Washington, DC

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

---

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



02/10/2021

---

Date

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

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Accounting Technician, GS-0525-07, but she believes it should be classified in a different series at a higher-grade either as GS-0501-09/11 or GS-0510-08/09/11.  The position is located in the Branch of Finance, Division of Administration, Eastern Regional Office, Office of the Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), in Nashville, Tennessee.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about the classification review process conducted by her agency.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of her position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing her current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions and our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying her position are not germane to the classification appeal process. 

Position information

The mission of the BIA is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.  The delivery of program services, whether directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts, is administered by 12 regional offices and 83 agencies, which carry out the BIA’s mission at the tribal level.  The eastern region encompasses over 62,000 tribal members within 34 tribes.  The region’s servicing area includes 460,980 acres held in trust and 102,677 acres of restricted land consisting of the states from Maine to Florida, over to Louisiana, and up to Illinois.  The region includes three agencies (i.e., Cherokee Agency in North Carolina, Choctaw Agency in Mississippi, and Seminole Agency in Florida).

The appellant performs transactional work to identify and resolve particular processing discrepancies for eastern region customer activities and fund accounts.  Examples include payroll discrepancies, supplies ordered, payment for services received or provided, and charge card transactions.  The appellant monitors the region’s accounts, prepares journal voucher entries to bring them back into balance and/or coordinates with customers as needed to properly isolate and resolve errors.  She determines and processes necessary corrective measures in the Financial and Business Management System (FBMS) and documents actions taken thereby maintaining and ensuring the integrity of various general ledger accounts.

The appellant provides technical accounting operational support and advice to the region, including maintaining accounts and assisting with payment and collection transactions.  This work requires coordination with regional customer personnel, private sector suppliers, and others to ensure voucher validity and completeness, clarify issues, or obtain information needed to properly process transactions and resolve problems.  For example, if regional staff question expenses on vendor invoices, the appellant is contacted for assistance.  She accesses the FBMS and locates the invoice.  The appellant examines the contract and all supplied transaction documentation to determine the accuracy of the invoice.  If the amount of the expense is correct, the appellant contacts the receiving official or contracting officer’s representative (COR) and lets him or her know the amount is correct so the vendor is paid.  If the amount is incorrect, the receiving official or COR returns the invoice and requests a revised one.  An explanation of the discrepancies, which the appellant assists with developing, is provided to the vendor.  If the vendor disagrees, the appellant works with a regional contracting officer and the vendor on modifying the contract to reflect revised pricing.  Once completed, the appellant requests a new vendor invoice.  She examines the new invoice and documentation for accuracy prior to ensuring payment is made in accordance with contractual requirements, i.e., through the FBMS Internet Payment Platform (IPP) or a purchase card.

Inter-Agency Agreements (IAAs) are entered into between the region and other Government or DOI agencies as needed.  For example, National Park Service (NPS) fire protection and prevention personnel providing fire management and training support to the region’s tribes in Florida.  The majority of the time IAAs are initiated by an organization within the region.  In these instances, a requisition form is completed by the requestor and approved by higher-level management.  The approved requisition form is then forwarded to the appellant and she completes the IAA form.  After the approval process is complete, the IAA form is returned to the appellant and she maintains the agreement, e.g., obligates or de-obligates funds in FBMS and ensures payment is made for the services received through the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) system.  When an IAA is initiated by another Government agency, the appellant completes the financial information portion of the IAA form, e.g., amount obligated by the buyer, performance period of the agreement, and billing frequency.  After the approval process is complete, the IAA form is returned to the appellant and she maintains the agreement.  This includes the appellant examining payment voucher packages to verify their validity and completeness by ensuring all required documentation and signatures are included so the necessary account entries are made in the FBMS.

On a daily basis, the budget office runs Fund Status Reports for each program (e.g., Natural Resources and Forestry and Fire) in the region.  The reports include the amount of funds allotted, spent, and available for use.  Each program manager receives the report for his or her program and copies are provided to the appellant.  She reviews the reports and sometimes a purchase requisition can cause a positive balance one day to become a negative balance the next day.  When this happens, the appellant gathers information to include running various FBMS reports (e.g., payroll, daily transactions, and charge card transactions) so she can research the financial management information (e.g., budget and acquisitions) for the affected accounts.  The appellant coordinates with program managers and Office of the Chief Finance Officer (OCFO) staff members in Reston, Virginia, as needed to determine and implement corrective measures and document actions taken to resolve problems and maintain and ensure the accuracy of the accounting data in the FBMS.

On an on-going basis, the appellant monitors the region’s contracts and undelivered orders (UDO) payments.  She tracks the funds remaining after payments are made on each contract line, which captures information about the supplies or services to be acquired in the contract.  If there are insufficient funds available for the next payment, she requests the contracting officer de-obligate the contract line or increase the amount of funds.  Each quarter, the appellant is required to certify and validate UDO reports to the region’s Chief Financial Officer in a timely manner.  She provides assistance and advice to the program managers to ensure accurate data and explanations for each contract line are provided for their contracts, to include any expiring contracts.  For example, the appellant researches each contract line and runs FBMS reports to identify incorrect/abnormal entries in the system so the affected accounts can be revised.

The appellant serves as the region’s Government charge card program coordinator.  Regional supervisors submit to the appellant the names of their employees to be assigned travel and/or purchase cards as needed.  She completes the application forms for employees and submits them to Citibank for approval.  Once approved, Citibank creates accounts in the Citi Manager system for all card holders and OCFO staff members create accounts in FBMS for purchase cardholders.  The appellant provides one-on-one training in the system(s) for which new cardholders are authorized.  She also provides assistance to current cardholders with questions, e.g., charge card reconciliation and navigating the system(s).  The appellant monitors cardholder transactions in the Citi Manager system.  If she finds evidence of cardholders making inappropriate purchases or not paying their monthly bill, she contacts the supervisor or manager with authority to approve the cardholder’s transactions.  The appellant discusses the situation with the supervisor or manager to include explaining DOI, BIA, and General Services Administration (GSA) charge card policies.  The supervisor or manager then determines whether the employee should retain his or her charge card and the appellant takes action as needed.  The appellant also provides yearly charge card refresher training to all eastern region employees.  The training is given at the regional office and at each of the three agencies.  The topics include going over the DOI, BIA, and GSA charge card policies; how to read and reconcile Citibank statements; and charge card misuse, auditing, and monitoring.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency including her official PD number 1050001 which we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her immediate supervisor.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has classified the appellant’s position in the one-grade interval Accounting Technician Series, GS-0525, but the appellant believes it should be classified in the two-grade interval Financial Administration Series, GS-0501, or the Accounting Series, GS-0510.  The GS-0501 series covers positions that perform, supervise, or manage two-grade interval administrative work of a fiscal, financial management, accounting or budgetary nature that is not classifiable to another more specific series in the Accounting, Auditing and Budget Group, 0500.  The GS-0510 series covers professional positions that advise on or administer, supervise, or perform accounting work that requires application of accounting theories, concepts, principles, and standards to the financial activities of government, quasi-government, or private sector organizations.  Positions that perform accounting work require a broad understanding and theoretical knowledge of accounting acquired through professional education and training.  They apply accounting theories, concepts, principles and standards to design, develop, modify, operate or inspect accounting systems; prescribe accounting standards or policies; and analyze, examine, and interpret accounting data, records or reports to advise management on accounting program operations and other financial matters.  The GS-0525 series includes accounting technician support positions requiring a basic understanding of accounting systems, policies, and procedures in performing or supervising the examination, verification, and maintenance of accounts and accounting data.  GS-0525 positions require a knowledge of existing accounting systems, standard accounting codes, classifications, and terminology; an understanding of agency accounting policies, procedures and requirement; and the ability to apply various accounting methods, forms and techniques, but less than the broad understanding and theoretical knowledge of accounting acquired through professional education and training.  Employees in this series classify accounting transactions, maintain and reconcile accounts; close accounts and prepare reports and statements; analyze accounting data; and examine accounts.  Accounting technicians maintain accounts by reviewing documents to verify accounting data as necessary, entering data into the system, and taking a trial balance.  They reconcile accounts comparing account balances with related data to assure agreement; reviewing records and source documents to identify the sources of discrepancies; and determine the entries required to bring the account into balance.  Accounting technicians examine accounts to verify the accuracy of accounts and adequacy of supporting data.

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

We find the appellant’s position does not involve work that is administrative, two-grade interval in nature.  Although she performs a variety of general administrative and accounting related support functions, those duties do not require a high order of analytical ability, a comprehensive knowledge of management principles and theories, or knowledge of the methods and techniques to gather, analyze, and evaluate information.  Like assistance work, the appellant’s duties involve performing technical tasks to support the administration or operation of the programs of her organizational unit.  It requires a working knowledge of the work processes and procedures of an administrative area and the mission and operational requirements of an organizational unit.

The appellant believes her position should be classified in the GS-0501 or GS-0510 series.  As described in the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Professional and Administrative Work in the Accounting, Auditing, and Budget Group, GS-0500, positions classified in the Financial Administration Series, GS-0501, require a background of knowledge, skills and techniques in accounting, auditing or budget fields, but has no paramount, rigid or continuing requirement for the knowledge, skills and techniques characterizing any of the established series that reflect one or more of the academic disciplines, experience, or recognized professions.  Positions classified in the Accounting Series, GS-510, apply analysis, cost forecasting and planning methods, techniques and technology tools sufficient to ensure reports, plans, and strategies are consistent with official guidance, and support program goals and initiatives.  Accountants apply Federal accounting standards, fiscal law, policies, regulations, principles, internal controls, and procedures to financial management activities; and develop/implement organizational policies and procedures.  They also research and use data analysis, tools, and techniques to assess risk; evaluate, document, and improve internal controls; and prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse.  The appellant does not perform the typical functions done by professional accountants or administrative work of a fiscal, financial management, accounting or budgetary nature typical of positions classified in the GS-0501 series.  Her position exists to perform transaction processing, reconciliation, account maintenance, and contract payment monitoring.  We find her duties match one-grade interval technical work typical of positions in the GS-0525 series.  Position classification guidance for GS-0525 series positions is contained within the GS-0500 JFS for Clerical and Technical Accounting and Budget Work.  The JFS provides the title Accounting Technician for all covered nonsupervisory positions at or above the GS-05 grade level.  The appellant’s position is properly classified to the GS-0525 series and titled Accounting Technician.  Our evaluation of the grade of the position by application of the grading criteria in the GS-0500 JFS follows.

Grade determination

The GS-0500 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in the JFS describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  Therefore, if a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level, unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the GS-0500 JFS.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts that a worker must understand to do acceptable work and the extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.  To be used as a basis for selecting a level under this factor, knowledge must be required and applied.

At Level 1-4, the work requires in-depth or broad knowledge of a body of accounting, budget, or other financial management regulations, practices, procedures, and policies related to the specific financial management functions.  Work at this level may require knowledge of a wide variety of interrelated steps, conditions, and procedures or processes to assemble, review, and maintain complex accounting or other fiscal transactions (e.g., reconciling accounts in accounting systems involving frequent and varied adjustments to accounts; or resolving problems in balancing accounts, adjusting discrepancies, developing control records, and verifying the accuracy of budgetary data, adjusting dollar amounts of accounts by line item and object class).  The work may also involve knowledge of automated accounting and budget systems to reconcile errors that require an understanding of nonstandard procedures or to provide assistance in the development of automated procedures for clerical operations. 

Illustrative of work at Level 1-4 are assignments where employees validate, monitor, control, and maintain accounting transactions and accounting records for multiple accounts; reconcile subsidiary ledgers to general ledgers for accounts having a variety of transactions; research discrepancies between ledgers and make adjustments; and reconcile detailed listings of outstanding transactions to general ledger control accounts.  Other employees maintain control accounts and subsidiary accounts and process accounting transactions for a wide variety of functions including obligations, accrued expenditures, disbursements, appropriation refunds, reimbursable orders, earnings, collections, expenditure vouchers, cost transfers, rejected transactions, and other accounts in connection with the general ledger; receive and review purchase orders, contracts, and travel orders pertaining to claims and other similar documents against obligated funds; and certify and audit all payments to ensure compliance with terms.  On a regular basis, employees prepare reports on the status of funds in assigned accounts and activities.

In addition to Level 1-4 knowledge, Level 1-5 work requires a broad in-depth practical knowledge of accounting or other financial management technical methods, techniques, precedent cases, and procedures to resolve especially difficult or sensitive problems.  At this level, employees typically use: knowledge of the accounting methods, procedures, and techniques to conduct difficult and responsible analysis and determinations within a complete accounting system to validate transactions and to perform research to resolve inconsistencies.  Employees at this level apply knowledge of the interrelationships of various accounting systems applications and computer file systems and content to resolve problems of processed transactions (e.g., knowledge of computer master file systems, document processing, and the effects of transactions on existing records to modify normal automated processes in existing accounts while protecting historical data).  These modifications relate to obligations, collections, disbursements, and inter-fund transactions or other actions involving complicated adjustments such as carry back and carry forward and restricted interest cases; and/or knowledge of related financial regulations and rulings covering diverse types of transactions to typically function as a technical authority for the resolution of an extensive range of issues or problems.

Illustrative of Level 1-5 are assignments where employees examine accounts or resolve difficult reconciliations requiring an analysis of adjustments and corrective entries in the account.  They trace transactions entered and prepare worksheets to reflect the source of discrepancies, take corrective actions required to bring accounts into agreement, prove the accuracy of adjusted accounts, recommend actions to prevent recurrence of similar discrepancies; and compile and verify the accuracy of accounting data to prepare statements and reports, schedules, and comparative analyses of accounting transactions.

Level 1-4 is met.  Similar to this level, the appellant provides accounting operations support to the employees in the regional headquarters and agency field locations.  She performs complex transactional work involving established accounting systems.  The appellant provides guidance and assistance on accounting matters for internal operating programs, reviewing financial reports generated by the FBMS, identifying problems and discrepancies, reconciling accounting data, and determining if adjustments and corrections are required.  On occasion, she has recommended procedural changes to existing clerical operations.  For example, the appellant recommended a new procedure to the Bureau of Indian Education Grants Management Specialist, which was approved, for tracing the names of Native American college students awarded scholarships for their respective colleges or universities so the students receive the awarded funds timely.  The work requires knowledge of a number of accounts, automated accounting systems and their interactions, accounting regulations and policies, numerous established processes outlining sequential steps and activities necessary to properly resolve and document particular problem conditions.  The work also requires the ability to reconstruct actions, identify, isolate, and eliminate unique/difficult discrepancies to ensure accounts are balanced, properly maintained, and accurately reflect current status and coordinate actions with other interested parties, including other Government agencies.

Level 1-5 is not met.  Unlike the especially difficult or sensitive problems anticipated at this level, the problematic transactions encountered by the appellant on a regular basis typically involve a greater degree of the same type of research as her other actions (i.e., gathering and reviewing information from available sources) to resolve.  Problems not susceptible to resolution by application of established procedures and practices are referred to her supervisor or OCFO staff members for assistance or direction.  Because the appellant’s position does not modify normal automated processes in existing accounts, work-around procedures are provided to her.  She also does not apply knowledge of financial regulations and rulings covering diverse types of transactions to function as a technical authority for the resolution of an extensive range of issues or problems.  However, like Level 1-4 the appellant does identify patterns and changes to prevent the recurrence of common discrepancies.  For example, when the appellant became aware of several purchase card holders not attaching requisitions to their charge card statements, she developed, with permission from her supervisor, training for regional purchase card holders to explain the importance of receiving authorization prior to making purchases.  This was done to avoid purchase card holders being potentially charged with misuse of the charge card when the DOI Charge Card Team conducts quarterly use of charge card audits.  Because the appellant does not apply knowledge typical of Level 1-5 to the kinds of transactions described at that level, the position does not exceed Level 1-4. 

This factor is credited at Level 1-4 and 550 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers the nature and extent of direct and indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee’s responsibility, and the review of completed work.

At Level 2-3, which is the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, the supervisor assigns work with standing instructions on objectives, priorities, and deadlines and provides guidance for unusually involved situations.  Work may be assigned based on a standardized control system such as batched work, caseload level, or other defined structure and provide standard general instructions about timeliness, objectives, and relative priorities for doing the work.  The employee independently processes the most difficult procedural and technical tasks or actions and handles problems and deviations in accordance with instructions, policies, previous training, or accepted practices.  For example, the employee independently determines the types and sources of information needed to complete the transaction, the nature and extent of deviations from established requirements, and whether standard techniques, methods, or procedures are appropriate for assignments.  The supervisor evaluates completed work for overall technical soundness and conformance to agency policies, legal, or system requirements.  Completed work is reviewed by sampling in a quality review system and/or spot checked by the supervisor or a senior worker for results and conformity to established requirements and deadlines.  Methods used to complete assignments are seldom reviewed in detail.

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 2-3.  Like this level, her assignments are defined in terms of technical accounting standing instructions on program objectives and priorities.  She is assigned to specified areas of continuing responsibility for particular customers and independently processes the most difficult procedural and technical tasks in accordance with established work processes.  She resolves problematic transactions based on personal experience and established guidelines, policies, procedures, practices, and precedents.  Unusually involved or difficult situations including those for which systemic solutions or accounting workarounds are needed are referred to either her supervisor or OCFO staff members for direction or resolution.  The appellant’s work is not typically reviewed in progress or at completion nor are the methods and techniques she selects and applies to her assignments.  Her supervisor monitors her work through information available regarding account activity and established reports (e.g., determining if the appellant reaches out to program managers regarding the level of available program funds and if vendor invoices are being processed within the required seven-day timeframe).  Her supervisor provides assistance as requested and is kept informed of any potentially troublesome issues or problems impacting beyond the immediate organization.

This factor is credited at Level 2-3 and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

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

At Level 3-3, which is the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, guidelines are the same as Level 3-2, but because of the complicating nature of the assignments, they lack the specificity, frequently change, or are not completely applicable to the work requirements, circumstances, or problems. At this level, employees may have to rely on experienced judgment, rather than guides, to fill in gaps, identify sources of information, and make working assumptions about what transpired.  The employee uses judgment to interpret guidelines, adapt procedures, decide approaches, and resolve specific problems.  This includes, for example, using judgment to reconstruct incomplete files, devise more efficient methods for procedural processing, gather and organize information for inquiries, or resolve problems referred by others.  Employees also analyze the results of applying guidelines and recommend changes such as new control mechanisms or specific instructions for the procedural handling of documents and information.

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 3-3.  Guidelines are comparable to those described at Level 3-2 and include Federal statutes, policies and regulations, DOI and BIA regulations, directives and policies and procedures, established practices, contacts and reference points for particular work processes and precedents.  Due to the nature of the appellant’s work, available guidelines cannot provide specific and directly applicable instructions for the wide variety of individual processing, procedural and/or systemic problems and deficiencies encountered.  The appellant must apply experienced judgment to fill in the gaps, determine what information is needed and from what sources (including points-of-contact in the region’s programs and budget and OCFO staff members).  She determines the proper approach; selects, interprets, and adapts guidelines to deal with particular situations; and applies experienced judgment to resolve work problems.  For example, the BIA’s programs are given a certain amount of time in which to spend their funds.  When funds from one fiscal year (FY) remain available into the next FY, the appellant works quickly to reallocate the funds to payroll and/or charge card transactions, so the funds are not taken from the programs.  She runs FBMS payroll and charge card reports for the affected programs to determine the transactions she will reallocate which will equal the remaining prior FY’s balance for each line of accounting, so the balance is cleared.  Based on identified patterns and trends or experience gained through resolving a unique problem situation, the appellant may suggest new or revised procedures or practices to improve efficiency (e.g., recommending new procedures for tracing the names of Native American college students awarded scholarships so the funds are received timely).

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

Factor 4, Complexity

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

At Level 4-3, work involves performing various accounting, budget, or financial management support assignments that use different and unrelated processes, procedures, or methods because:   transactions may not be completely standardized; deadlines continually change; functions assigned are relatively broad and varied; or transactions are interrelated with other systems and require extensive coordination with other personnel.  Employees decide what needs to be done by identifying the nature of the problem or issue, determining the need for and obtaining additional information through oral or written contacts, or by searching available regulations and manuals.  The work may require considering previous actions and understanding how these differ from or are similar to the issue at hand before deciding on an approach.  Employees make recommendations or take actions based on a case-by-case review of pertinent regulations, documents, or issues involved in each assignment or situation.  For example, they use different established procedures to review and reconcile various financial documents and records; resolve a variety of problems through coordination with vendors, employees, and taxpayers; and review and reconcile various types of transactions involving multiple funds or a number of different control accounts or numerous modifications to contracts.

Level 4-4 is distinguished from the previous level by (1) the variety and complexity of examinations, transactions, or systems involved; (2) the nature and variety of problems encountered and resolved; and (3) the nature of independent decisions made by the employee.  At this level, employees must sort complicated factual information and apply a variety of methods to resolve issues.  The work requires making decisions, devising solutions, and taking actions based on program knowledge; interpreting considerable data to identify problems, determining what is the nature of the problem or issue, what approaches to use to resolve the issues, what to recommend given the variety of options, planning and implementing solutions; and refining or designing new methods or techniques.  Assignments may involve many different and unrelated processes and methods relating to the examination or analysis of complex and unusual transactions requiring substantial research and thorough understanding of a wide variety of transactions and accounts.  Decisions on what needs to be done include assessing unusual circumstances or conditions and developing variations in approach for specific problems or dealing with incomplete, unreliable, or conflicting data.  For example, employees may interpret and test user-defined specifications to modify an automated accounting system requiring broad knowledge of the user’s technical functions, program objectives, and impact of system changes on other functions, processes and requirements.  The JFS states Level 4-4 is creditable only when Factor Level 1-5 is appropriately assigned to the position being evaluated.

Level 4-3 is met.  Like this level, the appellant performs various accounting support assignments processing individual transactions, resolving particular transactional problems, and maintaining accurate accounting information.  For example, she processes payroll corrections, resolves issues with negative lines of accounting, and maintains Fund Status Reports.  Actions are varied; involve numerous accounts, methods, steps, processes, and procedures; and require research and consideration of the particular nature of the issues and problems to determine what needs to be done and how to proceed.  For example, a BIA employee who transferred to the NPS was awarded a permanent change of station contract to be paid by the NPS.  However, the Relocation Income Tax (RITA) portion of the contract was charged to BIA in error and created a negative balance in the former employee’s program payroll account.  The appellant began researching the error when she became aware of the negative balance.  An OCFO staff member input a correction in FBMS for the region but it created a statement of difference (SOD) between the US Treasury and FBMS because both systems did not show the tax was paid.  The appellant determined established accounting procedures would not correct the error.  She worked with OCFO staff members to develop a work around and an IPAC system payment arrangement was created so the NPS could refund BIA.

Level 4-4 is not met.  The appellant’s assigned duties and responsibilities do not involve the depth and complexity of research and transactions, difficulty in determining what needs to be done, or the nature of independent decisions made as described at this level.  Like Level 4-3, her assignments involve similar and related processes and methods concerning examining and resolving particular transactions.  The appellant processes actions involving numerous accounts, methods, steps, processes, and procedures.  Furthermore, the level of knowledge required to perform the work is properly credited at Level 1-4.

This factor is credited at Level 4-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work, and the effect of the work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-3, which is the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, the purpose of the work is to apply conventional practices to treat a variety of problems in accounting, budget, or financial management transactions.  Issues might result from insufficient transaction information, a need for more efficient processing procedures, or a request to expedite an urgently needed action.  Employees treat these or similar problems in conformance with established procedures.  The work affects the quality, quantity, and accuracy of the organizations records, program operations, and service provided to clients.  For example, the effect of the work ensures the integrity of the overall general ledger, its basic design, and the adequacy of the overall operation of the accounting system and various operating programs; the amount and timely availability of money to pay for services; the economic well-being of employees being serviced; or compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 5-3.  The appellant applies conventional practices to ensure a variety of transactions are correctly processed, problems affecting particular actions are identified and resolved, and general ledger accounts are properly documented and maintained.  The work involves researching, examining, and coordinating with others to solve numerous recurring problems affecting operating funds.  The work directly affects the processing of individual transactions and the individuals/programs dependent on the proper timely disbursement of funds, the integrity of general ledger accounting data relied upon as the official record for the management and required reporting of activities relating to the use of Federal Government monies, and ensures compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

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

Factors 6 and 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 in the JFS.

            Personal contacts

At Level 6-2, contacts are with employees in the same agency, but outside the immediate organization in other functional areas, with employees in other agencies providing requested information, and/or with members of the general public in a moderately structured setting.  For example, contacts may be with individuals who explain reasons for delays in making tax payments or those attempting to expedite transactions.

At Level 6-3, contacts are with members of the general public, persons serving in the capacity of a representative for others such as attorneys and accountants, contractors, public action groups, or congressional staff members making inquiries on behalf of constituents.  Contacts are not routine or recurring and the purpose, role and authority of each party must be established each time in order for the employee to determine the nature and extent of information that can be discussed or released.

Level 6-2 is met.  Like this level, the appellant’s contacts include BIA employees outside the immediate organization, including Budget and Contracting Department staff, regional program staff, other Federal agency staff, and vendor company staff.  The roles and relationships of the parties are typically established and known and are made to collect, exchange, or clarify information. 

Level 6-3 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s contacts are not with the general public, attorney’s, contractors, public action groups, or congressional staff members occurring in relatively unstructured settings and requiring establishing the roles and authority of the parties each time during the contact.  Like Level 6-2, her regular and recurring contacts are with regional staff, other Federal agency staff, and vendor company staff in a moderately structured setting.

            Purpose of contacts

At Level 7-b, the purpose of the contacts is to plan and coordinate actions to correct or prevent errors, delays, or other complications occurring during the transaction cycle.  This may involve obtaining a customer’s cooperation in submitting paperwork or other information, requesting other personnel to correct errors in documentation or data entry, or assisting others in locating information.

At Level 7-c, the purpose of the contacts is to persuade individuals who are fearful, skeptical, uncooperative or threatening to provide information, take corrective action, and accept findings in order to gain compliance with established laws and regulations.

Level 7-b is met.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is to plan and coordinate with regional, program, other Federal agency staff, and vendor company staff to examine, verify, and maintain accounts and accounting data, resolve discrepancies, or discuss findings concerning problem situations.  The majority of her contacts are comparable to those described at Level 7-b where the persons contacted are usually working toward a common goal and are reasonably cooperative.  For example, the appellant explains allowable expense levels in contracts when regional staff question vendor invoices, runs reports to identify program discrepancies and works with program managers to make needed corrections in the FBMS, and certifies and validates quarterly UDO reports to the Chief Financial Officer.

Level 7-c is not met.  Unlike this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is not to persuade skeptical, fearful, or uncooperative individuals to participate in any activity nor does she need to convince such individuals to accept findings or gain compliance with established requirements.  Like Level 7-b, her regular and recurring contacts are with individuals who ensure the reliability of the region’s accounts and accounting data and are generally cooperative.

By application of the point assignment chart in the JFS, the combined factors are credited at Level 2b and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 8, Physical demands

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

Like Level 8-1, which is the only level described for this factor in the JFS, the appellant’s work is mainly sedentary but may require periods of walking, standing, bending, or sitting.  Her work does not require any special physical effort or ability.

This factor is credited at Level 8-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Factor 9, Work environment

This factor considers the risks and discomforts in the employee’s physical surroundings, or the nature of the assigned work and the safety regulations required.

Like Level 9-1, which is the only level described for this factor in the JFS, the appellant works in an office setting involving everyday risks or discomforts.  Normal safety precautions are required.

This factor is credited at Level 9-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-4	550
2. Supervisory controls	2-3	275
3. Guidelines	3-3	275
4. Complexity	4-3	150
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	2b	75
8. Physical demands	8-1	5
9. Work environment	9-1	5
Total		1,485

 

The total of 1485 points falls within the GS-07 point range (1355-1600) on the grade conversion table in the GS-0500 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant’s position is properly graded at the GS-07 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Accounting Technician, GS-0525-07.

 

 

Back to Top