Washington, DC

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

---

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


11/21/2022

---

Date

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

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 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 Supply Management Specialist, GS-2003-11, bur he believes it should be classified at the GS-12 grade level.  The position is in the Installation Property Book Branch (IPBB), Supply and Services Division, Logistics Readiness Center (LRC), 406th Army Field Support Brigade, U.S. Army Sustainment Command, U.S. Department of the Army (DA), at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  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 the classification review process conducted by his agency and compares his current position to a higher-graded property book officer position.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others, which may or may not be classified correctly, as a basis for deciding his appeal.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.

The appellant believes his current PD of record (number DU375904) is not completely accurate.  Although the appellant’s supervisor initially certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD, the record shows he stated the PD contains inaccuracies.  A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee.  Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellant. 

Our review disclosed inaccuracies in the appellant’s PD.  It states the position manages the vehicle fuel card system.  However, we find this function is not performed by the appealed position.  The appealed position is not the primary instructor for the three-day Fort Jackson Company Commander First Sergeant’s Course.  Of the three-day course, the appealed position provides approximately a one-hour block of instruction on property book procedures and requirements.  Our review also revealed the appellant’s PD contains inaccurate factor level descriptions as compared to our findings in the sections for Factor 3 (Guidelines), Factor 5 (Scope and Effect), and Factor 8 (Physical Demands).  These statements must reflect the factor level assigned the position based on the regular and recurring duties performed, as discussed later in this decision.  In addition, we find the appellant performs duties not included in his PD.  For example, he grants access to those requiring use of the Global Combat Supply System – Army (GCSS-A) and ensures purchase card requests are for required items.  Therefore, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise it to reflect our findings.

Position information

The appellant’s position is assigned to Fort Jackson which provides Basic Combat Training to approximately 50 percent of the recruits entering the U.S. Army each year.  He supervises the IPBB and is designated the consolidated installation property book officer (CIPBO) for the U.S. Army Garrison, U.S. Army Training Center (ATC), and LRC.  The appellant provides supply/logistical support to organizations including the 165th Brigade, 193rd Brigade, Headquarters (HQ) 120th Adjutant General Battalion, HQ Battalion, HQ Services Center, Leader Training Brigade, Drill Sergeant’s Academy, Chaplains School, 17th Military Police Unit, and 208th Military Working Dogs Unit.  He also supports the Deputy Commanding General Initial Military Training Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

As the CIPBO, the appellant ensures his serviced organizations have the equipment and materials needed to execute their training mission and maintain proper accounting of all their assigned property in accordance with established procedures and regulations.  The appellant plans, directs, and coordinates activities involved in the receipt, inventorying, storage, and issuance of individual equipment, construction and barrier material, and major end item supply classes (e.g., computers, desks, rifles, camouflage net bags, military trucks, and generators).  He reviews the yearly changes made to the required equipment and material levels listed on the Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) for his serviced organizations and assists them with making additions and deletions as needed.  For example, if one organization has excess property needed by another organization, he transfers the property from the losing to gaining hand receipts after receiving the required paperwork and updates in the GCSS-A system.  He also performs lateral transfers of serviceable property from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) G4 (i.e., Logistics Office) to individual training units located at Fort Jackson.  Before completing the transfer from DA to Fort Jackson, the appellant ensures the information on the property such as the make, model, and serial number match that on DA’s lateral transfer document.  He also researches and recommends equipment an organization can use in lieu of or as a substitute.  He reviews equipment usage hours, repair, and maintenance records and recommends when equipment needs to be replaced.  If equipment is needed by a few units, he considers the mission of each one in order to prioritize receipt of the equipment.  When a new purchase needs to be made, the appellant ensures the organization follows the correct procedures based on the funding source (i.e., U.S. Army or unit funded).  The appellant and his IPBB staff members inventory property after placement in the IPBB storage warehouse but before issuance in accordance with the distribution plan.  For example, when computers are received, each box is opened and the serial number on each monitor, keyboard, mouse, and wires is verified against the listing provided by the vendor.  Each month, the appellant provides each organization their hand receipt report so they can verify the property listed is accounted for before the appropriate staff member signs and returns it to him upon completion.  The appellant assists them if unusable equipment is found, equipment needs to be removed from their hand receipt, or equipment needs to be replaced.

The appellant accesses, updates, runs reports, and views information in various web-based supply/logistical programs to ensure the most accurate information is reflected and available for use by serviced organization officials.  The web-based programs include the GCSS-A, the General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS), and the Force Management Systems (FMSWeb).  The GCSS-A is DA’s property accountability system which contains certain information (e.g., name, model number, and description) entered for all property and serves as each organization’s primary hand receipt.  The GFEBS is a financial management tool that captures the costs of equipment and the costs to manage equipment.  It provides accurate, reliable, and timely financial information and data used by management officials for budgeting purposes.  The FMSWeb provides an interface for decisions on mission, organizational structure, personnel and equipment requirements and authorizations for Army units.  It contains headquarters approved authorization and staffing documents for review and coordination between Army command, component, and unit levels.

The appellant meets with the LRC Director monthly for the Logistics Readiness Performance Meeting to discuss topics including what to do with excess property on Fort Jackson and to discuss the Unit Status Reports showing the level of readiness of LRC units to meet their mission.  He meets with the ATC Chief of Staff monthly for a Material Readiness Review to discuss topics including ATC equipment maintenance needs and the status of work repair and/or purchase orders.  The appellant meets monthly with the U.S. Garrison Commander for a Logistics Readiness Review to discuss topics including Garrison property book and equipment maintenance issues.  He also meets weekly with various maintenance and logistics personnel attending the S4 Sustainment Meeting to discuss logistics topics including new equipment purchases, expected delivery dates, and the numbers of rifles needing repair.

He grants access to the GCSS-A for soldiers and civilians using the system as part of their duties.  For each user, the appellant receives a completed Department of Defense Form 2875, System Authorization Access Request, and a certificate of completion for the GCSS-A training so he can create individual user accounts.  He also unlocks and deletes accounts as needed.

The appellant reviews and approves purchase request forms for his serviced organizations.  Information provided includes the requester’s information, a description of the item, justification to support the need, recommended sources information, and ordering information.  He completes the Property Book Office section, which shows if the item requires property book/hand receipt accountability (e.g., computer or projector).  In those cases, the appellant requires the receipt showing the item cost and serial number, if assigned, so he can update the electronic Army Enterprise Portal (AESIP) system and retrieve a national stock number and line-item number so the purchased item can be added to the organization’s hand receipt.

The appellant carries out the full range of first-line supervisory responsibility over one General Supply Specialist, GS-2001-09, one Supply Technician, GS-2005-06, and one Supply Technician (Office Automation), GS-2005-05.  He plans work, sets and adjusts short-term priorities, and prepares assignments.  The appellant assigns and reviews work.  He assigns work based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the capabilities of his subordinates.  He evaluates his subordinates’ work performance and gives advice, counsel or instruction on technical and administrative matters, and interviews candidates for vacant positions.  The appellant recommends appointment, promotion, or reassignment to positions.  He hears and resolves employee complaints and refers group grievances and more serious unresolved complaints to his immediate supervisor.  The appellant effects minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and reprimands, and recommends other actions in more serious cases.  He identifies developmental and training needs for his subordinates and finds ways to increase the quality of the work directed.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we 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.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Supply Program Management Series, GS-2003, titling it Supervisory Supply Management Specialist.  To evaluate his personally performed work which we find takes up about 70 percent of his work time, the agency applied the grading criteria in the Grade Evaluation Guide for Supply Positions (GEGSP).  Work in the GS-2003 series involves: (1) management, direction, or administration of a supply program that includes a mixture of technical supply functions; or (2) staff managerial, or administrative work primarily concerned with analyzing, developing, evaluating, or promoting improvements in the policies, plans, methods, procedures, systems, or techniques of a supply program. Similar to this series, the appellant directs and administers a portion of a supply program encompassing a mixture of elements of two technical supply activities (i.e., inventory, distribution and storage management) for specific supply classes including information technology equipment, rifles, camouflage, military vehicles, and generators.  To evaluate his supervisory responsibilities and related program management and oversight tasks which we find consumes about 30 percent of his work time the agency applied the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  The appellant does not disagree with his agency’s determination of the position’s title and series, nor its use of the grading criteria in the GEGSP and the GSSG, and we concur.  However, because we find that the appellant’s supervisory duties are graded significantly below the appellant’s personally performed work thus do not control the final grade of the position, we have only briefly discussed them in this decision.  Our evaluation by application of the grading criteria in both the GEGSP and GSSG follows.

Grade determination

Evaluation using the GEGSP

The GEGSP uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in the GEGSP 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 GEGSP.

The appellant disagrees with his agency’s assignment of Level 4-4 for Factor 4, Complexity; Level 5-4 for Factor 5, Scope and effect; Level b for Factor 7, Purpose of contacts; and Level 8-1 for Factor 8, Physical demands.  The appellant agrees with his agency’s assignment of Factor Level 1-7 for Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position; Level 2-4 for Factor 2, Supervisory controls; Level 3-4 for Factor 3, Guidelines; Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Personal contacts; and Level 9-1 for Factor 9, Work environment.  While we agree with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 1, 2, 6, and 9, we do not concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 3-4 for Factor 3, Guidelines.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

Factor 3, Guidelines

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

At Level 3-3, employees use guidelines that are agency policies and implementing directives, manuals, handbooks, supply regulations, and locally developed supplements to such guides, such as detailed work procedures and directives that supplement agency directions.  The guidelines are not always applicable to specific conditions or there are gaps in specificity when applying them to specific supply requirements.  This level also includes work situations in which the employee must interpret and apply a number of subject-matter policies and regulations such as those that apply to end use repair, replacement, and support requirements.  The employee uses judgment in interpreting, adapting, and applying guidelines where there is some overlap or conflict in the levels of support required, or other conditions requiring the employee to analyze and develop procedures within the intent of available guidelines.  The employee independently resolves gaps in specificity or conflicts in guidelines, consistent with stated supply program objectives.  The employee analyzes the applicability of guidelines to specific circumstances and proposes regulatory or procedural changes designed to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of supply controls.

At Level 3-4, guidelines consist of broad supply guidance such as directives issued by a national headquarters, general agency policy statements and objectives, interagency supply program policy proposals requiring refinement and coordination, or other guides that are not specific on how they are to be defined, implemented, and monitored at the employee's level.  Typically, departmental guidelines available to the employee at this level are purposely left open to some local interpretation.  They allow accommodation for local variations and remote environmental conditions that affect the nature of supply operations within overall policy direction.  Due to the lack of specificity, the guidelines are often insufficient to accomplish specific objectives.  At this level, the employee exercises a great deal of personal judgment and discretion with broad latitude for interpreting and applying guidelines across the organization.  Also included at this level is the interpretation and application of guidelines originating from more than one Federal agency or department which apply to supply programs and organizations involving joint operations.  The employee uses initiative and resourcefulness in researching and implementing new and improved supply methods and procedures within the employing organization; and/or establishes criteria to identify and analyze trends in supply programs and requirements.  Where guidelines for performing the work are scarce or of limited use, the employee develops guides to be followed by supply specialists at the same and lower levels in the organization.

Level 3-3 is met.  Similar to this level, the appellant uses agency policies, manuals, pamphlets, and supply regulations such as Army Regulation (AR) 710-2 and AR 735-5, pamphlet 710-2-1 concerning inventory management procedures, AR 750-1 material maintenance policy, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) procedures, Federal Acquisition Regulation 45 concerning Government property, Department of Defense instructions, and other Federal laws, rules, and regulations. Typical of Level 3-3, the appellant must use judgment to interpret, adapt, and apply a wide variety of specific regulatory and process requirements where there is some conflict requiring him to analyze and develop procedures within the intent of the guidelines.  He must resolve gaps in specificity or conflicts consistent with the stated program objectives.  The appellant works with contractors, the Contracting Office and/or other agency personnel to resolve Government Furnished Property or other logistical issues throughout the lifecycle of contracts at Fort Jackson.  For example, investigating loss of Government-owned property, accounting for contractor acquired property on the appropriate property book, and working with DCMA personnel to requisition and dispose of excess Government property located at contractor facilities through the Plant Clearance Automated Reutilization Screening System.

Level 3-4 is not met.  The appellant does not work within the very broad guidelines typical of Level 3-4, which provide a general outline of the concepts, methods, and goals of supply programs.  Like Level 3-3, he works within the intent of available guidelines that can be adapted to resolve specific supply/logistical issues.  In contrast, at Level 3-4 guidelines are often insufficient to accomplish specific objectives.  Unlike Level 3-4, the appellant does not regularly deal with interagency supply program policy proposals requiring refinement and coordination, or other guides requiring equivalent interpretation.  The appellant’s guidance to his serviced organizations on supply practices, regulations, policies, and instructions is not equivalent to developing guides to be followed by supply specialists at the same and lower levels in the organization found at Level 3-4.

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

Factor 4, Complexity

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

At Level 4-4, work consists of a variety of supply duties involving many different and unrelated processes and methods in well-established areas of supply planning and administration.  Typically, the work requires analysis and testing of a variety of established techniques and methods to evaluate alternatives and arrive at decisions, conclusions, or recommendations.  Programs and projects may be funded by, or under the cognizance of different organizations with differing supply requirements or variations in ability to fund acquisitions or system implementation.  Requirements to follow established supply policies, practices, procedures, and techniques may have to be varied for a number of locations or situations to assure compatibility with existing systems and demands on available resources.  An illustration of work at this level provided in the GEGSP is performing or leading inventory control work involving attending meetings and speaking for the organization at various conferences; establishing lead times for ordering and staging material; and tracking and adjusting inventory levels for major systems such as aircraft, military vehicles; and a class of office equipment such as desk top computers or others requiring support in terms of availability, spare parts, and/or service for a variety of customers.  In deciding what is to be done, the employee typically assesses situations complicated by conflicting or insufficient data.  Information must be analyzed to determine the applicability of established methods, the need to digress from normal methods and techniques, the need to waive prescribed standards, and/or whether specific kinds of waivers can be justified.  The employee plans the work, develops recommendations, and refines the methods and techniques to be used. The employee takes actions involving (1) the interpretation of considerable data; (2) application of established supply methods, equipment, techniques, and objectives to a variety of situations; and (3) variations in the level of supply support required.

At Level 4-5, work involves various projects, studies, or evaluations requiring the application of many different and unrelated processes, differing regulatory criteria and procedures, and significant departures from established practices.  Employees make decisions, or develop and implement new methods and techniques, that satisfy broad policy and technical requirements.  At this level employees make recommendations for changes in basic policy issuances and implementing instructions covering established supply techniques, practices, and methods based on personal analysis of very general policy directives and objectives.  Examples of work at this level includes interpreting and implementing new directives for subordinate organizations; evaluating the efficiency of supply programs involving customer services covering a wide span of supply and acquisition processes and procedures; and analyzing and evaluating the adequacy of automated supply systems to identify needs for system improvements in the input, flow, output, and uses of data used in supply management programs in a centralized supply records and information support activity.  Decisions regarding what needs to be done are complicated by the number and nature of existing supply programs, regulatory guidance, overlapping requirements, or distinct local, environmental, or other considerations that have an impact on the ability to apply established methods.  Employees must consider the total range of existing policies, procedures, laws, and regulations.  Typically, there are conflicting requirements; problems that are poorly defined or require projections based on variable information or technological development; or some degree of change that must be anticipated in mission requirements, related supply systems, or funding requirements.  The work involves originating new supply techniques, establishing criteria, developing new information and approaches to problem solutions, and/or developing and interpreting broad supply policies and regulations.

Level 4-4 is met.  Like this level, the appellant’s assignments consist of a variety of supply and related duties involving many different and unrelated processes and methods in well-established areas of supply planning and administration.  The work requires analyzing and testing a variety of established techniques and methods to evaluate alternatives and arrive at decisions, conclusions, or recommendations, e.g., reviewing purchase request forms and approving requests for authorized equipment and materials; discussing and recommending to higher level managers the actions needed to address excess property (disposal, reuse or recycling) at Fort Jackson; and , researching and recommending equipment to use in lieu of or as a substitute, and reviewing equipment usage hours, repair, and maintenance records and recommending when to replace equipment.  As at Level 4-4, the appellant varies established supply policies, practices, procedures, and techniques to specific supply requirements and repair situations depending on the mission and activities of the units supported.  For example, the appellant revised supply policies and procedures after the Fort Jackson maintenance facility received authorization from the U.S. Army Material Command to perform depot-level maintenance on M4A1 rifles that resulted in a deviation from DA policy.  Similar to Level 4-4, he developed a cost-benefit analysis showing savings in the amount of money and time if the maintenance was performed on base versus sending the unserviceable rifles to the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, where depot-level maintenance is usually performed for DA installations.  The appellant’s analysis was used to support Fort Jackson’s request for an exception to policy.  Comparable to the Level 4-4 work example, the appellant performs inventory work for various classes of supplies briefing unit representatives on inventory levels and adjustments, tracks current inventory to identify shortages for major system components (e.g., military vehicles), and keeps abreast on the availability of spare parts and repair services. 

Level 4-5 is not met.  Unlike Level 4-5, the appellant’s work products do not reflect decisions on, or the development and implementation of, new methods and techniques that satisfy broad policy and technical requirements.  While the appellant makes his serviced organizations aware of additions to, or changes in, national or agency policies and programs, he does not provide the breadth and depth of interpretation or guidance found at Level 4-5.  His work is complicated by the number and nature of supply regulatory guidance, overlapping requirements, and need for improved efficiency and effectiveness.  However, unlike Level 4-5, the work does not involve originating new supply techniques, establishing supply criteria, or developing and interpreting broad supply policies and regulations.  These are functions vested in higher level positions in the appellant’s agency and other agencies.  The appellant’s work supporting his serviced organizations (e.g., approving purchase requests for authorized property and clarifying DA and unit funded purchase requirements to new supervisors or unit commanders) is not equivalent to Level 4-5 projects, studies, or evaluations requiring the application of many and unrelated processes, differing regulatory criteria and procedures, and significant departures from established practices.  The appellant believes the M4A1 rifle project example, as discussed previously, meets this level.  Although his work on this project shows the appellant contributed toward Fort Jackson being authorized a deviation from DA policy, it is not a function performed by him on a regular and recurring basis, as required for purposes of classification.  Therefore, it does not impact the evaluation of this factor.

This factor is credited at Level 4-4 and 225 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

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

At Level 5-3, the work involves resolving a variety of conventional supply problems, questions, or situations. The employee monitors established supply systems and programs, or an assigned block of activities in one of the technical supply areas, performs independent reviews, and/or recommends actions involving well-established criteria, methods, techniques, and procedures.  The employee's work products, advice, and assistance affect the efficiency of established supply operations or specialized programs and contribute to the effectiveness of newly introduced programs requiring supply support.  The effect of the work is primarily local in nature, although some programs may be part of multi-facility or nationwide program operations with interlocking supply requirements. 

At Level 5-4 the work involves investigating and analyzing a variety of unusual supply problems, questions, or conditions associated with general questions about supply programs or operations, formulating projects or studies to substantially alter existing supply systems, or establishing criteria in an assigned area of specialization.  The results of the work provide solutions to supply problems and questions.  Employees develop alternatives and options that are designed to meet requirements in a variety of physical and environmental circumstances.  The work effects supply system design, installation, and maintenance in a wide range of activities within the organization and/or in non-Government organizations.

At Level 5-5, the work involves planning, developing, and carrying out vital supply projects and programs which are central to the mission of the agency, typically having national or international impact.  Work on policy matters often involves establishing the agency's position on broad issues or working on national level committees and working groups to develop supply programs of importance to national programs in defense, economic, political, and other programs.  Typical of the work at this level is that of a project leader for a group which includes key representatives from other agencies or departments.  The employee's advice or guidance effect the development of major aspects of the supply program definition and administration throughout the agency.  Such work significantly effects the work methods to be applied by other supply specialists throughout the agency and, sometimes, in other agencies.  Recommendations and technical interpretations affect the level of funding required to meet program objectives in conducting major substantive or administrative programs or services.  Program and project proposals frequently cut across component or geographic lines within the agency, and may also affect the budgets, programs, and interests of other Federal agencies or organizations, or private industrial firms.

Level 5-3 is met.  Like this level, the appellant resolves a variety of conventional supply and related problems, questions, or situations.  He manages the property book for the U.S. Army Garrison, ATC, and LRC and plans, directs, and coordinates activities involving the receipt, inventory, storage, and distribution of individual equipment, construction and barrier material, and major end item supply classes.  For example, the appellant transfers property from losing to gaining installation unit commands, clarifies DA and unit funded purchase requirements, replenishes supplies and inventories newly received equipment and materials and stores the property in the IPBB warehouse until issuance.  He also explains property book requirements, procedures, and policies to newly assigned unit commanders/organization supervisors and discusses and recommends the reuse or disposal of excess property.  Similar to this level, he recommends solutions to problems impacting his serviced organizations.  For example, the appellant was aware of the problem organizations were having transporting recruits between training sites in a timely manner and wanted to locate the best replacement for the aging leased passenger buses.  Working in conjunction with the LRC Transportation Office (TO), the appellant researched higher capacity and more efficient vehicles and they found an acceptable replacement (i.e., troop carriers).  He developed a cost-benefit analysis, which evaluated the cost of operating the troop carriers versus the leased buses.  The data analysis the appellant provided to the LRC TO was forwarded through higher level DA officials and he participated in numerous meetings throughout the DA approval process for replacing leased passenger buses with troop carriers.  As at Level 5-3, his work products, advice, and assistance affect the efficiency of established supply operations at the local installation, contribute to the implementation of newly introduced supply procedures for various supply classes, and the ability of his serviced organizations to execute and meet their missions.

Level 5-4 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant does not investigate and analyze unusual program problems, formulate projects or studies to substantially alter existing supply program systems, nor deals with equivalent broad program issues.  Instead, like Level 5-3, he works within the existing local supply system.  While he may uncover potential program trends as he reviews his serviced organizations’ application of supply program regulations and procedures, higher-level DA officials are responsible for those broader program analysis and development functions.  The appellant’s work also does not affect supply system design, installation, and maintenance in a wide range of activities within the organization and/or in non-Government organizations as intended at Level 5-4.

Level 5-5 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not involve planning, developing, and carrying out supply projects and programs central to the agency’s mission.  His work does not involve establishing the agency’s position on broad issues, nor working on national level committees and working groups to develop supply programs.  In contrast to Level 5-5, the appellant’s advice, guidance, and work products do not affect the development of major aspects of supply program administration agency wide.  The appellant believes the troop carrier project example, as discussed previously, supports this level.  However, his contribution to the project involved finding higher capacity/efficient vehicles to transport U.S. Army recruits more efficiently from one training site to another.  It did not extend to developing supply programs at the agency level.  Like Level 5-3, this project affected Fort Jackson’s ability to effectively meet its Basic Combat Training mission.

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

Factor 7, Purpose of contacts

Levels described under Factor 6, Personal Contacts, and Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts, are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.  These factors are interdependent.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the chart for Factors 6 and 7 in the GEGSP.

At Level 7-b the purpose of contacts is to plan, coordinate work, or advise on efforts and resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals and who have basically cooperative attitudes.

At Level 7-c, the purpose of contacts is to influence, motivate, interrogate, or control persons or groups.  At this level, persons contacted may be fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative.  Therefore, the employee must be skillful in approaching the individual or group in order to obtain the desired effect, such as gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion or negotiation.

Level 7-b is met.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s work is to plan and coordinate work efforts and resolve operating problems by influencing individuals or groups engaged in supply functions who have basically cooperative attitudes.  The appellant makes contacts to inform or obtain information on DA’s supply program; discuss problems; clarify the technical content of various supply regulations, instructions, and requirements; clarify DA and unit funded purchase requirements; organize and conduct meetings; provide updates on supply issues including equipment repairs or purchases; and establish rapport for effective communication with key personnel involved in the supply program at Fort Jackson.

Level 7-c is not met.  Unlike this level, the purpose of the appellant’s work contacts is not to influence or persuade persons or groups who may be skeptical or uncooperative.  While some disagreements may occur regarding property on an organization’s hand receipt being unaccounted for or transferring property not included on the hand receipt, the appellant identifies the regulations and procedures for resolving the problems and exercises skill in persuading and influencing contacts to accept the established local supply program methods and practices.  Contrary to Level 7-c, in most cases those contacted are working toward mutual goals and have cooperative attitudes.

Based on application of the chart in the GEGSP, a combination of Level 6-3 and 7-b equates to a total of 110 points assigned.

Factor 8, Physical demands

This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment.

At Level 8-1, the work is sedentary and is usually accomplished while the employee is comfortably seated at a desk or table.  Some walking and standing may occur in the course of a normal workday in connection with attendance at meetings and conferences, or while researching files.  Items carried typically are light objects such as briefcases, notebooks, and data processing reports.  Lifting of moderately heavy objects is not normally required.  No special physical effort is required to perform the work.

At Level 8-2, the work requires regular and recurring physical exertion, such as long periods of standing, walking, bending, stooping, reaching, and similar activities in and around storage areas.

The appellant’s position exceeds Level 8-1 and meets Level 8-2.  Like Level 8-2, his work regularly requires long periods of standing, walking, bending, stooping, and reaching.  For example, when taking inventory of newly received equipment and materials for his serviced organizations the appellant and his staff open each box and verify the serial number, item description, and other information against vendor listings.  After completion, the boxes are closed and placed on their warehouse shelves until issued to the purchasing organization.

This factor is credited at Level 8-2 and 20 points are assigned.

Summary evaluation of personally performed duties

Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-7	1250
2. Supervisory controls	2-4	450
3. Guidelines	3-3	275
4. Complexity	4-4	225
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	3b	110
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-1	5
Total		2485

The total of 2485 points falls within the GS-11 range (2355-2750) on the grade conversion table in the GEGSP.  Therefore, the appellant’s nonsupervisory duties are graded at the GS-11 level. 

Evaluation using the GSSG

The GSSG is used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in grades GS-05 through GS-15.  The GSSG employs a factor-point evaluation method that assesses six factors common to all supervisory positions.  To grade a position, each factor is evaluated by comparing the position to the factor-level description for that factor and crediting the points designated for the highest factor level which is fully met, in accordance with the instructions specific to the factor being evaluated.  The total points assessed under all factors are then converted to a grade by using the grade conversion table in the GSSG.  The appellant did not contest the factor levels assigned by his agency for his supervisory duties:  Levels 1-2, 2-1, 3-2c, 4A-2 and 4B-2, 5-3, and 6-1.  After careful review of the record, we concur with the levels assigned by the agency but have a comment on its assignment of the level for Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed, and have credited the position as follows:

Summary evaluation of supervisory duties

Factors	Level	Points
1. Program scope and effect	1-2	350
2. Organizational setting	2-1	100
3. Supervisory/managerial authority authorized	3-2c	450
4. Personal contacts
Nature of contacts	4A-2	50
Purpose of contacts	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of typical work directed	5-3	340
6. Other conditions	6-1	310
Total		1675

The total of 1675 points fall within the GS-08 range (1605 to 1850) on the point-to-grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.

As stated above, we concur with the levels assigned by the agency.  However, when assigning Level 5-3 for Factor 5 (Difficulty of typical work directed), the agency did not consider the General Supply Specialist, GS-2001-09 position in its base level determination, which we address below. 

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.  This includes work of lower-level positions that primarily support or facilitate the basic work of the unit; any subordinate work graded based on criteria in the GSSG or the General Schedule Leader Grade-Evaluation Guide; work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision, or personal research accomplishments; and work for which the supervisor or a subordinate does not have the responsibilities defined under Factor 3.

Like Level 5-3, the agency concluded the highest level of nonsupervisory mission-oriented work performed in the appellant’s organization, and which constitutes 25 percent or more of the IPBB’s workload, is at or above the GS-05 but does not exceed the GS-06 level.  We reviewed the duties described in the GS-2001-09 PD with the appellant’s immediate supervisor and it appears to overstate the actual duties performed.  The GS-2001 series includes positions involving (1) a combination of supply work covered by two or more two-grade interval series in the Supply Group when no other series is appropriate for the paramount knowledge and abilities required for the position; or (2) other analytical or administrative supply work not specifically covered by another series.  Specialized supply work includes line, staff, and analytical work in one of the fields of distribution facilities and storage management, inventory management, packaging, and cataloging.  Related activities include such areas as supply program management, procurement, and data processing in support of supply operations. 

Classification guidance in the Introduction and The Classifier's Handbook describes distinctions between positions properly classified in two-grade interval administrative series and positions classified in one-grade interval support series.  Administrative positions (two-grade interval) are involved in work primarily requiring a high order of analytical ability.  This ability is combined with a comprehensive knowledge of (1) the functions, processes, theories, and principles of management and (2) the methods used to gather, analyze, and evaluate information.  Administrative positions are involved with analyzing, evaluating, modifying, and developing the basic programs, policies, and procedures that facilitate the work of Federal agencies and programs.  In contrast, support positions (one-grade interval) perform work that follows established methods, procedures, and guidelines and may require a high degree of technical skill, care, and precision.  The work can be performed based on a practical knowledge of the purpose, operation, procedures, techniques, and guidelines of the specific program area or functional assignments.  Support personnel typically learn to do the work on-the-job and also may attend specific training courses related to their work.

The GS-09 position does not involve work that is administrative, two-grade interval in nature. Although the employee assigned to this position performs a variety of general administrative and supply/logistical related support functions, those duties are not characteristic of work in two or more two-grade interval series in the Supply Group and do not require a high order of analytical ability, a comprehensive knowledge of management principles and theories, or knowledge of the methods and techniques to gather, analyze, and evaluate information.  Like assistance work, the position’s duties involve performing technical tasks to support the administration or operation of the programs of his organizational unit.  It requires a working knowledge of the work processes and procedures of an administrative area and the mission and operational requirements of an organizational unit.  Supply technicians (GS-2005) generally follow established methods and procedures and are primarily concerned with the application of guidelines to specific supply problems or situations.  For example, the incumbent runs reports in the GCSS-A and compares the data against serviced organization’s equipment and materials authorizations for accuracy.  He reviews technical manuals to ensure the TDA provides a complete listing of all the components required for pieces of equipment.  He responds to questions and gathers requested information for higher level managers when the appellant is unavailable.  While the incumbent may perform some of the same work tasks as a supply specialist, similar to a supply technician the work is performed based on practical experience and familiarity with the unit’s supply operations and relevant supply regulations, policies, and procedures.  He also assists (e.g., answering technical supply/logistical questions) the IPBB GS-05 and GS-06 positions.  Therefore, based on our interview with the appellant’s immediate supervisor and general comparison to the grading criteria in the PCS for the Supply Clerical and Technician Series, GS-2005, it appears the position would not exceed the credited GS-06 grade level but we recommend the agency review the accuracy of the PD and determine the proper classification of the position.

Summary

The appellant’s personally performed duties are evaluated at the GS-11 level and his supervisory duties are evaluated at the GS-08 level.  Therefore, by application of mixed grade principles the final grade of his position is GS-11.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Supervisory Supply Management Specialist, GS-2003-11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top