Washington, DC

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

---

Carlos A. Torrico
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


05/23/2018

---

Date

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

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction.  Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellants’ PD to reflect our findings.  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 OPM Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington, DC. Office.
 
Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Financial Specialist, GS-501-12.  However, he believes his position should be classified at the GS-13 grade level.  The position is assigned to the Cash Management Section (CMS), Cash Management and Borrower Assistance Branch, Centralized Servicing Center (CSC), Rural Housing Service (RHS), Office of Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in St., Louis, Missouri.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s classification of his position and compares his position to a higher-graded Supervisory Financial Specialist, GS-501, position within his agency.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding his agency’s classification review process are not germane to this decision.

The appellant believes his official Financial Specialist, GS-501, position description (PD), number 058292, is not accurate and disagrees with the percentage of time credited to him for Contracting Officer Representative (COR) duties, asserting he spends 60 percent of his time performing COR duties versus 10 percent credited during his agency’s November 16, 2016, desk audit and 20 percent specified in his PD.  A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  The duties and responsibilities of a position make up the work performed by the employee.  Position classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply the PD.  Therefore, this decision is based on the actual work assigned to and performed by the appellant, and based on our review we agree the appellant’s COR duties constitute approximately 60 percent of his work time.  Consequently, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 10-11 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

The appellant also emphasizes intermittently performed duties, projects, and presentations, some performed more than 15 years ago, which he asserts are representative of his typical work.  However, duties that are not regular and recurring cannot affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.F.2).

Position information

The CMS is an operational component of the CSC which provides support to RHS’s Single Family Housing (SFH) program.  The SFH program extends mortgage loans and grants to individuals in rural areas throughout the United States and its Territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Pacific Trust Territories) and records, reconciles, and monitors the flow of fund receipts and disbursement transactions through detailed borrower’s account information provided to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury).  The appellant is responsible for managing the investment and disbursement of the SFH program’s borrower mortgage escrow funds contained within federally contracted bank accounts.

The appellant is the COR for the Investment and Disbursement Services contract which oversees bank accounts containing both government (i.e., interest earned from mortgage escrow fund investment) and borrower escrow funds totaling approximately $18.5 million dollars.  As the COR, he develops statements of work (i.e., a statement which defines, either directly or by reference to other documents, all work performance requirements expected of a contractor as well as qualitative and quantitative design and performance requirements); provides technical assistance regarding the establishment and management of mortgage escrow funds; prepares work plans, establishes processes for appropriate record-keeping, and monitors and documents contractor performance; performs inspections and acceptance actions, and informs appropriate officials when rejecting or accepting contract nonconformance.  He also reviews and recommends contract modification requests; recommends whether contract options should be exercised; notifies officials of contract delivery or performance schedule delays; assists in administering contracting officer’s stop-work orders  (i.e., an order which immediately suspends contracted work and related costs against that contract for a variety of reasons); assists in analyzing contractor claims and recommends settlement positions (i.e., parameters for settlement of terminated contracts); participates in the resolution process; provides input and recommendations regarding contract terminations; recommends authorization of payments against invoices; and performs contract closeouts.

The appellant manages the receipt, processing, and reconciliation of all mortgage payments collected.  He also processes, reconciles, and disburses funds for various payments, such as taxes, insurance, escrow overages, etc., which includes payments made by escrowed borrowers received by CSC through Treasury lockboxes, i.e., P.O. Box owned by Treasury into which borrowers’ mortgage payments go for processing.  The appellant prepares weekly escrow reconciliation of receipts, escrow check disbursements, escrow check voids and stop payments, escrow vouchers, escrow-related ACH and wire transfer disbursements to tax and insurance vendors, etc.  In addition, the appellant monitors escrow fund volumes to ensure appropriate levels of liquidity and daily availability of funds and cash-flow requirements within CSC’s escrow concentration, escrow disbursement, and emergency disbursement accounts for routine escrow disbursements and for periodic disbursements of interest on escrowed accounts.  He also maintains internal controls to ensure all deposited and disbursed funds are accounted for and all collections and disbursements are applied to borrowers’ accounts.

The appellant leads projects and studies involving the functions of RHS escrow fund collection, disbursement, and investment and performs daily reconciliation of CSC-initiated in-house disbursements balancing to LoanServ check registers (i.e., electronic system used to access borrowers accounts) to prevent fraud and embezzlement of CSC funds.  He also performs monthly bank reconciliation of settled and outstanding disbursements to bank statements and CSC internal disbursement reports and forwards bank reconciliation of all funds to accounting staff of the National Finance and Accounting Operations Center (NFAOC).  
The appellant ensures the accuracy and completeness of CSC-initiated new-loan origination funding and accounts for all fund movement balances via accounting transactions which flow through the general ledger.  He also ensures physical controls (e.g., logs, lists, vaults) for mortgage escrow funds are in place and monitored and makes recommendations to agency officials regarding changes in various cash management and payment applications policies and procedures affecting mortgage escrow funds.

As a member and advisor to the CSC Investment Committee, he analyzes and recommends changes in policies and procedures associated with investment strategies provided by contractor banks.  He analyzes fund volumes available for investment and the levels of liquidity needed for disbursement forecasts which are provided to contract banks and higher-level management within the agency.  The appellant authorizes the movement of investment funds between five bank accounts and two custody accounts and ensures timely and accurate posting and funds movement by contractor banks.  He is also the primary liaison between contractor banks and CMS disbursement unit employees and tracks quality and timeliness indicators of current contract banks on specific investment and distribution services contracts.  He outlines requirements for management of assigned escrow funds with other members of the CSC investment committee and procurement staff to solicit bids for CSC contracts for various banking services.  In addition, he evaluates and rates prospective contractors and determines which bank should be awarded the contract.  The appellant establishes functional test criteria for the escrow disbursement and funding process performed during periodic system programming upgrades initiated by various organizations inside and outside his agency.  He also maintains statistics, performs analysis, and develops reports and presentations on escrow investment and disbursement activity for submission to his supervisor and higher-level management as requested.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including the appellant’s official PD, which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant, his supervisor, and the Borrower Assistance Officer (i.e., the appellant’s second level supervisor), including follow-up requests for additional information from the appellant, his supervisor, and his servicing Human Resources Office.

Series, title, and standard determination

Both the appellant and his supervisor assert his COR-related duties and responsibilities constitute approximately 60 percent of his overall work and should have some measurable impact on his series and title, although neither of them indicated the series and title which should be credited to the appellant’s COR work.  However, although our review confirms the appellant’s COR duties constitutes approximately 60 percent of his overall time, COR duties are not exclusive to a particular occupational series but may be assigned to individuals with sound technical knowledge, experience, and judgment relating to work in a variety of Federal occupational series.  Therefore, the appellant’s COR duties will be evaluated within the context of the appropriate PCS.

The agency allocated the appellant’s work to the Financial Administration & Program Series, GS-501.  The appellant does not disagree and, after a careful review of the appellant’s work, we concur.  Positions classified in the GS-501 series are evaluated by application of the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Professional and Administrative Work in the Accounting and Budget Group, GS-0500, which provides series definitions, titling instructions, and grading criteria for nonsupervisory two-grade interval professional and administrative positions in the Accounting and Budget Group, GS-0500, including positions in the GS-501 series.  The GS-501 series has no prescribed titles.  Therefore, selection of a title is at the discretion of the agency but the agency must follow the titling guidance provided in Section III. H. of the Introduction.  

Grade determination

The GS-0500 JFS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format.  Under the FES, positions are evaluated by comparing the duties, responsibilities, and qualifications required with nine factors common to nonsupervisory General Schedule positions.  Under the FES, each factor-level description demonstrates the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  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 the higher level.  The total points assigned for the nine factors are converted to a grade by reference to the grade conversion table in the JFS.  

The agency credited the appellant’s position at Levels 1-7, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-3, 7-C, 8-1, and 9-1.  The appellant agrees with his agency’s Factor Level determination for Factors 8 and 9 and, after a careful review, we concur.  In his appeal letter and subsequent interview the appellant disagrees with his agency’s Factor Level determination for Factors 1 through 7,, and believes they should be credited at Factor Levels 1-8, 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 5-5, 6-4, and 7-D.  Therefore, our review focuses solely on the disputed Factors.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

At Level 1-7, knowledge typically applies to positions at more than one echelon of agencies and departments.  It is the minimum level of knowledge and skill required for budget officer positions and the highest level for salary and expense budgeting of a support nature in a Federal agency.  Positions at Level 1-7 require detailed, intensive knowledge of the policies, precedents, goals, objectives, regulations, and guidelines of a functional area such as financial oversight, budget formulation, and/or budget execution sufficient to:  (1) analyze and evaluate continual changes in program plans and funding and their effect on financial and budget program milestones, and (2) analyze financial and budgetary relationships to develop recommendations for financial and/or budgetary actions under conditions and time pressures such as uncertainty due to short and rapidly changing program and financial/budgetary deadlines and objectives; gaps and conflicts in program and financial/budgetary information; lack of predictive data; conflicting program and financial/budgetary objectives; and/or changing guidelines for the work.

At Level 1-8, work requires a mastery of and skill in applying the concepts, principles, practices, laws, and regulations of budgeting and/or financing; and the financial and budgetary relationships between subordinate and most senior levels of financial management and budgeting within the employing entity and/or between the organization and programs of other Federal, State, and local governments, private industry, and large public organizations sufficient to:  (1) analyze national level programs, exceptionally large and complex programs (e.g., multi-million dollar research grants, contracts, and /or cooperative acquisition agreements); (2) develop, recommend, and implement budgetary and financial policies; (3) interpret and assess the impact of new and revised Congressional legislation on the formulation and execution of budgets; (4) project and analyze the potential effects of budgetary actions on program viability and attainment of program objectives; (5) develop and render authoritative interpretations of executive orders, OMB guidelines and directives, and policies and precedents within and across agency lines; (6) develop new methods and techniques of budgeting for the forecasting of long-range funding needs (e.g., 3 to 5 years or more into the future); (7) and/or develop timetables for obtaining needed funding for new or modified substantive government programs.  

Level 1-7 is met.  Like Level 1-7, the appellant is responsible for managing CMS’s mortgage escrow funds within continually changing market conditions.  He applies his knowledge of financial management and oversight (e.g., investments, cash flow, fund liquidity) as well as various accounting, and auditing practices, methods, and techniques (e.g., reconciliation, balancing, running weekly account scripts, forecasting) to analyze the financial condition of assigned mortgage escrow funds and to identify market trends which may affect CMS mortgage escrow funds and associated milestones.  The appellant uses detailed knowledge of Federal and State laws and regulations (e.g., General Accounting Office (GAO) regulations, Treasury regulations, COR guidelines) and agency guidelines and procedures (e.g., Rural Development Handbook (HB) 3550- 3565) to ensure the investment, accounting, reporting, and distribution of escrow funds meet all regulatory requirements.  Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant performs a variety of technical and administrative COR functions designated by the Contract Officer (CO).  In doing so, he uses his knowledge of Federal, State, and Treasury regulations, Federal Contracts, and agency procedural requirements to review proposed contracts and recommends the most favorable contract(s) to the CO.  The appellant ensures contracted accounts are established, managed, and appropriately funded; analyzes financial relationships under the types of conditions described at Level 1-7, and forecasts all taxes and fees related to CMS’s mortgage escrow funds (e.g., real estate taxes, insurance, etc.); and creates mechanisms to ensure all fees are paid in a timely manner.  He also monitors the performance of contracted services and ensures the terms, conditions, and expectations of current mortgage escrow fund contracts (e.g., fees, billing cycles, services) are met and recommends termination of contracts when services and/or profitability are no longer satisfactory.  Like Level 1-7, the appellant coordinates with contracted banks, Treasury, and other individuals and groups within CMS, CSC, and RHS (e.g., supervisor, SFH program manager, CSC Investment Committee) to communicate conflicting issues, needs, goals, objectives, and accomplishments associated with CMS’s mortgage escrow funds.  The appellant maintains detailed records in a variety of electronic financial management systems (e.g., MortgageServe, RHS’s mortgage servicing system used to monitor, analyze, and manage funds within mortgage escrow accounts) and provides a variety of cyclical and non-cyclical analytical reports to a variety of higher-level groups and individuals including his first-line supervisor, the CSC Investment Committee, RHS’s SFH program managers, Treasury, etc.  

Level 1-8 is not met.  Unlike Level 1-8, although the appellant’s knowledge of Federal and State laws and regulations and USDA and RHS policies and procedures played a key role in the initial development of CMS’s mortgage escrow fund processes, the appellant is not responsible for financial policy development, interpretation, implementation, management, and/or analyzing agency guidelines, policies, programs, goals, objectives, budgets, and/or finances associated with, or having significant influence on, substantive USDA or RHS programs.  Unlike Level 1-8, he does not develop new methods or techniques for long-range funding, analyze national level agency financial management programs, or serve as an authority for the interpretation of Executive orders, OMB guidelines, or those within and crossing agency lines.  Instead, responsibility for the development, interpretation, implementation, management, and analysis of USDA and RHS policies, programs, budgets, and finances rest with higher-level management within USDA and RHS.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-7 and 1250 points are credited.  

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

At Level 2-4, the supervisor outlines 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 is fully experienced in applying concepts and methodologies and is knowledgeable in functional program characteristics and requirements.  The employee also is a technical authority with responsibility for actions such as planning and carrying out the assignment; directing other functional specialists; resolving most of the conflicts that arise; coordinating the work with others as necessary; interpreting policy and regulatory requirements; developing changes to plans and/or methodology; and/or providing recommendations for improvements in order to meet program objectives.  The employee keeps the supervisor informed of progress and of potentially controversial matters.  Such matters may include major problems in completing accounting systems development or installation; the possibility of fraud or items of major impact on other audit or examination efforts or agency program areas; the need for supplemental appropriations; and/or inability to meet key budget and program deadlines.  The supervisor reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach, effectiveness in meeting requirements or expected results, the feasibility of recommendations and adherence to requirements.  The supervisor does not usually review methods used.

At Level 2-5, the supervisor provides administrative and policy direction in terms of broadly defined missions or functions of the organization.  The employee is responsible for a significant program or function.  The employee defines objectives, interprets policy promulgated by authorities senior to the immediate supervisor, and determines their effect on program needs.  Additionally, the employee independently plans, designs, and carries out the work to be done.  The employee is a technical authority.  The supervisor’s review of the work covers such matters as fulfillment of accounting, auditing, examination, finance, or budget program objectives and the effect of advice, influence, or decisions on the overall program.  The supervisor usually evaluates the employee's recommendations for new systems, methods, projects, or program emphasis in light of the availability of funds, personnel, equipment capabilities, priorities, and available resources.  In addition, the supervisor rarely makes significant changes to the employee’s work.

Level 2-4 is met.  Like this level, the supervisor is responsible for outlining the overall objectives of the appellant’s work.  Similar to Level 2-4, available resources (i.e., mortgage escrow funds) result from how well the funds are managed by the appellant.  Comparable to Level 2-4, the supervisor exercises responsibility and oversight over all activities within CMS, including those of the appellant.  Like Level 2-4, the appellant is considered to be a technical authority regarding the application of concepts and methodologies associated with planning and carrying out assignments associated with investment banking, budgeting, accounting, mortgage escrow fund management, and Federal contracts related to investments of mortgage escrow funds and is knowledgeable in the functional characteristics and requirements of RHS’s SFH program.  Like Level 2-4, the appellant is allowed wide latitude in identifying potential issues concerning CMS’s mortgage escrow funds and taking necessary steps to correct them.  He resolves most program concepts that arise, coordinates work with others, interprets policies and regulatory requirements, and makes recommendations for improving financial management objectives.  However, he keeps his supervisor informed of progress and controversial issues that arise.  Similar to Level 2-4, the appellant’s supervisor periodically reviews his completed work for soundness of overall approach, effectiveness in meeting requirements (e.g., investing solely in backed and Federally insured securities), and regulatory compliance, but does not typically review the methods used by the appellant to accomplish the work.

Level 2-5 is not met.  Although the appellant works independently in managing mortgage escrow funds and receives limited supervisory oversight, his assignments do not involve the exercise of delegated authority to define objectives and interpret policies promulgated by higher level agency management officials.  On the contrary, his work is monitored by various individuals and groups (e.g., first-level supervisor, CSC Investment Committee, SFH program manager, CO) to ensure his work is compliant with applicable Federal, State, and Treasury regulations and agency policies and procedures.  For example, the supervisor performs periodic checks to ensure mortgage escrow fund are invested solely in backed, insured securities.  Unlike Level 2-5, the appellant’s work is more closely reviewed than that described at the higher level.  

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-4 and 450 points are credited.  

Factor 3, Guidelines

At Level 3-4, guidelines and policies are typically scarce; very general in nature; pertain only to routine issues and matters; are stated in terms of goals to be accomplished rather than the approach to be taken; and present a number of principles and standards any one of which may reasonably apply to the broad subject matter.  Documentation of work done in earlier assignments is not available or is not applicable because of changes in subject matter, objectives, or emphasis.  The employee routinely must develop specific objectives and devise new methods, techniques, and criteria pertaining to such matters as identifying trends and patterns; acquiring information and analyzing data; modifying systems to accept new kinds of data; and developing solutions and presenting findings.  Employees at Level 3-4 may interpret available guidance for employees at the same or subordinate levels.

At Level 3-5, guidelines consist of such items as broad policy statements, basic legislation, laws, tax regulations, and agency goals.  Often the guidelines originate with more than one Federal department or agency.  They may require extensive interpretation to effect agency-specific policy statements, regulations, and instructions that are free of ambiguous and conflicting or incompatible goals and objectives.  These interpretations generally take the form of policy statements, regulations, and instructions such as financial management policy for use throughout a department or comparable organization or throughout the Executive branch of Government; guidelines on auditing contracts or on auditing regulated industries or other comparable guidelines that normally apply government-wide; and/or tax examination policy applicable throughout the Internal Revenue Service.  Employees at Level 3-5 must use judgment and ingenuity and exercise broad latitude in interpreting the intent of applicable guidelines.  Often the employee has peer recognition as a technical authority in a field of accounting, auditing, or taxation with responsibility for developing policy, standards, and guidelines for use by other accountants, auditors, or agents within agencies or within functional areas that cross agency lines.  

Level 3-4 is met.  Like this level, guidance concerning the management of mortgage escrow funds for the SFH program is very general in nature and cover Federal, State, and Treasury regulatory requirements and policies (e.g., Treasury regulations, USDA policies, HB 3550-3565).  Similar to Level 3-4, the appellant coordinates with the CSC Investment Committee, the SFH program manager, and contract banks in researching current and future investment markets in order to develop new investment strategies and techniques to predict, and effectively react to, constantly fluctuating markets.  Like Level 3-4, the appellant recommends changes to various automated processes (e.g., EFT, Escrow Voucher Accounts) and electronic financial management systems (FMS) (e.g., ACH, MortgageServe) to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of various CMS’s mortgage escrow fund processes.

Level 3-5, is not met.  Unlike this level, the guidance available to the appellant (e.g., Comptroller General Decisions, Treasury regulations, SFH program objectives and goals, CSC and CMS guidelines) is more structured than broad policy statements, basic legislation, laws, tax regulations, and agency missions and goals.  In addition, although the appellant is considered a technical authority with regard to the investment, management, and distribution of mortgage escrow funds and Federal contracts associated with investment banking, he is not responsible for interpreting the intent of Federal laws and regulations in order to affect agency-specific guidance and policies.  Instead, the appellant coordinates with a variety of individuals and groups (e.g., supervisor, CSC Investment Committee, CO) to discuss the appropriate application of current guidelines to determine their effect on present and future processes associated with CMS’s mortgage escrow funds.

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-4 and 450 points are credited.

Factor 4, Complexity

At Level 4-4, work consists of performing a variety of analytical, technical, and administrative work for substantive programs and support activities.  These programs and activities are funded through a number of sources such as appropriations, allotments, reimbursable accounts, and transfers of funds between organizations.  Programs and funding are unstable and subject to change throughout the fiscal year.  These changes necessitate making frequent adjustments to budget estimates or conducting partial re-budgeting during the fiscal year.  Program funding may extend for several years or more, as in the case of no-year appropriation.  The budget typically includes a wide range of object classes and line items for one or a few substantive programs and organizations.  Alternatively, the budget may include fewer object classes and accounts, but through which a wide range of programs is funded.  The employee identifies and analyzes changes in budgetary and/or financial policies, regulations, constraints, objectives, and available funds that affect the accomplishment of program objectives; analyzes budget and/or financial program data to develop annual and multi-year budget estimates for assigned programs and activities; conducts research, identifies, and analyzes trends in the use of funds, and recommends adjustments in program spending that require the rescheduling of program workloads.  At Level 4-4, the employee assists program managers and staff officials in interpreting the impact of and planning for multi-year financial/budgetary and program changes.  The employee must choose the analytical technique that is appropriate for the task such as cost-benefit analysis, depreciation, and pro-ration of revenues and costs.  The presence of conflicting program and financial data make it difficult to identify reliable data.  Unpredictable short-term deadlines that vary according to financial/budgetary objectives, available funding, program goals, and workload make it difficult for the employee to identify trends in the use of funds; recommend program spending adjustments that require rescheduling of program work-loads; and assist program managers and staff officials in interpreting the impact of, and planning for, multi-year financial/budgetary and program changes.

At Level 4-5, work consists of selecting and using many different and unrelated analytical techniques and methods relative to substantive agency programs with widely varying needs, goals, objectives, work processes, and timetables.  Such programs relate to many echelons and components within a large Federal department or agency, to other agencies, to private industry, or to the public.  Level 4-5 includes budget execution work involving the most difficult funds control activities.  These activities may include efforts to adapt budgetary policies, analytical methods, and regulatory procedures for use by subordinate echelons, and their centralized or consolidated equivalent.  Work covers such matters as multi-year procurement of major weapons systems, construction projects, law enforcement activities, and delivery of payments and benefits to the public.  The employee recommends changes in funding and budget plans that if accepted may require management to revise substantive programs.  Recommendations follow detailed analysis and consideration of program requirements in relation to budgetary requirements, policies and methods, and sources and types of funding.  The employee develops proposals concerning alternative methods, sources, and timing of financing for substantive programs; evaluates the mutual effects and interrelationships between program goals and accomplishments and budgetary resources and policies.  At Level 4-5 the employee encounters difficulty in formulating, presenting, and/or defending budget requests and must devise and apply innovative criteria to evaluate the progress and cost effectiveness of program plans, goals, and objectives.  The employee encounters and resolves issues in work environments characterized by conditions such as continually changing program objectives, plans, and funding requirements resulting from new legislation, revised policies, and shifting demand for goods and services; conflicting program and budgetary requirements such as reduction in budget authority coupled with expansion of services to the public; implementation of a new substantive program that is complicated by the lack of productivity data upon which to base budget forecasts; varying economic and fiscal circumstances such as fluctuations in the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies; and/or technological developments that have significant cost impact upon substantive agency programs.

Level 4-4 is met.  Like this level, the appellant performs a variety of analytical, technical, and administrative work while managing the day-to-day operations of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds.   The appellant also develops and updates policies and procedures related to CMS’s mortgage escrow funds and recommends changes to a variety of electronic FMS (e.g., MortgageServe, SunView, NowDocs, NowChecks) used to manage, analyze and report the profitability, liquidity, and availability of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds.  Similar to Level 4-4, the appellant’s work requires him to analyze financial management information and coordinate with others (e.g., supervisor, CSC Investment Committee) in order to resolve a broad range of investment-related issues (e.g., fluctuating financial markets, varying profitability of Federally contracted bank accounts) which could affect the profitability of invested mortgage escrow funds.  The appellant uses great care in determining which techniques and approaches he must use to analyze trends in order to maintain or increase the profitability of mortgage escrow funds in an ever-changing investment market.  For example, the appellant regularly makes recommendations to individuals and groups within CMS and CSC (e.g., supervisor, CSC’s Investment Committee) concerning the movement of mortgage escrow funds from Federally contracted bank accounts with limited services and diminishing profitability to new Federally contracted bank accounts with better or more applicable services and greater profitability.  Comparable to Level 4-4, the appellant works closely with Federally contracted banks to identify and resolve inconsistencies with products and services specifically stipulated in the Federal contracts, such as, billing cycles, interest rates, fees, etc.

Level 4-5 is not met.  Contrary to this level, the position does not use different and unrelated analytical techniques to review and evaluate agency programs with widely varying needs, goals, objectives, work processes, and timetables.  Instead, the position uses a variety of related analytical techniques and methods to identify which markets will provide the greatest balance of stability and profitability from the investment of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds, e.g., cost/benefit analysis; market growth rate; strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats analysis; market trend analysis, etc.  In addition, the overall objectives (i.e., ensuring the safety and availability of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds while generating an additional revenue stream) and work processes of the position remain similar, e.g., researching investment markets; determining how much to invest in each market; ensuring funds are available for various fees and payments; reviewing bank contract proposals, etc.  Unlike Level 4-5, although timetables for some of the position’s processes vary (e.g., initiating and terminating individual investments, reviewing and recommending approval of prospective Federal contracts), many of the position’s time tables are regular and recurring such as Treasury and agency reporting cycles, fee payment schedules, etc.  Unlike Level 4-5, the appellant’s position does not relate to many echelons and components within a large Federal department or agency, other agencies, private industry, or to the public.  Instead, the appellant’s position is located within CMS (a component of CSC) and provides support to the SFH program (a component of RHS) which is one organizational level above CSC.  Contrary to Level 4-5, the position is not responsible for developing, presenting, or defending budgetary requests for USDA programs or for devising and applying innovative criteria to track and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA programs, goals, or objectives.  Instead, these responsibilities rest with higher-level managers within the agency.

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

Factor 5, Scope and effect

At Level 5-4, work involves executing modifications to systems, programs, and/or operations, or establishing criteria and other means to assess, investigate, or analyze a variety of unusual problems and conditions. Work involves a wide range of agency activities or the operations of other agencies, or the activities of private sector entities with which the agency conducts business or provides services.  Work affects the amount and availability of funds for major substantive or administrative programs and services (e.g., developing strategic weapons that are part of larger systems; housing construction; delivering health care services to the public; researching grants; paying benefits; conducting regulatory and enforcement programs within a region or comparable area of the Nation; the budgets, programs, and interests of other Federal agencies, public organizations, and/or private industrial firms when the supported programs and/or projects cut across component lines within the employing agency.  Work at Level 5-4 also affects the way financial information is applied in planning organizational operations or the efficient use of funds; the way management control systems, financial management accounting systems and programs are structured and operated throughout an organization and/or regulated industries with which the agency conducts business or provides services; and/or the tax liability and in some instances the treatment of accounting methods and techniques for tax purposes as they are employed in a business unit.

At Level 5-5, work involves isolating and defining unknown conditions, resolving critical problems, and developing new theories.  Work outcomes may have an impact in any of a variety of areas and domains such as major aspects of programs or missions; the well-being of substantial numbers of people; the comprehensive application of accounting principles, concepts, and techniques to developing or managing complex accounting systems; and, the establishment of a definitive framework for applying audit theories, concepts, and techniques.

Level 5-4 is met.  Comparable to this level, the appellant manages the receipt, investment, and distribution of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds including the modification of financial management systems and operations contained within several Federally-contracted bank accounts.  He analyzes continually-fluctuating financial markets; develops and proposes investment strategies for individual investments to his supervisor and the CSC Investment Committee; and implements operational changes in order to sustain the profitability of invested mortgage escrow funds.  Similar to Level 5-4, the appellant’s work affects the amount, availability, and profitability of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds and CSC’s ability to provide services to RHS’s SFH program.
Level 5-5 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s position is not responsible for isolating and defining unknown conditions, resolving critical problems, and developing new theories associated with agency policies, programs and processes. Instead, the appellant’s position is responsible for day-to-day management (e.g., market research, investing, monitoring, tracking, distribution) of CMS’s mortgage escrow funds.  Responsibility for isolating and defining unknown conditions, resolving critical problems, and developing new theories associated with agency policies, programs and processes, including those of the SFH program, rest with higher-level management within RHS and USDA.  Unlike Level 5-5, the appellant’s work does not affect the areas and domains typical of that level.  
Instead, the appellant’s work primarily affects the components serviced by CSC.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-4 and 225 points are credited.

Factors 6 & 7, Personal contacts and Purpose of contacts

Personal contacts include face-to-face and telephone contacts with persons not in the supervisory chain.  Levels described under this factor are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.  These factors are interdependent.  The same contacts selected for crediting Factor 6, must be used to evaluate Factor 7.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the point assignment chart for Factors 6 and 7.

             Personal contacts

At Level 3, contacts include executives, officials, managers, professionals, and/or taxpayers including corporation officials, and employees of other agencies and outside organizations and businesses.  Contacts are not routine or recurring.  The employee must recognize or learn the role and authority of each party during the course of the meeting.  Typical contacts may include:  representatives of contractors; attorneys and accountants of business firms; representatives of State and local governments; administrators, professors, and staff of universities and hospitals; other Federal agencies, including OMB representatives; various levels of agency management such as policy review boards at higher levels in the agency; and/or Congressional or Executive Branch staff members making inquiries on behalf of constituents.

At Level 4, contacts include recurring face-to-face and remote oral (i.e., telephone) or email contact with high-ranking officials from outside the employing department or agency at national or international levels in highly unstructured settings.  Typical contacts may include:  Congressional appropriations committee members; Presidential advisors and cabinet level appointees of major departments and agencies; State governors, mayors of large cities, presidents of large national or international firms; presidents of national unions, governors, or mayors of large cities; and/or occasional contact with nationally recognized representatives of the news media on financial matters of national significance.

Level 3 is met.  Comparable to Level 3, the appellant’s contacts include, but are not restricted to, bank contractors and representatives (e.g., trust, asset management); Treasury representatives at comparable levels to the appellant, OIG and GAO representatives, and higher-level agency management, e.g., SFH program manager, Escrow Analysis Officer, CO etc.  These contacts can be routine and non-routine, recurrent and non-recurrent, and take place in both structured and non-structured settings, e.g., quarterly meetings, CSC Investment Counsel meetings, moderately unstructured face-to-face meetings, telephone and conference calls, and e-mail, etc.  Like Level 3, roles and authority may need to be clarified at the time of the meeting based on the nature of the contact.

Level 4 is not met.  Unlike level 4, the appellant’s contacts do not routinely include high-ranking officials at national or international levels, Congressional appropriations committee members, Presidential advisors, State governors, mayors of large cities, or nationally-recognized representatives of the news media in highly unstructured settings.

            Purpose of contacts

At Level C, the purpose of contacts is to influence, motivate, interrogate, or control persons or groups when there is wide disagreement on the merits of a proposed action, or when persons contacted are fearful, or uncooperative.  Reasons for contact at Level c, may include:  persuading program managers and other officials in positions of decision-making authority with widely differing goals and interests to follow a recommended course of action consistent with established budget/financial management policies, objectives, or regulations; influencing or persuading others to the employee's point of view regarding the merits of a technical accounting method, concept, or procedure when others hold strongly opposed points of view; influencing or persuading representatives of an audited organization to accept critical or controversial observations, findings, and recommendations when representatives of audit subjects are reluctant to agree that costly errors were made, that corrective action is required, or that suggestions for change will improve operations; influencing and persuading taxpayers to comply with requirements for information to resolve outstanding problems and issues or to pay tax liability when the taxpayers or their representatives hold strong opposing views, and/or are hostile, skeptical, or uncooperative requiring the employee to use tact, persuasiveness, and diplomacy to obtain the desired results; providing skeptical and fearful individual and business taxpayers with information on agency products and services; and/or providing in-depth authoritative tax advice and assistance to increase compliance with tax laws and regulations through increased knowledge.

At Level D, the purpose of contacts is to present, justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues.  The persons contacted typically have diverse viewpoints, goals, or objectives.  This situation requires that the employee work with the contacts to achieve a common understanding of the problem.  Often the employee must negotiate a compromise or develop suitable problem resolution alternatives.  Generally, the topics under discussion involve long range issues or problems.  Reasons for contact at Level d, may include:  defending alternative methods of financing substantive program operations or the redistribution of appropriated funds and programs among components immediately below agency or equivalent level; negotiating and resolving controversial financial and program issues of considerable significance that are not susceptible to resolution at lower echelons in government; justifying the overall direction to be given for the organization's financial management, budgeting, accounting or auditing programs; justifying proposed changes to achieve major economies; and/or justifying proposed revisions to standards and guides for complex programs or activities.

Level C is met.  Like level c, the appellant provides technical insight and recommendations regarding mortgage escrow investments and Federal contracts.  Although the appellant has considerable latitude to make decisions regarding his day-to-day work, he must still influence, motivate, and persuade persons or groups (e.g., supervisor, CSC Investment Committee) concerning investment strategies and obtain their cooperation and support for his proposals.

Level D is not met.  Unlike level d, the appellant does not have the authority to negotiate matters at the highest level of the agency, justify the overall direction to be given for the organization’s programs, or defend redistribution of appropriated funds and programs among components immediately below the agency level.

By application of the Point Assignment Chart in the JFS, Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Level 3-C and 180 points are assigned.

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-7	1250
2. Supervisory controls	2-4	450
3. Guidelines	3-4	450
4. Complexity	4-4	225
5. Scope and effect	5-4	225
6. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	3-C	180
8. Physical demands	8-1	5
9. Work environment	9-1	5
Total		2790

The total of 2790 points falls within the GS-12 point-range (2755 - 3150 points) on the Grade Conversion Table provided in the JFS.

Decision

The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-501-12, with the title at the agency’s discretion.

Back to Top