as new laws are passed which affect the insurance and pension plan compliance process. 

Before DPAP issues implementation guidance on new laws affecting insurance and pension plan calculations, they request the affected DoD agencies submit the projected cost impact of the changes.  The appellant develops the response for DCMA by producing forward pricing calculations based on the new law and forwards his response through his supervisory chain, which views his findings as authoritative.  DPAP uses his input and the input of the other DoD agencies when developing its guidance.

The appellant frequently participates in the annual Enrolled Actuaries Meeting sponsored by the Conference of Consulting Actuaries and topic-specific meetings, such as health care issues and new mortality tables, sponsored by the Society of Actuaries.  When he does participate, he sits on a panel with his actuary counterparts from the Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration to discuss their respective agencies’ stands on insurance and pension plan issues such as interest rate forecasting. 

To help us decide the appeal, we conducted telephone interviews with the appellant on October 21, 23, 28, and 30, 2014, his immediate supervisor on November 6, 2014, and his previous supervisor on November 13, 2014.  In reaching our decision, we have carefully considered all of the information obtained from the interviews, as well as all other information of record provided by the appellant and his agency.  After a careful review, we find the appellant’s position description (PD) meets the standards of PD adequacy for classification purposes as discussed in section III.E of the Introduction and we incorporated it by reference into our decision, as it contains the major duties and responsibilities assigned to and performed by the appellant.  However, there are some inaccuracies in the appellant’s PD that should be corrected by the agency.  The PD includes a statement that the appellant serves as the DoD SME on contractor insurance and pension plan issues, although he is only DCMA’s SME on these issues.  Further, the PD states the appellant “interface[s]” with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Actuary.  However, this office provides actuarial guidance only on military compensation and benefits issues and he has no interactions with them.

Series, and title determination

The appellant does not contest the series or title of his position and, based on a review of the record, we concur.  Based on the mandatory titling requirements of the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Professional Work in the Mathematical Sciences Group, 1500, the appellant’s position is titled Supervisory Actuary, GS-1510, as it meets the coverage requirements of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).

Standard and grade determination

The appellant’s nonsupervisory actuarial work is properly evaluated by application of the criteria contained in the GS-1500 JFS.  This JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in a PCS 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 aspects 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 PCS.

The appellant disagrees with the agency's evaluation of Factors 1, 4, and 5.  After careful review, we concur with the agency's evaluation of Factors 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 4, and 5.

The agency determined the appellant’s supervisory duties are properly evaluated at the GS-14 level by application of the GSSG’s grading criteria.  The appellant does not contest their determination and, based on a careful review of the record, we concur.  Therefore, we will not further address the application of the GSSG to the appellant’s position in this decision.

The appellant provided a rationale stating his position should be credited with higher levels for Factors 1, 4, and 5.  He states his position should be credited the higher levels because he possesses a mastery level of knowledge of the theories, principles, practices, and techniques in actuarial science, is enrolled in professional actuarial boards, academies, and societies, and publishes actuarial science study material used by actuaries sitting for accreditation examinations and continuing professional education requirements.  The appellant states that as DCMA’s SME on contractor insurance and pension plan issues, he develops the agency’s position on such issues, develops new or alternative actuarial forecasting methodology to address changes in laws and regulations affecting contractor insurance/pension cost calculations, serves as a consultant to the Center’s customers, and represents DCMA at actuarial meetings on insurance/pension plan issues.  He points to his developing complex actuarial forecast models used in CIPR reviews to validate the assumptions and methods provided in a contract bid, developing and presenting training sessions to his subordinate actuary staff on various insurance/pension plan topics, and serving as an expert witness and as a consultant in the preparation of cases brought before courts of law in actuarial matters.  He also points to his overseeing the actuarial services provided by a subordinate staff of actuarial professionals, ensuring the proper interpretation and implementation of Center guidance and recommendations, and participating in CIPR reviews.  We have fully considered his arguments under the appropriate factors.

Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts that a worker must understand to do acceptable work, such as the steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts; and the nature and extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.

At Level 1-8, employees have mastery of and skill in applying broad areas of classical and modern advanced actuarial science, operations research, mathematics, or statistics; or specialized areas within the respective disciplines sufficient to:  complete assignments that involve initiating, applying, and planning major developmental studies; execute and control projects that  represent an important segment of the agency’s operating programs and/or projects; serve as a consultant and technical advisor to senior subject matter specialists and/or agency officials responsible for broad program operations; receive recognition as an authority in a particular specialty; provide significant and innovative recommendations for advancing programs and/or methods; use findings of specialized studies, new analytical developments, and modified processes to resolve novel or obscure problems that affect broad program operations; evaluate the data resulting from applying mathematical or statistical tools, models, methods, and techniques; and act as the authoritative source of technical input to publications or other documents that are the basis for formulating public policy.  An illustration in the JFS of Level 1-8 discusses providing expert consultative services on social or health insurance issues, formulating major policy and binding commitments for the organization, and presenting recommendations, conclusions, and findings accepted as authoritative by program officials.

Level 1-8 is met.  As at this level, the appellant applies a mastery of and skill in actuarial science to plan, manage, and maintain the Center’s actuarial services.  As the DCMA SME, he  assists his  staff with CIPR reviews as needed, researches questions regarding contractor insurance and pension plan issues, and provides interpretations of insurance/pension plan laws or regulations to the Center’s customers.  As at Level 1-8, his knowledge of actuarial science, including modern advanced principles, theories, concepts, and methodologies is applied to the specialized areas of defined benefit pensions and health insurance.  Typical of this level, the appellant serves as the DCMA’s SME in contacts with representatives of other agencies and Government organizations, and with interested private sector individuals and organizations.  Representative of the Level 1-8 illustration in the JFS, he is a recognized expert in the actuarial fields of defined benefit pensions and health insurance.  In that capacity, the appellant has produced policy papers explaining how DCMA conducts CIPR reviews based on its interpretation of the requirements contained in the Cost Accounting Standards.  When laws are passed affecting insurance and pension plan calculations, the appellant is responsible for developing DCMA’s input for DPAP’s consideration before DPAP issues implementing guidance.  The rationale the appellant provided to support the crediting of Level 1-9 instead supports the crediting of Level 1-8 because the functions he performs match aspects of Level 1-8 described in the JFS; i.e., serving as a consultant and technical advisor to agency officials responsible for broad program operations; receiving recognition as an authority in a particular specialty; providing significant and innovative recommendations for advancing programs and/or methods; using findings of specialized studies, new analytical developments, and modified processes to resolve novel or obscure problems that affect broad program operations; evaluating the data resulting from applying mathematical or statistical tools, models, methods, and techniques; and acting as the authoritative source of technical input to publications or other documents that are the basis for formulating public policy. 

At Level 1-9, employees have mastery of and skill in applying the principles, theories, and methodologies of a specialty area as it relates to their respective discipline sufficient to:  provide expert consultation to heads of major organizations, high-ranking Government officials, and key personnel within or outside the Federal Government; formulate, test and evaluate new theories, principles, concepts, and practices of the discipline; advance state-of-the-art theories beyond established parameters; serve as an authoritative representative of the agency within or outside the Federal Government (e.g., by serving as an expert in a specialty area at professional conferences); earn recognition as major contributor to published research studies or pioneering efforts that produce advanced theories, innovative applications, new scientific principles, or new research techniques; and provide management with expert technical guidance and recommendations for achieving the agency’s objectives.  An illustration in the JFS of Level 1-9 discusses resolving unprecedented actuarial problems, making presentations before Congress or at national professional meetings or having significant involvement in drafting proposed legislative changes to ensure proper interpretation and implementation of actuarial recommendations, adding to or advancing the state of the art of actuarial processes, and representing the agency on interagency work groups established to develop industry actuarial policies and solutions to critical issues.

Similar to Level 1-9, the appellant occasionally serves as an authoritative representative for DCMA at professional meetings to address the agency’s stand on insurance and pension plan issues.  However, the appellant does not perform work equivalent to Level 1-9 or the illustration in the JFS.  Unlike Level 1-9, his work does not entail providing senior DoD or DCMA management with expert technical guidance for achieving the agency’s objectives; formulating, testing, and evaluating new actuarial theories, principles, concepts, and practices that advance the state-of-the-art in actuarial science beyond established parameters; providing expert consultation to heads of major organizations, high-ranking Government officials, and key personnel within or outside the Federal Government; or serving as a major contributor to published research studies or pioneering efforts that produce advanced actuarial theories, new scientific principles, or new research techniques.  Rather, like Level 1-8, the appellant’s work involves analyzing the assumptions and methods used by the contractor’s actuary in developing the costs for contractor employees’ insurance and pension plans included in the contractor's bid to ensure the costs are accurately developed and fair, as opposed to the creation of radically new actuarial concepts, methods and theories found at Level 1-9.  Unlike Level 1-9, the appellant is involved with implementing the actuarial aspects of new legislation rather than drafting the legislation.  His presentation of the agency’s position on actuarial issues before professional groups falls short of the presentations before Congress or national or international professional organizations described at Level 1-9.  The appellant’s recognition as an expert is directly linked to his responsibility for the information developed by the Center, and pertains primarily to his adaptation and innovative applications of advanced actuarial science concepts, processes, and practices to ensure the accuracy of the actuarial consultative and CIPR review work performed at the Center, which is fully covered at Level 1-8.  These operational actuarial functions do not provide the appellant with the opportunity to regularly function as a senior agency consultant to agency/corporate officials and actuarial and/or computer science peers on highly complex actuarial issues, debates, studies, research and analysis projects found Level 1-9.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-8 and 1,550 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

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

At Level 4-5, work consists of various duties of marked complexity, significance, and importance performed in areas where precedents are inadequate, inappropriate, or nonexistent.  The employee decides the most effective approach or methodology by identifying, developing, and integrating pertinent information through various data collection/analysis procedures and technologies; anticipating major problems; and recognizing future needs.  The employee must develop innovative approaches to complex situations or problems that are unique and amorphous; develop mathematical or statistical relationships that are new or significant departures from the relationships established in previous problems, studies, or investigations, causing outcomes that are usually original in nature; apply and adapt sophisticated analytical, mathematical, or statistical techniques and occasionally principles of related disciplines such as engineering, finance, or economics to resolve problems; generate ideas for new programs, policies, or approaches; visualize the impact of alternative strategies and methods; assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and necessity of unusual approaches; and identify the effects associated with implementing proposed standards, regulations, and policies.  An illustration provided in the JFS of Level 4-5 describes work which involves difficult and diverse projects requiring in-depth analysis of actuarial issues, related information technology, and data issues; e.g., designing sophisticated tests to ensure accurate results are produced consistent with actuarial principles and audit standards, developing new techniques to reflect changes in the agency’s procedures, and developing innovative approaches for incorporation into a system that is subject to audit the effects of new legislation and guidance, changes in software, and unique issues raised by complex plans.  In doing so, the employee must exercise considerable judgment and originality to: choose aspects of the program to be improved or modified; weigh computer processing as well as the actuarial aspects of a problem; and craft mathematical solutions that involve innovative approaches and applying concepts outside the normal bounds of actuarial theory.

Level 4-5 is met because the appellant’s duties and responsibilities are significant, complex, and important and are performed in areas where precedents are inadequate and require substantial modification.  The appellant decides the most effective approach or methodology by identifying developing, and integrating pertinent information through various analytical procedures and technologies; anticipates major problems; and recognizes future needs.  As at this level and representative of the illustration in the JFS, he develops innovative approaches to complex and unique situations that lack clear definitions and structure; assesses the feasibility, effectiveness, and necessity of new or unusual approaches; adapts/modifies sophisticated analytical mathematical techniques and/or develops new mathematical computer applications for insurance/pension plan assessments that produce reliable, valid, credible, and defendable results; generates new approaches to evaluating contractor proposals by interpreting actuarial principles; visualizes the impact of alternative strategies and methods; identifies the effect of proposed  DPAP policy changes that flow from new legislation on the CIPR review process; and interprets new policy and statutory issuances to make necessary Excel program adjustments.  The rationale the appellant provides to show his position meets Level 4-6 reinforces that it meets Level 4-5.  As previously stated, the appellant is the Center SME on actuarial issues, develops methodological changes to address complex changes in a contractor’s insurance/pension plans, and possesses a high level of mathematical modeling skills to develop complex Excel shell programs to determine if the material provided by the contractor is accurately developed and fair.  Therefore, like Level 4-5, the appellant, in his role as the Center Director, applies basic current actuarial concepts in new or unique ways to ensure the Center produces accurate work products.

Work at Level 4-6 consists of assignments that involve solving problems characterized by impacts on broad functional areas and processes, and exceptional breadth and intensity of effort.  Employees decide what needs to be done in an environment characterized by undefined factors and conditions.  They must conduct extensive investigations and analyses of the nature and scope of problems to make those decisions.  At this level, employees continually plan and lead efforts to address issues in areas where precedents do not exist; develop new concepts, theories, approaches, or programs to solve problems that have previously resisted solution; and often pursue several activities concurrently or sequentially with the support of others within or outside the agency.

An illustration provided in the JFS at Level 4-6 describes providing expert advice to agency officials on the impact of new or changing actuarial policies on the financial status of the agency, defined benefit pension plans, or actuarial systems; and options and recommendations for management decisions.  On the surface, the appellant's assigned duties and responsibilities appear similar to this illustration.  However, the appellant’s position does not meet the full intent of the illustration when properly interpreted and applied.  The illustration describes providing analysis and advice on unprecedented, sensitive actuarial matters with national impact, on rulings and decisions that affect the agency as a whole, and on proposed recommendations and laws; evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches; and conducting special studies on the effects of proposed regulations and/or legislation.  In doing so, the employee must exercise considerable judgment and originality to provide analysis, prepare estimates, and make recommendations with potentially large financial consequences to the agency and/or plan sponsors, often in a short time frame and with little data, and to develop creative techniques to address issues.

To correctly interpret and apply Level 4-6, it must be read in conjunction with the preceding level of the factor and with Level 4-6 as defined in the Primary Standard (PS) to confirm its intended meaning.  The PS is the “standard-for-standards” which serves as a basic tool for maintaining alignment across occupations by ensuring grading criteria in PCSs for specific occupations are consistent.  The PS describes Level 4-6 as work consisting of broad functions and processes of an administrative or professional field; e.g., assignments are characterized by breadth and intensity of effort involving several phases pursued concurrently or sequentially with the support of others within or outside the organization; decisions regarding what needs to be done include largely undefined issues and elements and require extensive probing and analysis to determine the nature and scope of the problems; and the work requires continuing efforts to establish concepts, theories, or programs, or to resolve unyielding problems.

Unlike Level 4-6, there are a number of actuarial science concepts, tools, techniques, and methods available to the appellant.  As at Level 4-5, he typically researches various actuarial alternatives and approaches used by actuaries in other Federal agencies to determine if they are of value and can be adapted or combined in new ways to address a CIPR review issue.  Occasionally, when problems do not yield to such efforts, the appellant applies new or unique approaches to current actuarial concepts, techniques, and methods  to develop tailored applications to complete the CIPR review.  For example, a CIPR review was requested for a pension plan with incurred costs covered under a flexible price contract with a contractor curtailing the defined benefit pension plan effective in a future fiscal year.  The Government had already paid millions of dollars towards those costs for future payouts to the contractor’s employees.  The appellant developed an algorithm to identify the forward year amounts the Government paid to be used in the negotiations between the Contracting Officer and the contractor’s representative to determine the amount of money to be re-paid.  However, the development of such new approaches and refinements for applied actuarial concepts is not equivalent to the creation of new state of the art concepts, methods, or techniques advancing the field of actuarial science beyond its current boundaries.  Further, such an issue cannot be construed to be an unyielding problem.  The appellant's role as the Center Director does not require continuing efforts to establish new concepts, theories, or programs.  Instead, it serves to extend existing concepts and theories to support current, ongoing programs.  The services provided by the Center are well defined and there is a wealth of information generally available on those subjects. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 4-5 and 325 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and Effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work, as measured by the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignments, and the effect of work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-5, employees formulate and explore new theories and phenomena; provide expertise and advice on program planning and policymaking functions covering a broad range of mathematical, statistical, or scientific programs; and/or develop, test, and advise on theoretical concepts and new or improved technologies and methods.  Work results affect the work of other mathematical, statistical, or science experts; strategic planning of organizational resources; development of agency policy; and program mission, performance, and necessity.  An illustration in the JFS of Level 5-5 discusses designing complex pension plan computer models, influencing the direction and scope of studies and certifying the accuracy of the assumptions, methods and data, and proposing new approaches/theories including recommendations to change software to facilitate the evaluation of actuarial practices and assumptions.

Level 5-5 is met.  As described above, the appellant develops, improves, and refines the Center’s methodology for CIPR reviews which occasionally involves innovative, new approaches in applied actuarial science.  Typical of Level 5-5, these new approaches frequently serve as the basis for briefings by the appellant and may affect agency policy decisions.  His responsibility as the Center Director also requires identifying, isolating, and resolving major problems encountered in CIPR reviews, which is also typical of Level 5-5.  Like this level, the appellant provides guidance to the actuary staff, develops ways to enhance the efficiency of the Center, and ensures the Center provides guidance based on a proper interpretation of law.  Therefore, like Level 5-5, he develops, tests, and advises on new or improved technologies and methods and provides expert-level advice concerning insurance and pension plan issues.

At Level 5-6, employees select productive areas for analysis; define and develop the technical scope and aims of assignments; exploit established and emerging methods on applications that meet industry needs; and work within a highly specialized research environment with the potential to revolutionize system design processes for an industry.  Results of the work affect the success and continuation of key programs essential to the agency’s mission; vitality and integrity of mathematical, statistical, or science programs on a long-term and/or continuing basis; protection and quality of life, health, and/or property of the general public and national or international resources; continuing advancement of science and technology in research, industrial activities, academia, the Federal sector, and the private sector; and/or ability to evaluate changes and trends in an industry or scientific discipline.  An illustration in the JFS of Level 5-6 discusses planning, developing, and directing actuarial analysis that could affect defined benefit plans nationwide; dealing with representatives of the pension, insurance, financial, and investment communities as an authoritative agency official; serving on external and internal panels and committees; and meeting with members of Congress or their staff to discuss complex pension policy issues.  The work affects legislative/policy recommendations or guidance, and may affect defined benefit plan sponsors and participants in all federally-defined benefit plans.  The policy recommendations may affect the long-term financial health of the agency.

Level 5-6 is not met.  The appellant’s work meets certain aspects of Level 5-6 in that he selects productive areas for analysis, defines and develops the technical scope and aim of assignments, and exploits established and emerging methods for applications that meet CIPR review needs.  However, the position does not meet the full intent of this level in that the improvements he makes to CIPR methods are not so significant as to have the potential to revolutionize system design processes for an industry, affect the success and continuation of key programs essential to the agency’s mission, or provide continuing advancement of actuarial science and technology in research, industrial activities, academia, the Federal sector, and the private sector.  Instead, like Level 5-5, the appellant ensures the Center provides accurate information to its customers concerning questions they have on contractor insurance/pension plan costs.  Unlike Level 5-6, this work is not comparable to performing actuarial analysis regularly affecting insurance/pension plans nationwide, dealing with industry representatives as an agency authority, serving on panels, and meeting with Congressional staff members to discuss complex pension issues as discussed in the aforementioned illustration.  While he provides input to DPAP on the effects of changes in law, unlike Level 5-6 his work does not affect legislative/policy recommendations or guidance and does not affect defined benefit plan sponsors and participants in all federally-defined benefit plans.  Therefore, Level 5-5 is credited.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-5 and 325 points are assigned.

Summary

Factor	Level	Points
1.  Knowledge required by the position	1-8	1550
2.  Supervisory controls	2-5	650
3.  Guidelines	3-5	650
4.  Complexity	4-5	325
5.  Scope and effect	5-5	325
6.  Personal contacts	6-3
7.  Purpose of contacts	7-D	280
8.  Physical demands	8-1	5
9.  Work environment	9-1	5
Total points		3790

 

The total of 3790 points falls within the GS-14 point range (3605-4050) on the grade conversion table in the GS-1500 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant’s duties are graded at the GS-14 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Supervisory Actuary, GS-1510-14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top