Washington, DC

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

---

Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


10/29/2014

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a classification certificate which is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in 5 CFR 511.605, 511.613, and 511.614, as cited in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

On March 14, 2014, OPM’s Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE)-Chicago accepted a position classification appeal from Mr. James E. Choate and on July 11, 2014, it was transferred to ACE-Philadelphia for adjudication.  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Contract Specialist, GS-1102-12, and is located in the Contracting Branch, Directorate of Contracting, U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville (Nashville District), Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Department of the Army, in Nashville, Tennessee.  The appellant believes his position should be upgraded to the GS-13 grade level.  We received the complete agency administrative report on April 4, 2014, and have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112(b) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background information

The appellant’s position was previously classified as Supervisory Contract Specialist, GS-1102-13.  The Department of the Army’s Southwest Regional Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, in a November 21, 2013, letter, notified him that the agency had reviewed the classification of the position, determined it was appropriately classified as Contract Specialist, GS-1102-12, based on an “erosion” of supervisory duties, and assigned him to position description (PD) number GJ418147 with that classification.  The appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with OPM.

General issues

The appellant raises concerns about his agency’s classification review process.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing the appellant’s current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the agency’s classification review process is not germane to this decision.

The appellant alludes to the amount of work he performs by stating he has technical oversight responsibility for all the contracts issued by the Contracting Branch.  However, volume of work cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, Chapter 5).

The appellant states the Army Workforce Development Roadmap for the Contracting and Acquisition (CP-14) Career Program explains the grade level of a Federal Contracting Specialist should be based on his or her certification level, years of Federal service, and work experience in the GS-1102 series.  As cited above, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM PCSs and guidelines.  That the Department of Defense (DoD) has issued DoD-level program certification instructions has no effect on and does not control the proper application of OPM’s PCSs and guidelines.  Thus, the appellant’s assertions with regard to these DoD requirements are not germane to the position classification process.

Position information

The overall mission of the Nashville District is to provide services to the U.S Army and the Nation.  These include providing water resource stewardship and engineering support for other Federal, State, and local governments throughout the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins.  The primary mission areas are navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration and the secondary missions include hydropower, environmental stewardship, recreation, water supply, and emergency response.

The Contracting Branch is comprised of the following: a Supervisory Contract Specialist, GS-1102-13, to whom the entire subordinate staff reports; the appellant, who is the senior Contract Specialist, GS-1102-12; six other Contract Specialists, GS-1102-12; two Contract Specialists, GS-1102-11; and one administrative support position.  The appellant and his supervisor serve as Contracting Officers (CO) with unlimited warrants.  However, only the appellant enters into contracts and obligates the Government.  The Branch receives a wide range of procurement requests from customers, e.g., electrical repairs; painting and paving services; purchases of computers, tractors, and backhoes; asbestos abatement; bulkhead fabrication for dams; maintenance and repair of power generators; and environmental restoration and remediation.  Internal customers are primarily located in the Program Management, Engineering, Construction, and Operations Divisions.  External customers include the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Energy, local municipal governments, and other Federal agencies. 

The appellant reviews each procurement request to ensure it is acceptable and includes the required information; e.g., funding document, item or service specifications, and a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) nomination.  If the request meets these requirements, the appellant assigns the action to a Contract Specialist based on such factors as his or her contracting experience and workload.  He oversees all phases of the pre-award, award, and post-award process for all procurement actions, and ensures each step is followed, thereby protecting the integrity of the process.  He works parts of the process independently and other parts in conjunction with the assigned Contract Specialist as needed.  For example, during the pre-award phase, the appellant determines the type of contract and the method to use, reviews the proposals submitted by contracting firms, and assists the assigned Contract Specialist during negotiations with a contracting firm’s representative. 

The appellant’s supervisor approves all acquisition plans which detail the steps in acquiring the product or service, and his second-level supervisor, the District Contracting Chief at the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, approves acquisition strategies, which provide a general overview of how to acquire the product or service for contracts over $150,000. 

After the contract is drafted, the appellant reviews it, and those over $150,000 are forwarded to the USACE Regional Business Operations Branch (BOB) in Louisville, Kentucky, which is assigned to service the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division and its Districts, for comment(s) and recommendation(s).  Construction or services contracts over $50 million, which are rare, are forwarded to the Principle Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC) in Atlanta, Georgia, a regional USACE office also assigned to service the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division and its Districts, for comment(s) and recommendation(s).  If the appellant does not believe the recommended courses of action are needed, he will develop and sign a memorandum explaining why and move forward with the process.  All contracts then go through a District General Counsel review to ensure legal sufficiency.

During the award phase, the appellant, as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for procurements under $50 million, determines which firm will be awarded the contract after carefully analyzing all pertinent information to include overhead and indirect rates, equipment to be used, and the length of time to complete the project.  During the post-award phase, he resolves problems arising after the contract has been awarded; e.g., project delays, unforeseen site conditions, and changes to the scope of work.  The appellant attends meetings with the Nashville District’s Senior Leadership Group to discuss any issues that develop after the contract is awarded, and answers their questions about the acquisition process.

To help us decide the appeal, we conducted telephone interviews with the appellant on July 23, 2014, and his immediate supervisor on August 12, 15, and 18, 2014.  In reaching our decision, we have carefully considered all of the information obtained from the interviews, as well as all other information of record provided by the appellant and his agency.  After a careful review, we find the appellant’s PD meets the standards of PD standards of adequacy for classification purposes as discussed in section III.E of the Introduction and we incorporate it by reference into our decision as it contains the major duties and responsibilities assigned to and performed by the appellant.  However, there are some inaccuracies in the appellant’s PD that should be corrected by the agency.  The PD includes a statement that fixed price and cost-reimbursable contract types are used, although only fixed price contracts are currently used.  Further, the PD states the appellant has a contracting workload and performs cradle-to-grave contract work.  However, the record shows he does not have an assigned contracting workload, but he needs to have and apply the same breadth and depth of contracting knowledge as a contract specialist to perform his CO work.  The PD includes a statement that he distributes contracting policies to field organizations, but there are no subordinate field organizations in the District.  Further, should the appellant participate in the District’s development of a proposed policy, it must be reviewed and approved at the District level.

Series, title and standard determination

The appellant does not question the series or use of the PCS for the Contracting Series, GS-1102, to evaluate his position and, based on a review of the record, we concur.

In his initial request to OPM, the appellant states:

...another basis for the downgrades would be “supervision” removed from our current PDs, which would also constitute additional erosion of duties.  This statement is not realistic as our new PDs state that my position will assist in supervision, assignment of workload, etc.  How can anyone assist in supervision if you are not a supervisor?  So in fact, looking at this realistically, nothing in my job or my duties will change as far as supervision with the exception I will be expected to perform the function but at a lower grade level!  The Government has specific training that is required for supervisors and specific training for Contract Specialist employees, either you are a supervisor or you are not.

Implicit in the appellant’s rationale is that the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) should be used to evaluate the position’s grade level.

To be covered by the GSSG, a supervisory position must meet all three of the following requirements:  (1) requires accomplishment of work through combined technical and administrative direction of others; (2) constitutes a major duty occupying at least 25 percent of the position’s time; and (3) meets at least the lowest level of Factor 3 in the GSSG based on supervising Federal civilian employees, Federal military or uniformed service employees, volunteers, or other non-contractor personnel.  The record shows the appellant assigns work and provides technical oversight, such as on-the-job-training, to the Contract Specialists within the Branch.  However, his supervisor provides administrative oversight; e.g., approving leave, training, awards, and discipline, to the entire subordinate Branch staff.  The appellant only provides administrative oversight in the absence of the supervisor.  As noted in the  Introduction, III.J.,  work carried out only in the absence of another employee may not be considered in determining the  grade level of a position.  Therefore, the appellant does not carry out both administrative and technical supervision for at least 25 percent of the time or meet the GSSG’s minimum coverage requirements and, thus, may not be titled “Supervisory.”

Based on the mandatory titling requirements of the GS-1102 PCS, the appellant’s position is titled as Contract Specialist, GS-1102.

Grade determination

The GS-1102 PCS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in a PCS 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 PCS.

The appellant believes his position should be evaluated at the GS-13 grade level because he independently exercises decision-making authority as a warranted CO.  Signatory authority is addressed by the PCS which states:  “CO authority generally affects certain responsibilities of the position, such as commitment authority described under Scope and Effect.  However, such authority is not, by itself, grade determining.  The grade of a particular position must be evaluated in terms of… the extent of review, the complexity of the procurement, the scope of the procurement, and other relevant factors.”

The appellant disagrees with the agency's evaluation of Factors 1 and 5.  After careful review, we concur with the agency's evaluation of Factors 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9.  However, we disagree with their evaluation of Factor 8.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 5, and 8.

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, such as the steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts; and the nature and extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.

The appellant disagrees with the assignment of Level 1-7 to his position, stating the agency’s factor level write-up “only skims the amount of knowledge required by a Contracting Officer to coordinate, validate, analyze, and make decisions for others.”  He further states he does not agree with his agency assigning his position the same factor level assigned the non-warranted GS-12 Contract Specialists who working on only their own assignments and do not assist with supervising others.

At Level 1-7, the work requires knowledge of a wide range of contracting methods and types to plan and carry out pre-award and post-award procurement actions, or in-depth knowledge of a specialized area to analyze difficult contracting issues, modify standard contracting procedures and terms to satisfy specialized requirements, and solve contracting problems requiring significant departures from previous approaches.  The work also requires familiarity with business practices and market conditions sufficient to evaluate bid responsiveness and contractor performance.  For example, at this level the employee may purchase large quantities of items to meet the consolidated requirements of one or more regions, commands, agencies, or departments, or may procure complex and/or diversified supplies, services, construction, or research and development, such as design services for specialized equipment, or architectural and engineering services to design major buildings, structures, facilities, or projects.  Contract administration may involve monitoring a group of contracts such as fixed-price with re-determination provisions, cost reimbursement, or contracts with incentive provisions.  The work may involve gathering and evaluating price and/or cost data for a variety of procurement actions, such as production equipment subject to design or manufacturing changes, or proposals projecting changes in labor and material costs or technology.  At this level, contract specialists engaged in staff work may write the activity’s operating procedures, interpret procurement regulations and policies for the activity operational procurement specialists, and identify and analyze procurement issues and their impact on local procedures.

At Level 1-8, work requires a mastery of contracting methods and types to plan and carry out long-term procurement actions, and familiarity with business strategy and program or technical requirements sufficient to perform or direct in-depth evaluations of the financial and technical capabilities or performance of the contractor, or equivalent knowledge and skill.  The distinguishing features of this level are the magnitude and complexity of the systems or services being procured; e.g., extensive ADP acquisitions such as a nationwide teleprocessing system or a multiprocessor mainframe system used in multi-disciplined scientific applications; all contractual aspects of a major program involving coordination of a number of contracts; extensive technical services, such as Government-owned, contractor-operated installations and facilities; or design services for large hospitals, laboratories, prisons, Federal office buildings, dams, power plants, mints, or other comparable structures involving preparing and awarding contracts for demonstration, including development of preliminary design and contract specifications, and developing additional contracts to procure scale models or full size modules to demonstrate the concepts of techniques when new or untried concepts or construction techniques are involved.  At Level 1-8, contract administration may involve complex service contracts which require day-to-day negotiations of significant contract changes, monitoring numerous special provisions, coordinating extensive subcontracting involvement, and observing rigid timeframes.   Work at this level requires mastery of the procurement functional area to apply experimental theories and new developments to problems not susceptible to treatment by accepted methods, to extend contracting techniques, and to develop procurement policies for use by other contracting personnel in solving procurement problems.  Alternatively, it requires mastery of procurement principles and program requirements to plan and manage or make decisions or recommendations that significantly affect the content, interpretation, or development of complex, long-range, or interrelated agency policies or programs concerning the management of procurement matters.  An illustration provided in the PCS of Level 1-8 staff work involves providing expert technical leadership, staff coordination, and consultation in a functional area of procurement, including responsibility for formulating guidelines, implementing new developments, and providing policy interpretation to subordinate contracting activities.

Level 1-7 is met.  As at that level, the position requires skill in a wide range of contracting techniques to procure diverse supplies and services.  These include electrical systems, painting, plumbing repairs, paving of roads, roof replacement and repairs, recreational area maintenance, computers, backhoes, personnel carriers, 200,00 volt breakers, asbestos abatement, maintenance and repair of 34 megawatt power generators, real estate title searches and deeds, and professional services such as environmental restoration and remediation, dam stabilization, and fabrication of bulkheads, and other services.  Comparable to Level 1-7, the appellant interprets and explains available guidance, oversees the development of the procurement strategy, evaluates bid responsiveness and level of responsibility of contractors, and assists with negotiating, awarding, administering, and closing out fixed price contracts.  Of the approximately 700 open contracts at various stages in the acquisition process that he oversees, high dollar value (i.e., several million dollars) contracts, such as Architect-Engineering services that provide water resource stewardship and engineering support to the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, may cover multiple years.  For example, there is an on-going dam safety rehabilitation project for the Center Hill Dam on the Caney Fork River in Tennessee.  This dam provides flood damage reduction, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and water quality benefits but has major seepage problems through the foundation of the main dam and saddle dam.  The objective of the project, which will be completed in three stages, is to install a grout curtain system and construct a cutoff wall along the main dam, saddle dam, and the abutment and rim areas beside the dams.  The appellant also issues contracts for highly specialized external customer needs such as building and/or repairing dams and conducting water studies for local municipalities, and minor construction projects at nuclear power plants for the Department of Energy.  Like Level 1-7, the appellant participates in negotiating modifications to the contracts in response to changes in the statement of work, changes in site conditions, legal/regulatory requirements, or other issues.  He researches and resolves difficult and/or politically sensitive contracting issues, evaluates price and cost data for procured services, ensures conformance with legal, regulatory and contractual requirements, and coordinates with local, Division, PARC, and agency attorneys, contracting and program personnel concerning actions potentially subject to litigation and/or media scrutiny.

Level 1-8 is not met.  The appellant’s contracts do not require application of the range and depth of knowledge expected at this level.  We note the appellant oversees contracts for dam and lock rehabilitation projects along the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins.  These projects are for several million dollars and have specialized requirements.  We note the Center Hill Dam safety rehabilitation project included an untried construction technique of sinking two-foot thick walls to a depth of up to 400 feet.  However, because projects do not require the use of new or untried construction techniques on a regular and recurring basis or to the extent depicted at Level 1-8, the appellant’s position does not fully meet this aspect of Level 1-8 in the PCS.  Also unlike Level 1-8, the projects do not involve continual and significant contract changes or extensive subcontracting.  The record shows the appellant negotiates contract modifications as needed, which is fully contemplated at Level 1-7.  Level 1-7 also addresses contracting work of a fairly high degree of difficulty and importance, such as Government-wide procurements and architectural/engineering services to design major projects, which is more representative of the appellant’s position.  Like Level 1-7, the appellant provides on-the-job training to Contract Specialists in such areas as negotiations, or for a type of acquisition not previously encountered by that specialist.  Typical of that level, he interprets regulations and directives; reviews current procurements to ensure their compliance with established statutory, regulatory and policy requirements; and looks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and consistency of contracting operations, which he shares as best practices with the Contract Specialists.  This work is not comparable to Level 1-8 staff work found in large organizations with subordinate contracting activities (e.g., in regional or field offices), where the employee is responsible for providing technical leadership, policy guidance, and staff evaluation of contracting issues and programs.  This function is not vested in the appellant’s position or his immediate organization.  The appellant states in his rationale for assigning Level 1-8 that his position should be assigned a factor level higher than the one assigned to a non-warranted Contract Specialist position only responsible for his or her procurement projects and not supervising others.  However, as stated earlier in this decision, performing technical oversight over all contracts issued by the Branch or having contract signatory authority are not factors in determining the grade of or assigning a particular factor level to a position.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-7 and 1,250 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and Effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work, as measured by the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignments, and the effect of work products or services both within and outside the organization.

The appellant disagrees with the assignment of Level 5-4 to his position, stating  he “is responsible for developing new or improved contracting procedures to implement provisions into the departmental or agency contracting function pursuant to statutes, executive orders, operational requirements, and requirements emanating from other sources.”  He further states there is little direction at the District level for handling these processes and COs like himself work with upper-level management to develop and implement processes to meet mandates.

At Level 5-4, employees provide expertise in a functional area of contracting; advise, plan, or review services on specific problems, projects, or programs; negotiate, award, administer, and/or terminate contracts; and frequently exercise delegated CO authority within prescribed money limits for all or most contract actions.  They plan, coordinate, and/or lead negotiations for a variety of complex contracts, contract modifications, or terminations; e.g., those which accommodate possible changes in program requirements, involve subcontractors, account for Government equipment, or involve consolidated requirements for several agencies or departments; formulate approaches to procurement problems or issues when the problems require extensive analysis of a variety of unusual conditions, questions, or issues; establish procedures to implement procurement policies and/or regulations; conduct in-depth analyses of contractors’ financial and management systems and facilities to determine their ability to perform or for compliance with Government or contractual requirements; and/or plan and conduct program evaluations of subordinate procurement activities.  The work significantly impacts contractor finances, the economy of respective geographic areas, or similar impact and affects a wide range of procurement activities (e.g., procurement program operations in various offices/locations; the timely support of other departments or agencies), contractor operations or management systems, or the ability to meet significant procurement or technical program goals.

The purpose of the work at Level 5-5 is to resolve critical problems, or develop new approaches for use by other contract specialists or for use in planning, negotiating, awarding, administering, and/or settling the termination of major procurements.  Recommendations or commitments are accepted as authoritative and frequently carry CO authority for transactions involving sizeable expenditures of staff, funds, and material.  Employees typically: plan and negotiate procurements for long-term systems, programs, or projects (i.e., five years or more); administer long-term contracts with delegated final authority to obligate funds in connection with most transactions and, as required, serve as team leader over a group of specialists whose services and advice are used to arrive at a decision; negotiate termination settlements and approve contractor proposed settlements with subcontractors for contracts in which several years of work have been expended, or which involve extensive proposals and/or claims of prime and subcontractors and large amounts of inventory and Government property; develop innovative contractual arrangements to resolve critical procurement problems and satisfy unusual procurement situations; establish and advocate/justify region, command, administration, agency or department positions concerning major procurement issues; develop procurement regulations, extend techniques, and/or interpret policy for use by other contracting specialists; or perform comparable work.  Work products affect the work of other experts within or outside the agency; establish guides or procedures for use by subordinate contracting activities; affect the operation and evaluation of subordinate contracting programs; accomplish major procurements that contribute to the achievement of mission objectives; affect decisions made by senior procurement, technical, or program officials in terms of the authoritative procurement advice provided; and impact the economic well-being of a large corporation or subsidiary or the well-being of substantial numbers of people, such as those employed in a major industry or served by a broad social, economic, health, or environmental program.

Level 5-4 is met.  As a CO with an unlimited warrant, the appellant applies contracting expertise to oversee the planning, coordination, and negotiation of a variety of complex contracts in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Army Federal Acquisition Regulations, USACE Acquisition Instructions, engineering pamphlets, etc.  He assists with and/or leads negotiation modifications for contracts in response to changes in requirements, analyzes procurement problems, and interprets and/or adapts established guidance to resolve them.  Like Level 5-4, he oversees the procurement process of each acquisition to ensure the Contract Specialists implement procurement regulations and policies; evaluates bid responsiveness and level of responsibility of contractors, and provides advice and guidance to Contract Specialists applying lessons learned from prior experience to improve future contracting actions.  Contracts awarded by the appellant have a direct and significant economic and operational impact on contractors, and his larger dollar value contracts may also impact particular geographic areas as is evidenced by the local media coverage of the awarding of a contract for part of a uranium processing facility site readiness subproject.  He advises the District’s Senior Leadership Group regarding issues such as statement of work and contract requirements on issues of Level 5-4 breadth and scope.

Level 5-5 is not met.  The appellant's work is performed within the context of established regulation and policy.  Although he oversees procurement actions for dam and lock refurbishment projects for several million dollars, this is not comparable to the major long term complex construction procurements discussed at Level 5-5.  Similar to Level 5-4, the new approaches he develops are in response to issues arising from his Branch-level procurement actions, rather than being intended for use by other specialists outside the District.  Although as a CO he has the authority to commit the Government to procurement actions which may cover multiple years, they are not for the phased development of major systems, programs, or projects envisioned at Level 5-5.  The record shows contract terminations at any dollar amount are rare and require review and approval at higher levels within the contracting chain of command.  Settlements are also rare and the appellant relies on input provided by technical experts, such as engineers, architects, and legal counsel, before determining the Government’s position.  Like Level 5-4, the appellant oversees the procurement process followed at a local operating District office for diverse items and services which do not regularly require critical problem solving.  The appellant states in his rationale for assigning Level 5-5 that he develops or improves the contracting procedures for the department or agency level contracting program in accordance with statutes, executive orders, operational requirements, and requirements from other sources.  However, the record shows the appellant shares best practices with Branch Contract Specialists to ensure their compliance with established requirements and looks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency of the local contracting operations but not the department or agency level program.  Thus, his efforts to improve Branch program operations do not exceed Level 5-4.  His work does not affect the operation and evaluation of subordinate contracting programs, and neither the appellant nor the organization in which he works is responsible for formulating Army or DoD procurement policy or providing authoritative advice on such policy as is contemplated at Level 5-5.

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

Factor 8, Physical Demands

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

Level 8-1 work is sedentary.  Typically, the employee may sit comfortably to do the work or occasionally walk, stand, bend, carry light items such as reports or files, or drive an automobile. 

Level 8-2 work requires some physical exertion, such as walking over rough, uneven, or rocky surfaces found at construction sites visited on a regular and recurring basis, or conducting intensive negotiations for extended periods of time; i.e., four hours or longer without rest periods and occasionally late in the evening. 

Level 8-1 is met.  The appellant performs his work in an office setting requiring no special physical effort.  Unlike Level 8-2, the appellant’s work does not require him to walk over rough, uneven, or rocky surfaces on a regular and recurring basis.  The record shows he mostly participates in telephonic negotiations of limited duration; i.e., one to two hours held during regular working hours.  These efforts do not reflect the demands found at Level 8-2.

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

Summary

Factor	Level	Points
1.  Knowledge required by the position	1-7	1250
2.  Supervisory controls	2-4	450
3.  Guidelines	3-4	450
4.  Complexity	4-5	325
5.  Scope and effect	5-4	225
6.  Personal contacts	6-3	60
7.  Purpose of contacts	7-3	120
8.  Physical demands	8-1	5
9.  Work environment	9-1	5
Total Points		2890

The total of 2890 points falls within the GS-12 point range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the GS-1102 PCS.  Therefore, the appellant’s duties are graded at the GS-12 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Contract Specialist, GS-1102-12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top