Washington, D.C

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

11/29/2022

---

Date

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

Since this decision changes the classification of the appealed position and 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, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision ( 5 CFR 511.702) The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Assistant Chief, GS-0081-09, but they believe it should be classified as Assistant Chief, GS-0081-10. They are assigned to the Reclamation Fire Department (RFD), Operations, Maintenance, and Safety, Grand Coulee Power Office (GCPO), Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), in Grand Coulee, Washington. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General Issues

The appellants make various statements concerning their agency’s classification review process of their position. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make an independent decision on the proper classification of their position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellants’ statements regarding the classification practices used by their agency to classify their position are not germane to the classification appeal process.

The appellants also cite an increase in the volume of the work they perform as support for the requested increase in grade. However, the volume of work performed cannot be considered when determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

Position Information

The appellants and their acting supervisor certify to the accuracy of their official PD# G302106. However, our review disclosed that they do not perform certain duties and responsibilities described in their PD. For example, the PD states the appellants perform fire inspections and investigations. However, the appellants do not directly participate in fire inspections and investigations. Instead, they assign, monitor, and direct fire inspections and investigations performed by subordinate staff within their respective units of the RFD. The PD states the appellants supervise and direct program support personnel. However, there are no program support personnel assigned to their units. Instead, they are solely responsible for administrative and technical supervision and direction of subordinate Firefighters and Fire Protection Inspectors who carry out elements of the RFD’s program within their units. The PD also indicates the appellants spend 20 percent of their time on personnel supervision (personnel management), 10 percent as Scene Commander, and 50 percent performing duties associated with Assistant Chief operations. However, as discussed later we find the appellants do not function as Assistant Chiefs but rather spend 100 percent of their time supervising assigned staff and performing managerial and program related duties directly implementing segments of the RFD’s fire and safety management programs, e.g., fire inspection, prevention, suppression, education, and wildland fire response; personnel rescue and recovery (R&R); basic life support (BLS); and hazardous materials management (HMM).

We also find several instances where the PD ascribes roles and authorities to the appellants’ position which belong to the Fire Chief (FC) or higher-level supervisors and managers such as oversight, review and approval of construction plans to upgrade fire protection systems within GCPO facilities; negotiating demands and services associated with Mutual Aid Agreements between RFD and various Federal State, local, and Tribal representatives; and various personnel processes requiring higher level authority, e.g., conflict resolution, hiring, and promotions.

We note that the appellants’ entire PD describes their work within the context of the four factors addressed in the Position Classification Standard (PCS) for positions in the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-0081, Part 1, Section 11, used to evaluate Fire Chief and Assistant Chief positions. However, as discussed later in this decision we find the appellants do not function as Assistant Chiefs thus it is inappropriate to describe and evaluate their duties by reference to the four factors applied to evaluate Fire Chiefs. In addition, the agency states in their April 23, 2021, response to the appellants’ appeal “We accept that this position should not have been evaluated against Part 1 of the GS-0081 standard, including Sections II and III, because, upon further review of the standard, we do not find that this position meets the criteria for Fire Chief…including the organizational description of Assistant Fire Chief, as previously thought.” However, the agency provided no alternative classification evaluation addressing the title and grade level of the position.

Given the preceding inaccuracies described above, the appellants’ PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction. Therefore, the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

RFD is located within the Grand Coulee Dam (GCD) compound in Grand Coulee, Washington. RFD’s mission is to prevent damage to GCPO property (i.e., buildings, structures, equipment, supplies, and materials) and loss of life within GCPO facilities (e.g., GCD, Hungry Horse Dam (HHD)), the city of Grand Coulee, and all adjacent wildlands.

The appellants serve under the direct supervision of RFD’s Fire Chief (FC) and provide supervision and technical advice and support for the operation of their units assigned segments of RFD fire and safety management programs, such as fire inspection, prevention, suppression, education, and wildland fire response; R&R; BLS; and HMM programs. They also provide technical direction and operational oversight for various RFD special response teams, such as BLS, hazardous materials (HAZMAT), confined space rescue (CSR), major disaster response (MDR), and arson/fire investigation teams.

They serve as Incident Commander (IC) during emergency response operations. They research new fire and safety management techniques, methods, and processes and ensure training is provided for subordinate Firefighters in various specialized subject-matter areas, e.g., wildland and high voltage firefighting, confined space and high and low angle rescue, and BLS. They ensure that subordinate Firefighters understand and comply with all policies and guidelines applicable to RFD’s fire and safety management programs, such as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, and Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) and BOR standards. They also ensure the provision of basic fire and safety management training for GCPO personnel, other Federal, State, and local firefighting organizations and the general public including first aid, Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), campfire management, and how to use commercial fire extinguishers.

In keeping with their supervisory and program related responsibilities, they monitor weather patterns for possible lightning strikes, perform wildfire risk assessments, and provide data and recommendations to the FC; review and authorize hot work permit requests (e.g., welding, brazing, and metal grinding) and monitor all active hot work projects performed within GCPO facilities and adjacent wildlands; and provide subject-matter-expert (SME) testimony during fact-finding and judicial proceedings concerning fires occurring within GCPO facilities, properties, and adjacent wildlands.

As supervisors they ensure all fire inspections and investigations are conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local guidelines and that all applicable reports are completed properly and submitted in a timely manner. They also monitor RFD’s supply and personnel needs (e.g., supplies, equipment, machinery, training, promotions, and discipline) and submit reports and requests in accordance with existing guidelines.

They serve as contracting officer technical representatives (COTRs) on an infrequent and irregular basis for a variety of RFD program-related contract work performed within GCPO. This includes monitoring ongoing contract work, providing contractors with technical advice and recommendations, and reporting any regulatory and contractual non-compliance to the Contracting Officer for further action. They also provide expert technical advice concerning basic and advanced fire and safety management theories, principles, and processes (e.g., fire behavior in confined spaces, the appropriate types and placement of fire detection and suppression equipment and systems, and the design and placement of adequate egresses) during new building construction at GCPO facilities.

On an intermittent basis the appellants may assume full control of a variety of RFD fire and safety management program duties when directed by, or in the absence of the Fire Chief. This includes providing technical advice to GCPO management; developing and managing pre- incident plans; managing multijurisdictional firefighting operations; coordinating the implementation of specialized firefighting methods and procedures used for high-hazard areas and special-use facilities; and performing public relations (PR) functions for RFD involving contacts with individuals and groups representing fire protection programs from Federal, State, local, Tribal, and private interests.

As first-line supervisors overseeing the work on one of two 48-hour rotating shifts, the fire department organization chart indicates that each appellant directs the work on his assigned shift of two Lead Firefighters (BLS), GS-0081-08, three Firefighters (BLS), GS-0081-07, and one Fire Protection Inspector (BLS), GS-0081-07. All subordinate employees are cross-trained and possess technical knowledge in both firefighting and fire inspection work. However, given that only four employees are led on each shift, only one Lead Firefighter (BLS), GS-0081-08, is warranted. This is because Part 1 of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) specifies that a position can be classified as a work leader only if, on a regular and recurring basis, the position leads three or more employees performing one-grade interval work in a General Schedule occupation. In addition, in this case the presence of a second “leader” position meets exclusion number 3 in the GSLGEG since the employee is “responsible for work assignments requiring only one or two other workers.” The primary responsibility of such an employee is personal work accomplishment. We also note that to justify a second leader the supervisor’s subordinate organization must be so large and the work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate leaders. Given the small number of employees led, the straight- forward nature and similarity of the occupations, and the fact that all employees are functioning at the full performance level, this is not the case. Therefore, because one “leader” position in each shift does not meet the GSLGEG coverage requirement it is misclassified and cannot be credited as a leader.

As supervisors, the appellants plan work to be accomplished by subordinates, set and adjust short-term priorities, and coordinate with each other and with the FC to prepare schedules for completion of work. They assign work and evaluate the performance of subordinates; provide technical and administrative advice and direction to them; interview candidates for positions in their respective units and recommend appointment, promotion, or reassignment to such positions; and hear and resolve minor complaints from subordinates, referring serious unresolved complaints and group grievances to the FC or higher-level managers. They also effect minor disciplinary actions (e.g., written and oral reprimands) but refer more serious cases to their supervisor for consideration and action; find ways to improve the quality of the work directed; and coordinate with the FC to develop performance standards for the positions of subordinate RFD staff.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellants and their agency including their official PD which, although inaccurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted a telephone interview with both appellants and a separate telephone interview with their second- level supervisor, who is the acting FC during the agency’s recruitment for that vacancy.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS- 0081, titling it “Assistant Chief”, and the appellants do not disagree. The GS-0081 series includes positions that supervise or perform work to control and extinguish fires, rescue persons endangered by fire, and reduce or eliminate potential fire hazards. It also covers fire service positions that control hazardous materials incidents; provide emergency medical services; train personnel in fire protection and prevention; operate fire communications equipment; develop and implement fire protection and prevention plans, procedures, and standards; and advise on improvements to structures for better fire prevention. Although we concur with the agency’s series determination, we disagree with its decision to use Part 1, Section II, of the GS-0081 PCS to evaluate the grade of the appellants’ duties, including supervisory responsibilities, as an “Assistant Chief” by reference to the four factors in Section II used to evaluate Fire Chief positions.

The GS-0081 PCS provides grade level criteria for FC and non-supervisory Firefighter positions. The “General Titling Guidance” section of the GS-0081 PCS provides the following basic titles for positions in the GS-0081 series: Firefighter (i.e., positions that involve firefighting operations); Fire Protection Inspector (i.e., positions that involve preventing fires by physically inspecting a variety of facilities to detect and reduce or eliminate the hazards that cause fires);and Fire Protection Specialist (i.e., positions that involve developing and/or implementing protection and prevention programs).

The appellants’ position involves firefighting operations and meets the coverage requirements of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) for titling and evaluation as a supervisor. They spend all their time directly supervising subordinate staff and performing related program management responsibilities as previously described in the “Position information” section of this decision. While they are involved in the broader programmatic elements of RFD’s fire protection and prevention planning and evaluation, these duties are part of their ongoing supervisory, planning, and coordination efforts within their respective units and contribute to RFD’s overall program effectiveness.

The agency titled the appellants’ position “Assistant Chief” and the appellants do not disagree. In both the GSSG and Part 1, Section 1, of the GS-0081 PCS the typical duties characteristic of Deputy and Assistant Chief positions are defined. The GSSG indicates that a Deputy or Assistant Chief position is one comparable to an alter ego which either fully shares with the manager the direction of all phases of the organization’s program and work or is assigned continuing responsibility for managing a major part of the manager’s program (i.e., half) when the total authority and responsibility for the organization is equally divided between the manager and deputy. In such cases the grade of the Deputy or assistant chief is set one grade lower than the grade of the supervisory duties of the position to which it reports.

The appellants’ report directly to the FC. Each is responsible for providing technical and administrative direction to subordinate Firefighters and Fire Protection Inspectors assigned to their respective shifts. As part of their supervisory and programmatic duties they are also collectively responsible for furnishing technical advice and program support to the FC based on their units’ firefighting and protection activities. However, the appellants’ position does not meet the GSSG requirements for titling as an Assistant Chief or Deputy because such duties cannot be assigned to multiple positions and are limited to a single position. Moreover, while the FC may delegate his duties, responsibilities, and authorities to either one of the appellants during his absence or at his discretion, the record shows that these responsibilities are integral to the FC’s position and are only situationally and as needed granted to the appellants’ position. Thus, neither appellant fully shares with the FC on a regular and recurring basis direction of all phases of the organization’s program and work, nor is each assigned continuing responsibility for managing a major part of the FC’s program such that total authority and responsibility for the organization is equally divided between the FC and the appellants.

The GS-0081 PCS also addresses the typical duties of an Assistant Chief. The standard states that Assistant Chief positions are organized in a number of ways depending upon local requirements. Typical examples include: (1) A full deputy chief; (2) In charge of firefighting, fire prevention, or training activities on a shift; or (3) In charge of overall fire program management for inspections, training, hazardous materials handling, or other programs. While the GS-0081 PCS does not define a “full deputy”, as discussed above by application of the GSSG criteria the appellants’ position does not function as a full deputy. Regarding the second example, while we recognize that as supervisors the appellants are in charge of firefighting and protection activities and related training on their respective shifts, the GS-0081 PCS states in Part 1, Section III, that “The difficulty and responsibility of assistant chief positions are best measured by comparison with the level of the Fire Chief position and the position’s relative status within the organizational structure.” Although the appellants directly supervise separate staffs of firefighters and fire protection inspectors, we find their duties are not comparable to the technical difficulty, degree of responsibility, complexity, and nature of the work performed in FC positions described in Part 1, Section II (Classification of Fire Chief Positions) of the GS-0081 PCS. For example, unlike a FC the appellants do not carry out the broader scope of supervisory responsibilities (Factor 3) and assist in carrying out key fire program management responsibilities (Factor 4) characteristic of FC positions. Rather, they are responsible for directly supervising subordinate staff on their prescribed shifts and performing program related responsibilities. The appellants’ position also does not meet the third example listed above. Only the FC is in charge of overall fire program management for firefighting, fire protection inspections, and training for the RFD.

Because the appellants spend all their time performing supervisory and related program management duties over their assigned units, the appropriate title and series of the position is Supervisory Firefighter, GS-0081. As addressed below, we have evaluated the grade of the position solely by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG.

Grade determination

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

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

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

Scope

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

At Level 1-2, the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature. The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments.

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work. The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city. Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level.

Level 1-2 is met. Like this level, the appellants direct the technical work of subordinate Firefighters and Fire Protection Inspectors in their units as part of the RFD’s overall fire and safety management programs. Similar to Level 1-2, the functions, activities, and services provided by RFD’s fire and safety management programs have limited geographic coverage (primarily GCD, HHD) and provide firefighting and fire protection services and support to the activities comparable to an agency field or area office.

Level 1-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the technical work directed by the appellants does not encompass a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States. In contrast to Level 1-3, their work does not involve most of the taxpayers or businesses in an area comparable to a small city, nor does it provide complex technical services which directly affect a large or complex multi-mission military installation.

Scope is credited at Level 1-2

Effect

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

At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or comparable program segments; or provide services to a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county.

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

Level 1-2 is met. Like this level, the technical work directed by the appellants associated with RFD’s fire and safety management programs are integral to and significantly affect GCPO’s operations and objectives. Similar to Level 1-2, the services furnished as a result of RFD’s fire and safety management programs (e.g., BLS, R&R, HMM, fire inspection, prevention, suppression, and education) are provided directly to the employees of the installation GCPO (i.e., approximately 6,800 employees as of 2019) and, to a limited extent, the population of the small city of Grand Coulee (i.e., population of less than 1,100 as of 2020).

Level 1-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the activities, functions, or services accomplished by the appellants do not impact a wide range of the BOR’s activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests. For example, according to BOR’s 2019 estimates, the agency is responsible for more than 600 dams and reservoirs, which provide electricity to over 31 million people in 3.5 million homes across the western United States, as well as more than 10 million acres of wildland. In contrast, the segments of RFD’s fire and safety management programs directed by the appellants solely affect the safe operations of GCPO facilities (i.e., GCD and WHD) and adjacent wildlands. Therefore, unlike Level 1-3, the activities, functions, and services accomplished by the appellants cannot be construed as directly and significantly impacting a wide range of BOR activities. Unlike Level 1-3, although the appellants may coordinate with the FC and other state and local agencies to develop and implement cooperative emergency response plans, their work is primarily focused on the needs and interests of the GCPO. Although at the field activity level, their work does not involve or substantially impact the provision of essential support operations to large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large, serviced populations.

Effect is credited at Level 1-2.

Both Scope and Effect are credited at Level 1-2 and 350 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Organizational Setting

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

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

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

The appellants’ position meets Level 2-1. The appellants’ position reports to the FC GS-0081-11, who reports to the Supervisory Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-0018-12, who reports to the Program Administrator, GS-0301-14, who reports to the Program Manager (Power Manager), GS-0340-15, who reports to the Assistant Regional Director, who is the first SES position in the appellants’ direct supervisory chain. Therefore, the appellants’ position meets Level 2-1 because the FC’s position is three levels below the first SES position in the appellants’ direct supervisory chain.

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

Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised

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

At Level 3-2, positions must meet a or b or c below:

a. Plan and schedule ongoing production-oriented work on a quarterly and annual basis, or direct assignments of similar duration. Adjust staffing levels or work procedures within their organizational unit(s) to accommodate resource allocation decisions made at higher echelons. Justify the purchase of new equipment. Improve work methods and procedures used to produce work products. Oversee the development of technical data, estimates, statistics, suggestions, and other information useful to higher level managers in determining which goals and objectives to emphasize. Decide the methodologies to use in achieving work goals and objectives, and in determining other management strategies.

b. Where work is contracted out, perform a wide range of technical input and oversight tasks comparable to all or nearly all of the following:

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

c. Carry out at least three of the first four, and a total of six or more of the following 10 authorities and responsibilities:

1. Plan work to be accomplished by subordinates, set and adjust short-term priorities, and prepare schedules for completion of work;
2. Assign work to subordinates based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the capabilities of employees;
3. Evaluate work performance of subordinates;
4. Give advice, counsel, or instruction to employees on both work and administrative matters;
5. Interview candidates for positions in the unit; recommend appointment, promotion, or reassignment to such positions;
6. Hear and resolve complaints from employees, referring group grievances and more serious unresolved complaints to a higher-level supervisor or manager;
7. Effect minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and reprimands, recommending other action in more serious cases;
8. Identify developmental and training needs of employees, providing or arranging for needed development and training;
9. Find ways to improve production or increase the quality of work directed;
10. Develop performance standards.

At Level 3-3, positions must meet paragraph a or b below:

a. Exercise delegated managerial authority to set a series of annual, multiyear, or similar types of long-range work plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work. Assure implementation (by lower and subordinate organizational units or others) of the goals and objectives for the program segment(s) or function(s) they oversee. Determine goals and objectives that need additional emphasis; determine the best approach or solution for resolving budget shortages; and plan for long-range staffing needs, including such matters as whether to contract out work. These positions are closely involved with high level program officials (or comparable agency level staff personnel) in the development of overall goals and objectives for assigned staff function(s), program(s), or program segment(s). For example, they direct development of data; provision of expertise and insights; securing of legal opinions; preparation of position papers or legislative proposals; and execution of comparable activities which support development of goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation

b. Exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least 8 of the following:

1. 1. Using any of the following to direct, coordinate, or oversee work: supervisors, leaders, team leaders, group coordinators, committee chairs, or comparable personnel; and/or providing similar oversight of contractors;
   2. Exercising significant responsibilities in dealing with officials of other units or organizations, or in advising management officials of higher rank;
   3. Ensuring reasonable equity (among units, groups, teams, projects, etc.) of performance standards and rating techniques developed by subordinates or assuring comparable equity in the assessment by subordinates of the adequacy of contractor capabilities or of contractor completed work;
   4. Direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources (e.g., one at a multimillion-dollar level of annual resources);
   5. Making decisions on work problems presented by subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or similar personnel, or by contractors;
   6. Evaluating subordinate supervisors or leaders and serving as the reviewing official on evaluations of nonsupervisory employees rated by subordinate supervisors;
   7. Making or approving selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions;
   8. Recommending selections for subordinate supervisory positions and for work leader, group leader, or project director positions responsible for coordinating the work of others, and similar positions;
   9. Hearing and resolving group grievances or serious employee complaints;
   10. Reviewing and approving serious disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions) involving nonsupervisory subordinates;
   11. Making decisions on nonroutine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests related to employees of the unit;
   12. Determining whether contractor performed work meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment;
   13. Approving expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel;
   14. Recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher level officials, supervisors, or others;
   15. Finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices. 

Levels 3-2a and 3-2b are not met. Level 3-2a discusses production-oriented work, whereas Level 3-2b describes situations where work is contracted out. The record shows neither situation is appropriate for the appellants’ position.

Level 3-2c is met. At Level 3-2c, a position must carry out at least three of the first four and a total of six or more of the ten authorities and responsibilities listed under this section of the GSSG. Our analysis of these ten authorities and responsibilities follows:

Responsibility 1 is credited. The appellants plan work to be accomplished by their subordinates with input from their respective shift TLs. They set and adjust short-term priorities and prepare schedules for completion of work.

Responsibility 2 is credited. Although most work is routine and scheduled in advance (e.g., safety checks, periodic equipment tests, regular reports and required training) and the appellants depend on the shift TLs to distribute and balance workload, for non-routine tasks the appellants assign work based on its difficulty and capabilities of subordinate employees.

Responsibility 3 is credited. The appellants evaluate the work performance of subordinates based on direct observation and input from TLs.

Responsibility 4 is credited. The appellants provide advice and instruction either directly or through TLs to employees on work and administrative matters.

Responsibility 5 is credited. The appellants interview candidates for all direct report positions within their respective shifts, and recommend appointments, promotions, or reassignments to such positions.

Responsibility 6 is credited. The appellants hear and resolve complaints from individual subordinates but refer group grievances and serious unresolved complaints to the FC for consideration and action.

Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellants effect minor disciplinary actions (e.g., warnings and reprimands) and recommend more serious actions (e.g., suspensions) to the FC.

Responsibility 8 is not credited. Although the appellants coordinate with their TLs to identify their subordinates’ developmental training needs, they lack the authority to arrange for needed developmental training. Instead, authority to arrange and authorize developmental training rests with the FC or higher-level managers within the agency.

Responsibility 9 is credited. The appellants coordinate with the FC to find ways to improve the overall quality of fire and safety management work provided by subordinates on their respective shifts.

Responsibility 10 is credited. With input and coordination with the FC the appellants develop performance standards for subordinate RFD employees.

Level 3-2c is met because the appellants’ supervisory responsibilities meet the first four authorities and a total of nine authorities listed under this factor level.

To meet Level 3-3, a position must meet either Level 3-3a or Level 3-3b as described below.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 3-3a. Unlike Level 3-3a, the appellants lack the responsibility and corresponding authority to set annual, multi-year, or similar long-range work plans for in-service and contracted work and to determine goals, objectives, priorities, and budget for RFD. Instead, these responsibilities rest with the FC or higher-level managers within the agency and, when addressing the concerns, the appellants must submit requests, proposals, and recommendations to the FC for consideration and approval. We note that all requests, proposals, and recommendations submitted by the appellants may be modified or denied at the FC’s discretion. Unlike Level 3-3a, the appellants’ position is not responsible for coordinating with agency-level program officials in the overall development of goals and objectives for assigned RFD staff or program segments, nor do they typically contribute directly to and/or support the development, formulation, and management of goals and objectives for high-level agency programs. Instead, these responsibilities rest with the FC or higher-level managers within the agency. In addition, although they possess and use a high degree of technical knowledge and insight in the field of fire and safety management, they do not prepare position papers or legislative proposals on behalf of RFD. Therefore, the supervisory and managerial responsibilities and corresponding authority regularly exercised by the appellants do not meet level 3-3a.

To meet Level 3-3b, a position must exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least 8 of the 15 responsibilities previously listed under Level 3-3b of the GSSG. The appellants’ position meets the first requirement as they exercise 9 of the 10 authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c. Our evaluation of their duties and responsibilities under Level 3-3b follows.

Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 refer to situations where work is accomplished through subordinate (plural) supervisors, team leaders, or other similar personnel. Further, the supervisor’s organizational workload must be so large and work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work. As previously discussed, the shift organizations individually supervised by the appellants do not meet these requirements so these responsibilities cannot be credited.

Responsibility 2 is credited. Given their related program management responsibilities for their respective shifts, they regularly advise the FC on the status of the firefighting and fire protection inspection activities and program accomplishments within their organizations which contributes to the overall effectiveness of the RFD.

Responsibility 4 is not credited. Although RFD’s fire and safety management programs represent a multimillion-dollar annual investment by BOR, authority for allocating and assigning RFD program-related funds does not rest with the appellants. Instead, authority for allocating, redistribution, and assigning RFD program-related funds rests with the FC or higher-level agency managers.

Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellants make selections for subordinate, nonsupervisory positions within RFD. However, the FC has final authority to hire new RFD employees.

Responsibility 9 is not credited. Group grievances or serious employee complaints are referred to the FC or higher-level manager for consideration and action.

Responsibility 10 is not credited. Although the appellants can recommend serious actions such as suspensions to the FC involving nonsupervisory subordinates, they do not have the authority to review and approve them. This responsibility rests with the FC or higher-level agency managers.

Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellants cannot make decisions on nonroutine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests related to employees of the RFD. Such training requests must be submitted through the FC to higher-level management for consideration.

Responsibility 12 is credited. The appellants review the work of contractors and recommend payment or non-payment. However, final authority to determine if work meets the agency’s standards of adequacy resides with the Contracting Officer.

Responsibility 13 is not credited. The appellants do not have the authority to approve expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. Requests of this nature must be submitted to the FC for consideration and further action.

Responsibility 14 is credited. The appellants recommend awards and bonuses for non- supervisory subordinates and make changes to their PDs subject to approval by higher-level management which is usually approved.

Responsibility 15 is not credited Although the appellants find ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to projects and studies, they lack the authority to implement these methods or processes. Instead, they must submit recommendations to the FC for consideration and approval prior to implementation.

The appellants’ position exercises nine of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c. However, they only exercise four of the fifteen authorities and responsibilities under Level 3-3b, instead of the eight required by this Factor level. Therefore, their position does not meet Level 3-3b.

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

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

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

Subfactor 4A: Nature of contacts

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

At Level 4A-1, contacts are with subordinates within the organizational unit(s) supervised, with peers who supervise comparable units within the larger organization, with union shop stewards, and/or with the staff of administrative and other support activities when the persons contacted are within the same organization as the supervisor. Contacts are typically informal and occur in person at the workplace of those contacted, in routine meetings, or by telephone.

At Level 4A-2, the position has frequent contacts comparable to any of the following:

(1) members of the business community or the general public; (2) higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level) or major organization level of the agency; (3) representatives of local public interest groups; case workers in congressional district offices; (4) technical or operating level employees of State and local governments; or (6) reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. Contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, televised, radio, or similar contact, and sometimes require nonroutine or special preparation.

Level 4A-1 is met. Like this level, typical contacts are between each shift supervisor (i.e., the appellants) and with the FC, Lead Firefighters, and subordinate Firefighters and Fire Protection Inspectors within the RFD. Like Level 4A-1, the appellants have regular contact with union shop stewards and other support and administrative staff within GCPO. Similar to Level 4A-1, contacts are typically informal and occur in person, at the workplace of those contacted, in routine meetings, or by e-mail and telephone.

Level 4A-2 is not met. Unlike this level, the position does not require the appellants to have frequent or regular and recurring contacts with any of those described at Level 4A-2. Instead, responsibility for Level 4A-2 contacts rests with the FC or higher-level GCPO or BOR managers who have primary responsibility for developing, approving, and implementing GCPO and BOR policies and programs.

This subfactor is evaluated at Level 4A-1 and 25 points are assigned.

Subfactor 4B Purpose of Contacts

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

At Level 4B-1, the purpose of contacts is to discuss work efforts for providing or receiving services; to exchange factual information about work operations and personnel management matters; and to provide training, advice, and guidance to subordinates.

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

Level 4B-1 is met. Like this level, the purpose of the appellants’ contacts is to discuss work efforts for providing or receiving RFD services; to exchange factual information about work operations and the units’ fire and safety management programs, and discus personnel management matters; to coordinate with the FC and other agency personnel concerned with authorizing personnel training; and to provide training, advice, and guidance to subordinates.

Level 4B-2 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellants provide accurate and consistent information to parties within the Fire Department and their subordinate staff rather than to outside parties. In contrast to Level 4B-2, as first-line supervisors they plan, coordinate, and direct work with their immediate subordinates rather than with others outside the organization. Authority and responsibility for identifying and disseminating accurate information to parties outside the organization rests with the FC or higher-level agency managers.

Subfactor 4B-1 is credited and 30 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed, as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility.

To evaluate first-level supervisors like the appellants, the GSSG instructs determining the highest grade which: (1) best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed; and (2) constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization. The following types of work are specifically excluded from this workload calculation: (1) work graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties; (2) work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3; (3) lower-level support work primarily facilitating the basic work of the unit; (4) work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision or personal research accomplishments.

Based on review of the PDs for the positions of each shift and crediting only the percentage of time spent performing non-supervisory and non-leader duties, we find that 100 percent of the mission oriented workload of the RFD’s firefighting and fire protection inspection organization is at the GS-07 level. Therefore, the base level determined under Factor 5 is GS-07.

Factor 5 is credited at Level 5-4 and 505 points are credited.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level. If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited.

At Level 6-2a, the work supervised or overseen involves technician and/or support work comparable in difficulty to GS-07 or GS-08, or work at the GS-04, 05 or 06 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work, which requires coordination and integration of work efforts, either within the unit or with other units, in order to produce a completed work product or service. (Full and final technical authority means that the supervisor is responsible for all technical determinations arising from the work, without technical advice or assistance on even the more difficult and unusual problems, and without further review except from an administrative or program evaluation standpoint. Credit for this should be limited to situations involving an extraordinary degree of finality in technical decision making.)

The required coordination at this level ensures: consistency of product, service, interpretation, or advice; conformance with the output of other units, with formal standards or agency policy.

Supervisors typically coordinate with supervisors of other units to deal with requirements and problems affecting others outside the organization. OR

At Level 6-2b, the position directs subordinate supervisors of work comparable to GS-06 or lower, where coordinating the work of the subordinate units requires a continuing effort to assure quality and service standards, limited to matters of timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, and quantity.

At Level 6-3a, supervision and oversight require coordination, integration, or consolidation of administrative, technical, or complex technician or other support work comparable to GS-09 or 10, or work at the GS-07 or 08 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work. (Full and final technical authority means that the supervisor is responsible for all technical determinations arising from the work, without technical advice or assistance on even the more difficult and unusual problems, and without further review except from an administrative or program evaluation standpoint. Credit for this should be limited to situations involving an extraordinary degree of finality in technical decision-making.) Directing the work at this level (cases, reports, studies, regulations, advice to clients, etc.) requires consolidation or coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-2a, but over a higher level of work.

This level may also be met when the work directed is analytical, interpretive, judgmental, evaluative, or creative. Such work places significant demands on the supervisor to resolve conflicts and maintain compatibility of interpretation, judgment, logic, and policy application, because the basic facts, information, and circumstances often vary substantially; guidelines are incomplete or do not readily yield identical results; or differences in judgments, recommendations, interpretations, or decisions can have consequences or impact on the work of other subordinates. Such work also may be accomplished by a team, each member of which contributes a portion of the analyses, facts, information, proposed actions, or recommendations, which are then integrated by the supervisor. OR

At Level 6-3b, the position directs subordinate supervisors over positions in grades GS-07 or 08 or the equivalent which requires consolidation or coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-2a within or among subordinate units or with outside units.

Level 6-2a is met. As established in Factor 5, the base level of work supervised is GS-07. Like this level, each appellant coordinates the work of their respective units with subordinate staff to ensure consistency, timeliness, and accuracy in the delivery of services and advice.

Levels 6-3a is not met. Unlike this level, although the base level of the appellants’ position is GS-07 they do not have full and final technical authority over the work. While they apply technical expertise in their day-to-day activities, they seek technical advice from the FC on the more difficult and unusual program related problems and require greater review than just from an administrative or program evaluation standpoint.

Unlike Level 6-3b, the appellants do not direct subordinate supervisors over positions in grades GS-07 or GS-08 or the equivalent which requires consolidation or coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-2a within or among subordinate units or with outside units.

Factor 6 is credited at Level 6-2 and 575 points are assigned.

Special Situations

Supervisory and oversight work may be complicated by special situations and/or conditions. Because the appellants’ position meets Level 6-2, it must also be evaluated against the “Special Situations” section of this guide. Therefore, the appellants’ position is compared to the eight Special Situations listed below.

1. Variety of Work: Credit this situation when more than one kind of work, each kind representing a requirement for a distinctly different additional body of knowledge on the part of the supervisor, is present in the work of the A "kind of work" usually will be the equivalent of a classification series. Each "kind of work" requires substantially full qualification in distinctly separate areas, or full knowledge and understanding of rules, regulations, procedures, and subject matter of a distinctly separate area of work. Additionally, to credit "Variety" (1) both technical and administrative responsibility must be exercised over the work, and (2) the grade level of the work cannot be more than one grade below the base level of work used in Factor 5.

Situation 1 “Variety of Work” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the appellants are not responsible for directing more than one kind of work. They have technical and administrative responsibility over subordinate staff performing only work classified in the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-0081.

2. Shift Credit this situation when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.

Situation 2 “Shift Operations” is not credited. Unlike this situation, each appellant is responsible for directing the work of subordinate staff only on one shift.

1. 3. Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines. Credit this situation when the workforce supervised by the position has large fluctuations in size (e.g., when there are significant seasonal variations in staff) and these fluctuations impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for training, adjusting assignments, or maintaining a smooth flow of work while absorbing and releasing employees. Credit Constantly Changing Deadlines when frequent, abrupt, and unexpected changes in work assignments, goals, and deadlines require the supervisor constantly to adjust operations under the pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions.

Situation 3 “Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines” is not credited. Unlike this situation, RFD’s workforce does not experience large fluctuations in size nor does it frequently experience significant changes in work assignments or deadlines.

1. 4. Physical Dispersion. Credit this situation when a substantial portion of the workload for which the supervisor is responsible is regularly carried out at one or more locations which are physically removed from the main unit (as in different buildings, or widely dispersed locations in a large warehouse or factory building), under conditions which make day-to- day supervision difficult to administer.

Situation 4 “Physical Dispersion” is not credited. GCPO includes facilities and adjacent wildlands at both GCD (located near Grand Coulee, Washington) and HHD (located near Kalispell, Montana), which are approximately 322 miles apart. However, RFD personnel are only required to travel to HHD for scheduled maintenance one week each year. During the remainder of the year, the status of fire and safety-related systems at HHD is monitored remotely by RFD’s staff at their GCD location via the GCPO Security Control Center and most fire and safety-related incidents are managed by firefighters near the HHD facility. Therefore, a substantial portion of the workload for which the appellants are responsible is not regularly carried out at one or more locations which are physically removed from the main unit under conditions which make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.

1. 5. Special Staffing Situations. Credit this situation when: (1) a substantial portion of the work force is regularly involved in special employment programs; or in similar situations which require involvement with employee representatives to resolve difficult or complex human resources management issues and problems; (2) requirements for counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring; and (3) job assignments, work tasks, working conditions, and/or training must be tailored to fit the special circumstances.

Situation 5 “Special Staffing Situations” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the work directed does not include the special staffing situations listed in this situation.

6. Impact of Specialized Credit this situation when supervisors are responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the level of work credited in Factor 5, provided the grades of this work are not based upon independence of action, freedom from supervision, or personal impact on the job. Situation 6 “Impact of Specialized Programs” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the appellants are not responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the GS-07 base level of work credited in Factor 5

1. 7. 7. Changing Technology. Credit this situation when work processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of the subordinate staff. Situation 7 "Changing Technology" is not credited. Although there are regular innovations in the field of fire and safety management programs and related procedures (e.g., improvements in fire detection and suppression systems, equipment, and techniques; innovations in R&R equipment and methods) are not impacted to a significant degree by changes in technology thus there is no requirement for extensive staff training to accommodate such changes. 

1. 8. Special Hazard and Safety Credit this situation when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provision for significant unsafe or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization. Situation 8 “Special Hazard and Safety Conditions” is credited. The work directed by the appellants involves significant unsafe or hazardous conditions involving high voltage, confined workspaces, and dangerous and highly flammable materials, which make the appellants’ work more difficult and require ongoing specialized training in techniques dealing with such hazards as electrically non-conductive fire suppression gas and high- voltage fires.

The appellants’ position is credited with one of the eight Special Situations, i.e., Situation 8. However, the guide requires positions to meet three or more of the eight Special Situations to receive a single level increase for Factor 6. Therefore, no additional level is added to the level initially assigned.

Summary

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1.      Program Scope and Effect	1-7	350
2.      Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.      Supervisory & Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2	450
4.      Personal Contacts
A. Nature of Contacts	4A-1	25
B. Purpose of Contacts	4B-1	30
5.      Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-4	505
6.      Other Conditions	6-2	575
Total Points		2,035

 

The total of 2,035 points falls within the GS-09 range (1,855-2,100) on the grade conversion chart in the GSSG.

Decision

The appellants’ position is properly classified as Supervisory Firefighter, GS-0081-09.

Back to Top