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

Introduction

On October 25, 2013, the Chicago Oversight Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) accepted a classification appeal from Mr. Kenneth E. Hanlon.  The appellant's position is currently classified as Lead IT Specialist, Operating Systems/Multiple Virtual Storage (OS/MVS) Specialist, GS-2210-13, assigned to Information and Security Services (ISS), Division of Platform Services, Mainframe Services Branch, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury), in Parkersburg, West Virginia.  He believed his position should be classified as Lead IT Specialist (OS/MVS) Specialist, GS-2210-15.  We received the agency's complete administrative report on November 25, 2013, and have accepted and decided this appeal under section 51 12 of title 5, United States Code.

To help decide this appeal, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellant on October 7, 2014, and an interview with the supervisor on October 20, 2014.  We also conducted several subsequent interviews with either the appellant or his supervisor, as well as a combined interview with both the appellant and his supervisor, on July 22, 2015.  In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information gained through the interviews, as well as all other information of record submitted by the appellant and his agency.

Background

In May 2012, several IT positions were moved as a part of a planned consolidation of the Financial Management Service (FMS) and Bureau of Public Debt into BFS.  As a result, two non-leader GS-2210-13 and two non-leader GS-2210-14 employees were assigned to the BFS team led by the appellant under position description (PD) #05P755-A.  However, Treasury did not perform a classification review at the time of the merger to determine the possible impact of the additional GS-13s and GS-14s on the appellant's position.  Over time, the BFS team experienced organizational and personnel changes and, currently, neither of the reassigned GS-2210-13 and only one GS-2210-14 employees remain on the appellant's team. 

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about the grades of former team members, as well as higher-graded employees who may someday be assigned to his team. He compares his grade to those of similar positions both inside and outside his agency and cites the high volume of work for which he and his work group are responsible.

By law, OPM must classify positions solely by comparing their duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant's position to others as a basis for deciding the appeal.  In addition, volume of work cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier's Handbook, Chapter 5).

An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  Therefore, this decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant.  Thus, we have considered the appellant's statements only insofar as they are relevant to comparison to OPM standards and guidelines.

Both the appellant and his supervisor attest to the accuracy of the appellant's PD of record. However, our review found that the appellant's PD does not accurately address the scope of his leader duties associated with the GS-14 team member within his work group.  We also found that the PD’s description of supervision received by the appellant is inaccurate in that he receives more than just administrative direction from his supervisor.  Thus, the appellant's PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages I 0-11 of the Introduction.  Therefore, the appellant's agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

Position information

BFS is a bureau-level organization within Treasury.  ISS is a service within BFS which is responsible for providing IT technical services, support, and advice and coordinating support and services within the bureau, as well as for coordinating BFS services within BFS, Treasury, and other Federal agencies.

The appellant functions as a technical expert (TE) and computer systems programmer within ISS.  He spends approximately 20 hours each week performing the full range of lT technical work associated with planning, developing, and implementing hardware and software projects and processes for Fiscal Service to support BFS mainframe operating systems (MOS) and mainframe security (MS).  He provides advice and guidance to management and customers regarding MOS issues and processes, both inside and outside BFS, and coordinates and integrates BFS MOS with operating systems of other agencies.  He works with management, application programmers, contractors, technical support personnel, and customers to identify and resolve MOS and MS hardware and software issues and problems.  The appellant independently manages the daily operations of the mainframe and is delegated authority by his supervisor to respond to mainframe-related emergencies in order to maintain the security, reliability, and operability of BFS MOS.

The appellant develops Plans of Action and Milestones (POAMs) for long-term and short-term projects and outlines the goals and objectives for projects and assignments he identifies or receives from his supervisor.  The appellant familiarizes himself with aspects of projects, such as materials, staff-hours, funding for hardware, software, and personnel, and work groups associated with the projects (i.e., specialists, technicians, manufacturers' representatives, contractors, customers, etc.).  He then conducts a cost/benefit analysis, decides on the most appropriate course of action, establishes a realistic timeframe for completion of the project, and provides his supervisor with regular updates and reports.  Unusually difficult, expensive, or controversial projects or processes which may have a significant impact on BFS or Treasury require the appellant to follow the governance process.  This process requires the appellant to identify and describe specific lines of business and systems which will be affected by the proposed project, problem(s) to be solved by its implementation, support required to complete the project, possible benefits from the investment of time and resources; consider and report any regulatory requirements; and provide staff-hour and work assignment details and metrics for measuring how successful the project has been, the required implementation date for the new product or process, and an estimate of internal and external users who would be affected by the new product or process.  He submits his proposal to his supervisor, who reviews the proposal to ensure it meets all requirements.  His supervisor then forwards the proposal to upper-level management for additional review, consideration, and final authorization.

The appellant conducts studies related to alternative MOS and MS software design, creates reports on systems viability, develops plans and specifications for implementation of day-to-day projects and remedies, reviews the goals and needs of bureau and agency customers, and assists them with development, modification, and integration of software for MOS and MS.  He provides expert advice to management regarding the development of MOS and MS standard operating procedures (SOP) and provides input on current and proposed BFS and Treasury policies when asked.

He advises his peers, supervisor, bureau and agency management, and customers on new developments and techniques associated with MOS and MS.  He plans, organizes, and directs long and short-range operability and usage studies and forecasts MOS and MS trends and issues. He provides recommendations to management and customers on the technical feasibility of incorporating new automated processes into the current MOS, performs modifications of new hardware and software when integrating them into existing operating systems, and weighs the possible benefits of using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and software rather than custom-designing hardware and software for the same applications.  Although he is not a software designer, he works with software companies, providing input and recommendations regarding new software they are designing for the BFS MOS.

The appellant analyzes lists of computer memory for specific points in time to help determine the causes of software failures (i.e., dumps) and reviews logs of system activity containing system management, security audits, and event data of MOS and utility routines and systems processors (i.e. listings) to locate errors and develop and apply corrections and modifications to MOS systems and software as needed.  He performs systems generations of operating systems and processors (i.e., installation, configuration, and customization of the MOS as well as determining and designing hardware configurations); writes special diagnostic routines; inserts system utility programs that can be used for management of data, as well as system installation, maintenance, diagnosis, and problem determination (i.e., aids); and develops and installs programs which record a variety of system and program events (i.e., traces) as needed.  He identifies milestones to be reached within a work assignment or project and deliverables for larger projects.  Although the appellant recognizes the existence of outdated technical information and processes, he relies on a variety of current Federal, BFS, and ISS policies, SOPs, and guidance when responding to emergent and day-to-day MOS and MS issues.  He follows the data call process for complex issues that require coordination and cooperation with other MOS IT specialists, as well as other IT specialty areas, and uses discovery software and processes to identify and locate individual pieces of IT hardware.

The appellant spends approximately 20 hours each week leading a team of ISS GS-2210 IT specialists in accomplishing work associated with BFS MOS and MS.  He ensures the organization's strategic plan, mission, vision, and values are communicated to the team and integrated into team strategies, goals, objectives, work plans, products, and services.  The appellant communicates assignments, projects, problems, actionable events, milestones, program issues, and timeframes for completion to his team.  He coaches his team members in the selection and application of appropriate problem solving methods and techniques associated with assigned projects, provides advice on technical work methods and procedures, and assists the team in identifying viable solutions for a variety of hardware and software issues and situations.

The appellant identifies, distributes, and balances the existing workload and tasks among team members according to established workflow, skill level, and occupational specialization, makes adjustments to accomplish the workload in accordance with established priorities in a timely manner, and ensures each employee plays an integral role in developing the final team product. He provides or arranges training for team members in methods and techniques of team building and working together to accomplish tasks and projects, and provides or arranges administrative and technical training necessary for accomplishing both individual and team tasks.

The appellant monitors and reports on the status and progress of work performed by subordinates, checks on the work of individuals and groups in progress, and reviews completed work to ensure that priorities, methods, deadlines, and levels of quality established by the supervisor have been met.  He coaches, facilitates, and negotiates when coordinating team initiatives or building consensus among team members, and represents the ISS team when dealing with managers and supervisors to obtain resources (i.e., computer hardware and software, overtime, compensatory time, etc.), decisions, and information on work-related issues and problems.

The appellant reports team and individual work accomplishments, problems, work progress, and individual and team needs to his supervisor. He also represents the team consensus and conveys team findings and recommendations in meetings with other teams, program officials, the public, and other customers on issues impacting team objectives, tasks, and work products. He provides estimates on tasks, projects, and milestones to the team, establishes deadlines for completion, and ensures all team members are aware of and participate in planning and achieving set objectives.  He researches, learns, and applies qualitative and quantitative methods to identify, assess, analyze, and improve team effectiveness, efficiency, and work products, assesses team strengths and weaknesses, and leads the team in exploring alternatives and possible improvements to work methods, process, procedures, etc.

He exercises authority to approve up to three days of emergency leave, up to eight hours leave for medical appointments, and other periods of leave for team members as per policy, SOP, and supervisory approval.  He resolves simple, informal team member complaints and communicates with team members and his supervisor on actions affecting both individual and team awards, rewards, and recognition.  He intercedes for the team when informing the supervisor of performance management issues and problems, makes recommendations, and requests actions such as:  assignments, reassignments, promotions, tour-of-duty changes, peer reviews, and performance appraisals.  He also provides technical guidance and instruction to lower-graded computer systems programmers and assists the branch manager with a variety of personnel development processes and procedures within ISS.

Series, title, and standard determination

The appellant's agency placed his work in the GS-2210 Information Technology Management Series and titled it Lead Information Technology Specialist (OS/MVS Specialist) based on application of the GS-2200 Job Family Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Information Technology Group and application of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide GSLGEG, Part IL  After a careful review of the record, we find the position is properly allocated as Lead Information Technology Specialist, GS-2210.  However "MVS" and "Specialist" may not be included since they are not approved parenthetical titles in the GS-2200 JFS.  "MVS" work is fully encompassed in, and covered by, the approved Operations Specialist (OS) parenthetical title, and "Specialist" is covered in the basic title. Therefore, the appellant's work is appropriately titled "Lead IT Specialist (OS)".

Grade determination

The agency compared the appellant's technical work to the GS-2200 JFS and credited the non­leader work of the position as GS-13.  However, the PD evaluation provided by the agency failed to show how they graded each factor.  After a careful review of actual non-leader work assigned to, and performed by the appellant, we disagree with the grade credited to the non-leader work.

Evaluation using the GS-2200 JFS

The 2200 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES) which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in a standard or guide 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 JFS.

Factor I, 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 1-7, employees have knowledge of, and skill in, applying most of the following common requirements:  IT concepts, principles, methods, and practices; the mission and programs of customer organizations; the organization's IT infrastructure; performance management/measurement methods, tools, and techniques; systems testing and evaluation principles, methods, and tools; IT security principles and methods; requirement analysis principles and methods; COTS products and components; Internet technologies to analyze the Internet potential of systems, networks, and data; new and emerging information technologies and/or industry trends; acquisition management policies and procedures; cost-benefit analysis principles and methods; analytical methods and practices; project management principles and methods; and oral and written communication techniques.  Work illustrations one, two, and three in the JFS at Level 1-7 for employees specializing in OS include knowledge and skill in  operating systems principles and methods; life cycle management concepts; IT infrastructure; IT security principles and methods; systems testing; evaluation principles and methods; troubleshooting procedures; and performance management and measurement methods of the operating environment.

This knowledge must be sufficient to plan and carry out difficult and complex assignments and develop new methods, approaches, and procedures; provide advice and guidance on a wide range and variety of complex IT issues; interpret IT policies, standards, and guidelines; conduct analyses and recommend resolutions of complex issues affecting the specialty area; evaluate and recommend adoption of new or enhanced approaches to delivering IT services; test and optimize the functionality of systems, networks, and data; identify and define business or technical requirements applied to the design, development, implementation, management, and support of systems and networks; ensure optimal use of commercially available products; evaluate proposals for the acquisition of IT products or services; prepare and present reports; represent the organization in interactions with other organizations; and provide technical leadership on group projects.  Employees applying OS knowledge at Level 1-7 in JFS illustrations one, two, and three install, configure, test, and implement vendor supplied modifications to existing systems  software; develop and evaluate test data to validate program modifications; migrate modifications into production systems; monitor systems performance data; make appropriate systems tuning adjustments to optimize performance and correct and prevent problems sufficient to consult with applications developers to determine the effect on end user applications resulting from changes to the operating environment; e.g., new software or hardware installations.

At Level 1-8, common requirements involve mastery of and skill in applying advanced IT principles, concepts, methods, standards, and practices sufficient to accomplish assignments such as:  developing and interpreting policies, procedures, and strategies governing the planning and delivery of services throughout the agency; providing expert technical advice, guidance, and recommendations to management and other technical specialists on critical IT issues; applying new developments to previously unsolvable problems; and making decisions or recommendations that significantly influence important agency IT policies or programs.  This level also requires mastery of and skill in applying most of the following:  inter-relationships of multiple IT specialties; the agency's IT architecture; new IT developments and applications; emerging technologies and their applications to business processes; IT security concepts, standards, and methods; project management principles, methods, and practices including developing plans and schedules, estimating resource requirements, defining milestones and deliverables, and monitoring activities; evaluating and reporting on accomplishments; and oral and written communication techniques.  JFS work illustrations one, two, and three at Level 1-8 for employees specializing in OS include a mastery of, and skill in applying, systems engineering concepts; applying the inter-relationships of multiple IT disciplines; operating systems theories and concepts; project management principles, methods, and practices; Internet technologies; and the operating environment.  This knowledge must be sufficient to:  accomplish assignments such as ensuring the integration of IT programs and services; developing solutions to integration/interoperability issues; designing, developing, and managing systems that meet current and future business requirements and applying and extending, enhancing, or optimizing the existing architecture; managing assigned projects; communicating complex technical requirements to non-technical personnel; preparing and presenting briefings to senior management officials on complex/controversial issues.  Employees applying OS knowledge at Level 1-7 in JFS illustrations one, two, and three provide authoritative advice to other specialists in areas such as disaster recovery, capacity planning, applications development, hardware strategy, and operating systems security; develop and implement agency guidelines; lead a major operating systems project, such as installation of new operating environments or implementation of new operating systems patches, upgrades, and releases; consult with developers or vendors in defining requirements and identifying integration issues; oversee installation, customization, testing, and implementation of the operating environment; work with vendor software engineers to correct problems and enhance performance; evaluate the impact of new and proposed applications on the operating environment; and recommend changes to ensure the functionality and stability of the operating environment.

Level 1-7 is met.  As a TE and computer systems programmer for MOS and MS for BFS, he spends 50 percent of his time per week identifying, planning, and carrying out difficult and complex assignments associated with BFS MOS and MS, providing advice and guidance concerning complex IT hardware and software issues associated with the mainframe, and meeting the needs of BFS mainframe users in a variety of ways, such as:  providing Support Fiscal Service Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity requirements for all applications executing on the BFS mainframe; analyzing hardware, software, and service requirements of business functions at both the inception and decommission phases of the application; providing system and application automation and workload scheduling capability for IT application processes and workloads that comprise specific supported business functions; and providing ongoing support to satisfy Federal Information Security Management Act audit requirements for the 31 business functions implemented in the mainframe environment.  He reviews individual components of BFS MOS and designs and implements process improvements.  Some examples of individual component reviews are:  designing and implementing compliance monitoring of privileged programs, which help maintain privileged programs at a known and consistent state; Tivoli Asset Discovery for compliance monitoring of software inventory, which tracks the use of 225+ pieces of IBM and third-party software running the MOS environment; and the CorreLog Agent used to run the required enterprise logging function for BFS MOS.

Like Level 1-7 specialists, the appellant reads a variety of IT technical publications, discusses new developments in MOS and MS hardware and software with other professionals in his field, and recognizes the potential attributes of emerging technology.  The appellant develops POAMs for long-term and short-term projects, makes recommendations for purchase and integration of specific software and hardware, and provides a cost/benefit analysis associated with procurement, integration, and maintenance of MOS and MS hardware and software.  Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant uses oral and written communication skills to provide scheduled and unscheduled reports and updates regarding ongoing projects and initiatives, and communicates difficult technical concepts and issues related to MOS and MS to a variety of groups and individuals, such as:  IT specialists inside and outside DOT, BFS and ISS; manufacturers' representatives; contractors currently performing work and those coordinating with the appellant on possible project proposals; and internal and external customers.  Additionally, the appellant applies substantial technical knowledge and skill to manage and maintain MOS and associated security. In consultation with other IT technical professionals, he adapts and incorporates techniques, methods, procedures, and practices to expand the effectiveness of his program area.

Level 1-8 is not met.  Although the appellant possesses knowledge of the concepts, principles, methods, and practices of IT issues, and is considered an MOS and MS technical expert, his position is not regularly responsible for developing and interpreting policies, procedures, and strategies governing the planning and delivery of services throughout the agency.  Instead, his position is primarily concerned with maintaining, upgrading, and providing IT support for BFS's MOS and MS.  He is not directly responsible for making decisions or recommendations that significantly influence broad or critical agency-wide IT policies or programs; making decisions or recommendations significantly changing, interpreting, or developing important public policies or programs; or applying experimental theories and/or new developments to problems not susceptible to treatment by accepted methods, as described at Level 1-8. This level of responsibility is vested in agency-level employees, rather than in the appellant's operating-level position.

At Level 1-8, specialists are expected to provide expert technical advice, guidance, and recommendations to management and other technical specialists concerning the design, planning, and delivery of a wide range of IT services (i.e., multiple IT specialties).  They are also expected to possess a mastery of and skill in applying the agency's overall IT architecture; the application of systems engineering concepts and methods; and use of software design theories and concepts for multiple IT specialties.  The appellant's work within MOS, MS, and his coordination and integration of MOS and MS with associated systems, both inside and outside BFS, do not meet the broader objectives and responsibilities faced by employees who are administratively and technically responsible for managing an agency-level IT architecture, which consists of developing major components of the architecture plan including strategic drivers (i.e., forces that shape the organization), and developing current and target architectures, the sequencing plan, architectural segments, and reference models and associated standards sufficient to plan and coordinate the installation, configuration, maintenance, and upgrade of enterprise software and related enterprise-level changes to the IT infrastructure.

Although the appellant outlines operating and functional parameters for the design of specific programs, and works closely with contractors developing new programs for MOS, the primary responsibility for the creation of new software rests with the contractor.  Additionally, the record does not indicate the appellant has responsibility for using systems engineering concepts and methods to design, modify, or integrate agency-wide IT systems.  Since the appellant's work is bureau-level (i.e., BFS) and is almost exclusively focused on MOS and MS, the design, planning, delivery, architecture, and systems engineering aspects of his position are narrower in scope than that expected of a Level 1-8 specialist.

Level 1-8 specialists perform proactive research to discover, analyze, and recommend the use of new and emerging developments in IT hardware and software technology and processes for multiple IT specialty areas, and their recommendations are made to update programs, processes, and advise agency-level managers.  However, the appellant's technological research is typically related to ongoing tasks or specific situations (i.e., systems operability concerns, new projects and assignments, emergent issues, etc.) and consists of reviewing periodicals, technical manuals, or discussing issues, remedies, and techniques with peers, contractors, and technical representatives of commercial hardware and software companies as they arise or as projects are assigned (i.e., needs-based).  This type of needs-based research tends to be sporadic unlike research performed by the Level 1-8 specialist which, although it ultimately serves a practical purpose, also involves an element of on-going, proactive research designed to keep abreast of all new and innovative IT techniques, processes, and technology for the purpose of providing flexible, reliable service to customers.  The appellant's work does not entail the breadth or scope of research expected of a Level 1-8 specialist.

Level 1-7 is credited for 1250 points.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers the nature and the extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee's responsibility, and the review of completed work.  The supervisor exercises controls in the way assignments are made, instructions are given to the employee, priorities and deadlines are set, and objectives are defined.  The degree of employee responsibility depends upon the extent to which the employee is expected to work independently, as instructed, and their use of initiative in the performance of routine assignments.

At Level 2-4, supervisors outline overall objectives and available resources. The employee and supervisor, in consultation, discuss timeframes, scope of the assignment including possible stages, and possible approaches.  The employee determines the most appropriate principles, practices, and methods to apply in all phases of assignments, including the approach to be taken, degree of intensity, and depth of research in management advisories; frequently interprets regulations on his/her own initiative; applies new methods to resolve complex and/or intricate, controversial, or unprecedented issues and problems; resolves most of the conflicts that arise; and keeps the supervisor informed of progress and of potentially controversial matters.  The supervisor reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach, effectiveness in meeting requirements or producing expected results, the feasibility of recommendations, and adherence to requirements. The supervisor does not usually review methods used.

At Level 2-5, supervisors provide administrative and policy direction in terms of broadly defined missions or functions of the agency.  The employee is responsible for a significant agency or equivalent level IT program or function; defines objectives; interprets policies promulgated by authorities senior to the immediate supervisor and determines their effect on program needs; independently plans, designs, and carries out the work to be done; and serves as a technical authority.  The supervisor reviews work for potential impact on broad agency policy objectives and program goals, normally accepts work as being technically authoritative, and normally accepts work without significant change.

Level 2-4 is met.  Like Level 2-4, the appellant's supervisor identifies objectives, assigns work, sets project goals and parameters, monitors progress, and requests updates.  Although the appellant may independently identify issues and needs directly associated with MOS and MS, react to these appropriately within established protocol and guidance, and prioritize his assignments and determine the most appropriate course of action on day-to-day work, his supervisor is ultimately responsible for determining the primary focus of the appellant's work. Similar to Level 2-4, the appellant determines the most appropriate principles, practices, and methods to apply in all phases of projects and assignments.  He researches issues and problems associated with MOS and MS, chooses the most appropriate remedy, and adjusts his approach and techniques as new issues arise.  He regularly and independently interprets policies and SOPs associated with MOS and MS and resolves most complex, intricate, and unexpected issues that arise, while keeping his supervisor informed of progress, issues, and needs.

Level 2-5 is not met.  Implicit in Level 2-5 is a degree of program management authority that is not delegated to the appellant's position.  Specifically, the appellant is not responsible for a significant agency IT program or function which would be limited only by the broadly defined, mission level administrative review expressed at Level 2-5.  Although the appellant's work is an important component of the overall IT functionality of Treasury, the work performed by the appellant is a bureau-level function representing a relatively narrow IT technical assignment which relates almost exclusively to the technical aspects of mainframe support for BFS.  As well as being delegated a degree of program management authority, the Level 2-5 specialist regularly makes suggestions and recommendations associated with agency-level policies and objectives originating above the level of the immediate supervisor.  However, the appellant's suggestions and recommendations deal primarily with operability and security of the BFS mainframe.  These suggestions and recommendations are provided to his immediate supervisor, who forwards them to higher-level management at his discretion.

Although the appellant is a TE for MOS and MS who works with a high degree of technical independence when resolving day-to-day issues, the record shows that the appellant meets regularly with his supervisor who assigns work; receives progress reports; discusses issues, concerns, and timelines; offers possible solutions; and has final authority with regards to setting program objectives, establishing timeframes, and allocating resources.  In addition, the appellant's supervisor's PD states the supervisor, "...gives advice, counsel, or instruction to employees on both work and administrative matters ... directs, coordinates or oversees work of team leads, group coordinators, and/or provides similar oversight of contractors".  This contrasts with the Level 2-5 specialist who only receives administrative supervision and is delegated full technical authority and significant agency-level program responsibility.  In short, Level 2-5 requires the appellant to exercise delegated authority for a program or function with a level of responsibility so broad that only policy and administrative direction could be reasonably applied. Positions of this sort represent not only a high degree of technical independence but also a corresponding higher-level management role that is not vested in the appellant's position.

Level 2-4 is credited for 450 points.

Factor 3, Guidelines

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

At Level 3-4, the employee uses guidelines and precedents that are very general regarding agency policy statements and objectives.  Guidelines specific to assignments are often scarce, inapplicable or have gaps in specificity that require considerable interpretation and/or adaptation for application to issues and problems.  The employee uses judgment, initiative, and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to modify, adapt, and/or refine broader guidelines to resolve specific complex and/or intricate issues and problems, treat specific issues or problems, research trends and patterns, develop new methods and criteria, and/or propose new policies and practices.

At Level 3-5, the employee uses guidelines that are often ambiguous and express conflicting or incompatible goals and objectives, requiring extensive interpretation.  The employee uses judgment and ingenuity and exercises broad latitude to determine the intent of applicable guidelines, develops policy and guidelines for specific areas of work, and formulates interpretations that may take the form of policy statements and guidelines.  Top agency management officials and senior staff recognize the employee as a technical expert.

Level 3-4 is met.  The day-to day tasks and issues faced by the appellant are covered by a wide variety of Federal, agency, and local guidance, such as:  General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), National Bureau of Standards, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Treasury standards, technical documentation prepared by hardware and software vendors, trade publications and technical manuals, internal ISS standards and SOPs, and the personal knowledge and experience of the appellant, his peers, and superiors. However, the appellant regularly faces situations and technical issues for which no directly applicable guidance is available.  The combination of available guidance and knowledge of the appellant and other readily available technical experts is usually sufficient to determine an initial approach and general direction when addressing unusual issues or situations.

Like Level 3-4, the appellant uses his judgment, initiative, and resourcefulness when he encounters technical guidance which is outdated or lacks the specificity needed to integrate new technology into existing systems or to modify and upgrade current systems.  The appellant regularly develops new methods for addressing innovations which occur at a rate of speed greater than the production of corresponding guidance.  When situations of this sort are encountered, the appellant suggests changes to applicable policies and SOPs to make it easier to address similar issues and situations in the future.

Level 3-5 is not met.  Although the appellant may regularly encounter issues and situations where available guidance has become outdated or less effective, much of his day-to day work is sufficiently covered by available written and/or oral guidance even if he must identify and follow the broader intent of available guidance and/or use his professional judgment to develop new techniques and processes to address unique needs and circumstances as they occur.  However, this does not meet the full intent of Level 3-5, where ambiguous guidance with conflicting, incompatible goals is the rule.  In addition, Level 3-5 specialists are regularly involved in the development of agency-level policies and guidelines, whereas the appellant's contributions with regard to policies and guidelines are typically associated with BFS and primarily focused on MOS and MS.  He does not routinely contribute to the development of agency-level policies and guidelines.  In addition, he does not have the authority to create new policies, or modify existing policies.  This authority rests with agency-level management.

Level 3-4 is credited for 450 points.

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 duties that involve many different and unrelated processes and methods pertinent to the IT field.  The employee decides what needs to be done by evaluating unusual circumstances, considering different approaches, and dealing with incomplete and conflicting data.  The employee uses judgment and originality to interpret data, plan the work, and refine the methods and techniques being used.  Illustrative assignments one and two in the JFS at Level 4-4 for OS specialists consist of installing, testing, and implementing vendor­ supplied modifications to existing systems software and/or monitoring performance data; modifying systems tuning parameters to optimize overall systems performance; and correcting and preventing problems with the systems environment.  The Level 4-4 OS specialist tests and validates the operating environment; designs input and output forms and documents; explains the effects of modifications in the environment to applications developers, data management specialists, and customer support specialists; trouble shoots problems resulting from modifications; interprets and evaluates performance data; and isolates potential sources of performance problems.  At Level 4-4, the OS specialist exercises judgment and originality to independently determine the feasibility of installing modifications; schedules implementation to ensure continuity of operations and/or decides on the most effective approaches for optimizing software performance; and analyzes performance data and operating conditions to troubleshoot and correct current problems and anticipate future problems.

At Level 4-5, work consists of a variety of duties requiring the application of many different and unrelated processes and methods to a broad range of IT activities or to the in-depth analysis of IT issues.  The employee makes decisions that involve major uncertainties with regard to the most effective approach or methodology to be applied.  These changes typically result from continuing changes in customer business requirements or rapidly evolving technology in the specialty areas. The employee develops new standards, methods, and techniques; evaluates the impact of technological change; and/or conceives of solutions to highly complex technical issues.  The work frequently involves integrating the activities of multiple specialty areas.  The JFS OS specialist illustration at Level 4-5 consists of making major changes to the systems environment (e.g., implementation of major new applications or conversion to new operating systems).  The specialist plans and coordinates change activities with applications developers, telecommunications specialists, facilities managers, vendors, and customers; manages implementation and deployment; and keeps senior management informed of project progress through periodic briefings and reports. The specialist exercises considerable judgment to resolve virtually all technical and management problems including resource issues such as schedule delays and cost overruns.

Level 4-4 is met. Like Level 4-4, the appellant's work consists of a variety of duties involving many different and unrelated processes and methods directly associated with supporting and improving the BFS MOS (i.e., trouble-shooting the mainframe, analyzing MOS operability and accessibility coordinating with contractors and peers to develop software programs, managing MOS and MS projects, identifying long and short-term issues and needs, providing customer service, etc.).  He evaluates unusual circumstances, considers different approaches, and deals with incomplete and/or conflicting data, typically in the form of process manuals and technical guidance.  He must identify deficiencies in available guidance and tailor solutions to meet the needs of his local environment with regards to designing, installing, configuring, or modifying BFS MOS.  He must also coordinate MOS and MS programs and services with other programs and services both inside and outside Treasury.  He must plan and manage multiple assignments and refine the methods and techniques being used to manage BFS MOS and MS so as to minimize the impact of unexpected and required changes, while remaining responsive to customers.  Similar to Level 4-4, the appellant proposes, designs, and implements modifications to the mainframe and associated support systems, runs tests to ensure operability and reliability, and analyzes the results to help identify potential problems and determine the most appropriate course of action.  The appellant operates as a bureau-level employee who uses delegated authority to develop, coordinate, and implement technical decisions concerning the approach and methodology associated with day-to-day maintenance, operation, and security of the BFS MOS and MS.  Typical of this level, he oversees and/or provides support for installation of software and hardware systems and a variety of BFS MOS and MS support services; resolves a wide range of OS technical issues; develops proposals and makes recommendations concerning major technical modifications and upgrades; and recommends changes to current standards, methods, guides, and techniques associated with BFS MOS and MS.

In contrast to the aforementioned Level 4-5 work, the appellant is often required to seek the technical expertise of specialists with knowledge outside of the OS specialty, such as software designers, network specialists, or IT architecture experts to help him maintain operability and reliability, develop remedies, and plan upgrades and modifications to the BFS MOS and MS  (i.e., other workgroups within Treasury, IT specialists from other federal agencies, software and hardware contractors, and manufacturers' technical representatives).  Unlike Level 4-5  specialists who typically have the authority to exercise considerable judgment, including making long-term fiscal commitments for the agency, the appellant must provide justification when proposing expensive, sensitive, and controversial projects, processes, and procedures and seek approval from his supervisor and/or upper-level management before proceeding with implementation.  In addition, the appellant does not have final authority to define overall program and project requirements and approve work, nor does he have the authority to change existing guidance.  This authority rests with his supervisor or upper-level management within Treasury.

Level 4-4 is credited for 225 points.

Factor 5, Scope and Effect

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

Level 5-4 work involves establishing criteria, formulating projects, assessing program effectiveness, and/or investigating/analyzing a variety of unusual conditions, problems, or issues. The work affects a wide range of agency activities or the activities of other organizations.  JFS illustrations one and three for OS specialist work at Level 5-4 involve planning and coordinating the installation, configuration, and implementation of major hardware or software upgrades to

the systems environment; overseeing testing and migration to the production environment, ensuring minimal disruption to current operations; advising customer support specialists in providing post-implementation  support to end-users;  monitoring and fine-tuning the systems environment to ensure optimal performance; and recommending efficient ways to improve performance such as modifying operating systems parameters.  Level 5-4 OS specialist work affects the ability to make major enhancements to the systems environment in a manner that is not disruptive to customers; and/or results in the optimization of the systems environment that supports the execution of a wide variety of mission-oriented applications.

There are no illustrations for OS work at Level 5-5.  However, IT specialist work at Level 5-5 involves isolating and defining unprecedented conditions, resolving critical problems, and/or developing, testing, and implementing new technologies.  The work may also involve planning and coordinating efforts to develop and deliver systems and services that are responsive to the needs of customer organizations.  The work affects the work of other technical experts or the development of major aspects of agency-wide IT programs.  The work also ensures the agency's ability to respond to meet mission requirements through the optimal application of IT systems and services.

Level 5-4 is met.  Similar to Level 5-4, the appellant assesses long and short-term needs associated with the BFS MOS and MS, which provides support to many areas of Treasury, such as the Federal Reserve Bank, the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), and the BFS Fiscal Service Mainframe, as well as other Federal agencies which are dependent upon BFS MOS for coordination of a variety fiscal services.  He develops project proposals designed to meet identified needs.  He analyzes common and unusual hardware and software problems and issues; plans, coordinates, and installs standard and major upgrades to the MOS while ensuring minimal disruption to current operations; and advises other specialists working with MOS with regard to providing post-implementation support to system users.  He independently identifies hardware, software, and process needs and issues and formulates and proposes projects to remedy the aforementioned issues; uses delegated authority to ensure that new MOS and MS programs and processes have the systems resource support they need; coordinates with customers, contractors, IT technicians, and management to monitor MOS and MS to fine-tune the system for optimal performance and reliability; and discovers new ways to improve the performance of the BFS MOS.

Level 5-5 is not met.  Although the appellant's work often consists of identifying and resolving complex, unusual technical issues and situations which require him to carefully analyze the problem and perform in-depth research to determine the most appropriate remedy, the work does not typically meet the definition of unprecedented, nor does he regularly resolve critical problems or develop, test and implement new technologies.  While the uninterrupted operation of the BFS mainframe is important to the ongoing work of individuals and groups both inside and outside BFS and Treasury, the appellant's work does not translate to responsibility for major aspects of an agency-wide IT program as described at Level 5-5.  Work of this nature typically indicates a broad technical proficiency, authority, and management responsibility not vested in the appellant's position.

Level 5-4 is credited for 225 points.

Factor 6, Personal contacts & Factor 7, Purpose of contacts Personal contacts

Personal contacts include face-to-face and remote dialogue (e.g., telephone, email, and video conferences) with persons not in the supervisory chain. (Personal contacts with supervisors are under Factor 2 - Supervisory Controls.)  Levels described under these factors consider what is required to make the initial contact, the level of difficulty in communicating with those contacted, the setting in which the contact takes place, and the nature of the discourse.  The setting describes how well the employee and those contacted recognize their relative roles and authorities.  The nature of the discourse defines the reason for the communication and the context or environment in which the communication takes place.  For example, the reason for communicating may be to exchange factual information or to negotiate.  The communication may take place in an environment of significant controversy and/or with people of differing viewpoints, goals, and objectives.

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

Level 4 contacts are with high-ranking officials from outside the agency at national or international levels, in highly unstructured situations.  Typical contacts at this level include heads of other agencies and Presidential advisors; members of Congress; state governors or mayors of major cities; leading representatives of foreign governments; executives of comparable private sector organizations; leaders of national stakeholder and/or interest groups; and nationally recognized representatives of the news media on IT matters of national importance.

Level 3 is met. In addition to peers, supervisors, managers, and customers within Treasury, the appellant spends much of his time dealing with hardware and software contractors and vendors outside Treasury, such as IBM, Chicago-Soft, CorreLog, Inc., MacKinney Systems, NETEC, Novell, Merrill Consultants, etc., and end-users from other Federal offices (i.e., Social Security Administration, Federal Reserve Banks, etc.) who coordinate their IT fiscal programs and processes with those of BFS.

Level 4 is not met.  Although the appellant has contact with other agencies, these contacts are typically with other IT specialists or end-users and not with high-ranking officials from outside the agency or at national or international levels.  Therefore, the appellant's direct personal contacts are not with individuals with the degree of authority and responsibility described in Level 4.

Level 3 is credited.

Purpose of contacts

The purpose of the contacts ranges from factual exchange of information to situations involving significant or controversial issues and differing viewpoints, goals, or objectives.  The personal contacts that serve as the basis for the level selected for this factor must be the same as the contacts which are the basis for the level selected for Factor 6.

At Level C, the purpose of contacts is to influence and persuade employees and managers to accept and implement findings and recommendations.  The employee may encounter resistance as a result of issues, such as organizational conflict, competing objectives, or resource problems. The employee must be skillful in approaching contacts to obtain the desired effect; e.g., gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion or negotiation.

At Level D, the purpose of contacts is to present, justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues (e.g., recommendations changing the nature and scope of programs or dealing with substantial expenditures).  The work usually involves active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance.  Persons contacted typically have diverse viewpoints, goals, or objectives requiring the employee to achieve a common understanding of the problem and a satisfactory solution by convincing them, arriving at a compromise, or developing suitable alternatives.

Level C is met.  The appellant must compete for limited funds to support projects and services outside those initiated and approved by upper-level management.  Project requests made by the appellant provide detailed estimates of hardware and software costs, estimates of staff-hours, POAMS, as well as cost/benefits analysis of project outcomes which must be submitted through the governance process.  During this process, the appellant has the opportunity to explain the need and provide justification for the requested project.

Level D is not met.  As a bureau-level employee whose primary responsibility is maintaining the reliability and operability of the BFS MOS, the appellant's contacts do not require or permit him to exercise the broad agency program or management responsibilities needed to defend, negotiate, or settle issues which are significant or controversial to the agency, nor does he recommend changes to the nature and scope of agency programs.  Although he advocates support for proposed projects, his contacts are familiar with the importance of the BFS MOS and are supportive of his objectives.

Level 7-C is credited.

The combination of Factors 6 and 7 is credited at Level 3C for 180 points.

Factor 8, Physical demands

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

At Level 8-1, the work is sedentary.  Some work may require walking and standing in conjunction with travel to attend meetings and conferences away from the work site.  Some employees may carry light items, such as papers, books, or small parts, or drive a motor vehicle. The work does not require any special physical effort.

Level 8-1 is met.  Although the appellant may experience some physical exertion associated with prolonged sitting, reading, and keyboard operation, and mental exertion associated with identifying issues and making important decisions, there are no special physical demands associated with the appellant's work.

Level 8-1 is credited for 5 points.

Factor 9, Work Environment

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

At Level 9-1, the work area is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated.  The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts that require normal safety precautions.  Some employees may occasionally be exposed to uncomfortable conditions in such places as research and production facilities.

Level 9-1 is met.  Like level 9-1, the appellant works in a temperature controlled, adequately lit office environment.

Level 9-1 is credited for 5 points.

Summary of FES factors

The total of 2790 points falls within the GS-12 range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the GS-2200 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant's non-leader work is credited at the GS-12 level.

Evaluation using the GSLGEG

The GSLGEG is divided into two parts.  Part I covers work leaders of three or more employees in clerical or other one-grade interval occupations.  Part II covers positions whose primary purpose is to lead a team of other General Schedule employees in accomplishing two-grade interval work.  Team leaders (TL) under Part II usually participate in the work of the team by performing work that is of the same kind and level as the highest level of work accomplished by the team led.  TLs work with team members to achieve specific tasks, produce work products and services, and meet program and production goals.  They typically assist the team through knowledge and application of leadership and team building skills and techniques such as group facilitation, coordination, coaching, problem solving, interpersonal communication, integration of work processes and products, obtaining resources, and liaison with the supervisor.  TLs are responsible to their supervisors and accountable for the timely delivery of quality work products and/or services produced by the team led.  To be classified by application of Part II, positions must perform at a minimum all of the first seven coaching, facilitating and mentoring duties, and a total of at least 14 of the 20 duties listed in Part II of the GSLGEG.

While the number of the appellant's team members is relatively small (i.e., three GS-2210-12 team members and one GS-2210-14 team member), his TL duties occupy at least 25 percent of his time due to the technical nature and extensive coordination demands of the work, including the ad hoc staff regularly used to supplement his team on some projects.  Along with his own technical responsibilities, the appellant personally performs the two-grade interval work of his team and spends at least 25 percent of his time performing all of the TL duties listed in the GSLGEG.

Under Part II of the GSLGEG, TL positions are classified one full grade level above the base level of work led (BLWL).  The BLWL is the highest grade level of GS-9 or higher nonsupervisory/non-leader two-grade interval work led on a continuing basis, which represents 25 percent or more of the actual work performed by the team for which the TL is fully responsible. The appellant feels his position should be graded at the GS-15 level based on his interpretation of Part II of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) and asserts that his grade should match the level of responsibilities necessary to lead a GS-14 team member.

In determining the applicability of the GSLGEG, the first test is whether the position meets the basic coverage requirements.  The duties and grade levels of subordinate positions, and their working and reporting relationships within the organization, should be examined to confirm that each criterion is fully met.

The appellant's team is comprised of three GS-12 team members (two assigned to PD #05P783 and one assigned to PD #12P706), and one GS-14 team member assigned to PD # l 1P727.  We have assumed the agency determination regarding the series, title, and grades of technical work performed by these positions is accurate and that, for the purpose of this review, each performs work at the assigned grade at least 25 percent of the time.  The GS-12 team members serve as computer systems programmers, customer service representatives, and IT support for the daily operations of the BFS.  The GS-14 team member is considered the subject matter expert (SME) for all FMS legacy systems.

According to the GS-14 PD, the team member "serves as an authority or leader on projects involving multiple IT disciplines."  He "leads IT systems development projects from design to support" and is "subject only to administrative direction, with assignments given in terms of broadly defined missions or functions."  The work of the GS-14 employee "...consists of various projects/studies that call for significant departures from established practices."  The PD also  states the employee "plans, researches, develops, tests, evaluates, pilots, and documents IT systems" and "provides advice on, and devises solutions to a wide range of IT issues."  The PD goes on to describe an employee who coordinates with experts both within and outside the organization and performs work whose technical difficulty is "...exceptional, i.e., developing major items of system software where numerous conditions/options must be considered or developing specifications for a major segment of a new, unprecedented  application system."  The GS-14 team member provides technical support in relation to audits, process, procedure, and policy associated with legacy systems (older systems whose operations are being phased out and/or incorporated into current BFS systems), and enjoys a consensus-building relationship with each party advising them on areas of knowledge or familiarity, such as BFS-specific controls or particular issues related to elimination or integration of FMS legacy systems.

According to the record, interactions between the appellant and the GS-14 team member are collaborative in nature and primarily for the purpose of sharing information.  The GS-14 employee provides progress reports and project updates to the appellant due to his administrative position as team lead.  The appellant reviews and organizes information provided to him by all employees on his team before sharing it with his supervisor.  However, the GS-14 team member is routinely invited to regularly scheduled supervisory meetings based on his expertise with the FMS legacy system, and is considered the appellant's technical peer by their mutual supervisor.

The appellant receives projects and assignments from his supervisor and delegates these to members of his team.  However, FMS legacy system work comprises nearly all of the GS-14's daily work.  All work associated with the FMS legacy system passed down to the appellant for distribution is automatically assigned to the GS-14 team member because no one else on the team, including the appellant, has sufficient technical knowledge of the FMS legacy system to answer questions or provide adequate support.  The GS-14 team member has been delegated authority to execute immediate action on certain items and retains some programmatic responsibilities associated with the FMS legacy systems.  He operates with substantial freedom from supervision and from technical leadership, which is critical in supporting the grade of the position.  Therefore, the technical independence and leadership described in the GS-14's PD, confirmed through telephone interviews with the appellant on March 27, 2015, forecloses the appellant's assertion that he performs the full scope of coaching, facilitating, and mentoring functions required for including the GS-14 position under the GSLGEG evaluation.  Therefore, the BLWL must be adjusted to reflect the grade level of work performed under normal leadership conditions.  Since the appellant does not provide technical leadership for the GS-14 employee in his work group, the BLWL is properly adjusted to the GS-12 grade based on the level of work of the three GS-12 positions actually led by the appellant.