Washington DC

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

---

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

05/25/2023

---

Date

Finality of Decision

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).

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as International Trade Specialist, GS-1140-13, but he believes it should be graded at the GS-14 level and titled Supervisory International Trade Specialist or Senior International Trade Specialist. The position is assigned to the Southern Network, U.S. Field, Global Markets, International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. Department of Commerce (Department), in Orlando, Florida. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background and general issues

The appellant requested a desk audit of his position from the Department’s Office of Human Resources Management. The agency conducted a review of his position based on application of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). Their May 25, 2021, evaluation concluded the appellant’s position is performing higher-level supervisory duties and supported his request for classification of his position to the GS-14 grade level. However, no further action was taken by the agency to implement the evaluation and officially change the classification of his position. The appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

As the senior employee of his two-person office and Director of the Orlando U.S. Export Assistance Center (Center), the appellant compares his position to other Center Director positions classified by ITA at the GS-14 grade level. 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 standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others, which may or may not be classified correctly, as a basis for deciding his appeal.

Like OPM, the ITA must classify positions based on comparison to OPM PCSs and guidelines. The appellant’s agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to the human resources office at his agency’s headquarters. He should specify the precise organizational location, series, title, grade, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others.

In his appeal the appellant asserts that his revised position description (PD) number GM 305 is still inaccurate because it does not describe his “Team Leadership/Supervisory” grade controlling duties which should be evaluated by application of the GSSG. He has been unsuccessful pursuing this matter with his agency, and the record shows that his supervisor certified to the accuracy of his PD. Nevertheless, as discussed later in this decision we find the appellant’s team leadership and perceived “supervisory” duties do not meet the coverage requirements for application of the GSSG. 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. A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee. Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee. An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD. This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellant.

Position information

The mission of the ITA is to strengthen the global business environment by helping U.S. organizations compete at home and abroad. To enhance U.S. competitiveness in foreign markets, the Orlando Center offers a full range of expertise in counseling, market research, and matchmaking services customized and designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses in the area of responsibility which includes 11 of Florida’s 67 counties. Both International Trade Specialist, GS-1140-13, positions assigned to the Orlando Center are supervised by the Southern Network Director, a Supervisory International Trade Specialist, GS-1140-15, position.

A prime responsibility of the Orlando Center is to identify and counsel U.S. exporters on export basics and provide services including business counseling, partner identification (e.g., of sales/stock distributors or joint venture partners in the foreign market), partner qualification (e.g., to perform a background assessment on a potential distributor including credit information, banking relationships, and commercial relationships), and commercial advocacy and diplomacy (e.g., by overcoming trade irritants and tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade). The appellant estimates spending 55 percent of his time on related account management work. He screens and qualifies persons for service eligibility, ensuring clients meet criteria as a U.S. exporter in 15 U.S.C. 4721(j)(3) and, moreover, that their needs fall within service parameters established by the agency’s authorizing legislation in 15 U.S.C. 4721. Depending on the client request, the appellant provides the requisite service including, but not limited to, business counseling and disseminating of information on domestic and foreign trade opportunities; overcoming technical, tariff, and non-tariff barriers to trade; and market research, trade data, and foreign government regulations and standards.

For example, to assist a client in expanding a franchise overseas, his work includes identifying indicators of market potential, the ease of doing business in the foreign country, adjusted disposable income per household, etc. He also receives and responds to inquiries from stakeholders including the public, partners, economic development organizations, and Congressional offices related to promotion of U.S. exports, defense of commercial interests abroad, and attraction of greenfield investments into the United States. If a service is fee-based (e.g., hosting a promotional event or other customized service), the appellant will collect payment from clients. His account management work is documented in Salesforce, the agency’s client relationship management database. In addition, he completes at least six written impact narratives (WIN) annually. A WIN, which is completed when a client request leads to providing assistance and impacting the U.S. exporter or economic development organization, identifies the needs of the client, assistance provided, outcome of assistance, number of jobs created and supported, and how the outcome impacted the stakeholder (e.g., by overcoming a currency control in the foreign country, eliminating a trademark squatter, or increasing the share of exports in overall sales).

The appellant estimates spending approximately 30 percent of his time on work he describes as “Team Leadership/Supervision,” which we discuss in more detail later in this decision. Regardless, he states such work includes his role as Executive Secretary for the Central-North Florida District Export Council (DEC). The DECs, of which there are currently 61 nationwide, were created by the Department to amplify the business counseling services of its Centers. The appellant’s DEC, which supports the export promotion activities of the Orlando, Tampa Bay, and Jacksonville Centers, is comprised of a maximum of 35 members ideally represented by major U.S. exporters, port authorities, and economic development organizations across the service area. As Executive Secretary, he is responsible for ensuring the DEC operates in compliance with the DEC Policies and Procedures Manual governing the program. He attends his DEC’s executive committee meeting, which occurs every two months on odd-numbered months, and the general members meeting, which occurs every two months on even-numbered months. He participates in conference calls with the DEC Program Manager at the U.S. Field to discuss DEC policy and administration matters. The appellant is also responsible for recruiting and on-boarding members, nominating individuals to the four-year term appointments made by the Secretary of the Department, establishing protocols for executive committee elections, and providing oversight of DEC operations.

Regarding his remaining worktime, the appellant states he spends a minimum of five percent of his time on project management work such as developing and managing events occurring in the area. If hosting the event, he may be responsible for making venue, catering, speaker, audiovisual, and other related decisions. Another five percent is spent on maintaining contact with the public, media, members of the U.S. Congress, and other stakeholders. At least annually, the appellant communicates with currently serving representatives in the House of Representatives and senators in the U.S. Senate for his area, as well as their staff. He briefs them on client successes, statistics on number of constituents served, and significant events related to the Orlando Center or agency. The remaining five percent of his time is spent on office administrative work, for example, he prepares briefing materials for visitors to his area including high-level agency officials and Congressional delegates.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD, which we find adequate for classification purposes and have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to gain more information about his work, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his supervisor, the Southern Network Director.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Trade Specialist Series, GS-1140, which includes positions the duties of which are to administer, supervise, or perform promotional, advisory, or analytical functions pertaining to the commercial distribution of goods and services. The work performed concerns and requires a practical knowledge of market structure and trends, competitive relationships, retail and wholesale trade practices, distribution channels and costs, business financing and credit practices, trade restrictions and controls, and principles of advertising and consumer motivation. The appellant does not disagree, and we concur with the agency’s series determination. The authorized title for GS-1140 positions that work in the field of international trade, like the appellant’s, is International Trade Specialist.

Grade-level criteria have not been developed for the GS-1140 series. However, the position classification flysheet for the GS-1140 series states the PCS for Industrial Specialist Series, GS-1150, is appropriate for use in evaluating trade specialist positions. Therefore, we evaluated the appellant’s work by application of grading criteria in the GS-1150 PCS.

The appellant believes the GSSG should also be applied to evaluate the grade level of his position. The GSSG is intended to measure the difficulty, complexity, and responsibility of work involved in the administrative and technical direction of others through the equivalent employer/employee relationship. The GSSG states that to be covered, a position must: (1) administratively and technically direct the work of others; (2) spend at least 25 percent of the work time performing those functions; and (3) meet 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 noncontractor personnel.”

The appellant provided a rationale for applying the GSSG to his position, stating he spends at least 30 percent of his time on work he characterizes as “Team Leadership/Supervision.” In addition to drafting his office’s strategic plan and serving as Executive Secretary for the DEC, he states he directs and assigns work, as well as communicates goals, priorities, and expectations, to the other GS-13 International Trade Specialist assigned to the Orlando Center. He forwarded numerous emails to demonstrate his duties, including communication with the Southern Network Director regarding his office’s travel budget, issues involving the other trade specialist, etc.; property management officials regarding office space; and peers and other agency employees requesting guidance from him on various technical issues (e.g., DEC administration). The record shows the appellant regularly provides technical advice and counsel to DEC members, trade specialists internal and external to the Orlando Center, and others. However, the Southern Network Director serves as supervisor for the appellant and other International Trade Specialists (including the appellant’s GS-13 coworker) assigned to the Orlando Center and, as such, performs all supervisory responsibilities including assigning work, planning work to be accomplished, setting and adjusting priorities, evaluating work performance, providing advice and counsel, and approving leave. In addition, DEC members are appointed by the Secretary of the Department to four-year terms but they are not Federal employees. We conclude no employees report to the appellant’s position. Because the GSSG is applied to positions with responsibility for the combined administrative and technical direction of employees, in the appellant’s case the GSSG is not appropriate for grade-level determination.

Grade determination

Evaluation using the GS-1150PCS

Three factors are used to evaluate nonsupervisory positions covered by the GS-1150 PCS: (1) Scope and Complexity of Assignment; (2) Availability of Guidelines and Originality Required; and (3) Level of Responsibility. Positions are evaluated in terms of the criteria presented at various degrees of the three basic factors. Three degrees of intensity are described for each basic factor. These described degrees are designated “A,” “C,” and “E.” Intermediate degrees “B” and “D” are not described but are intended for use when appropriate if a position clearly falls between two of the described degrees of a particular factor, or when, for example, a position compares with degree A in some respects and with degree C in others.

For ease of converting combinations of the various selected degree levels to appropriate GS-grade levels, point values have been assigned to each degree, i.e., all A degrees have a 2-point value, B degrees-4 points, C degrees-6 points, D degrees-8 points, and E degrees-10 points. The degree that best characterizes a position is selected for each factor. The point values for each of the three degrees selected are then totaled. The table provided in the GS-1150 PCS is used to convert the total point value for a position to the corresponding grade level.

The appellant’s agency credited his work as follows: degree E for Factor 1 (Scope and Complexity of Assignment), degree C for Factor 2 (Availability of Guidelines and Originality Required), and degree E for Factor 3 (Level of Responsibility). In his appeal to OPM, the appellant only disagrees with his agency’s evaluation of Factor 2 and seeks assignment of degree E. After careful review, we concur with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1 and 3 and have credited the position accordingly. Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factor 2.

Factor 2, Availability of Guidelines and Originality Required

Two premises underlie the definitions of degrees under this factor. The first is that the scope and specificity of available guidelines relate directly to the nature of the mission and the organizational location of the activity or office in which a position is located. Degree progression is not portrayed in terms of organizational level. However, relationships between levels such as department, bureau, division, field office, and the like, vary greatly between departments or agencies, with respect to responsibility for issuing governing regulatory and directive material. The second premise is that the degree of originality required in carrying out assigned functions usually bears a direct relationship to, and is governed by, the extent to which published or stated guidelines apply to or control the work to be done.

At degree C, the incumbent has responsibility for adaptation and interpretation of program directive material for application to the individual cases or the specific situations which the assignment covers. The position is usually located in an activity which carries out a segment (based, for example, on geographical area, functional phase, or industry subdivision) of a program established and directed by a higher-level organization. The activity in which the position is located operates within the limits of the objectives established by the organization having overall program responsibility. These objectives and the general means of their accomplishment are set forth in various forms, such as mission and policy statements, delegations of authority, and procedural manuals. To apply the governing objectives and directives to the specific situations with which he/she deals, the incumbent must thoroughly understand the role of the position in relation to the general aims of the program. The employee must be cognizant of the characteristics and peculiarities of the particular industry “community” with which assignments are concerned, and of the immediate effects of his/her activities upon that community.

The following types of assignment illustrate the conditions typical of degree C, in comparison with those typical of degree E:

1. In a regional office, an industrial specialist is assigned the job of locating and evaluating the capacity of manufacturers to produce a particular type of machine tool. The organization which has the overall responsibility for the procurement of machine tools for a military department has issued policy guides which stipulate, among other things, that:

a. The procurement program is designed to encourage dispersion of production capability throughout the country to manufacture machine tools, so that the nation’s machine tool resources would not be crippled in the event of disaster in one or more concentrated production areas.

b. Production of the particular machine tool in question will be contracted to small business firms to the maximum extent possible. The incumbent is cognizant of (1) the kinds of facilities and skills required to produce the machine tool under consideration, (2) the fact that the raw materials needed for the machine tool must be obtained from sources which are distant from the producers in the region, and (3) the fact that another region has been designated to receive preference on Government contracts because of widespread industrial unemployment. The employee finds that, while there are plants in the region capable of producing the machine tool, the difficulty in obtaining raw materials will make unit costs disadvantageous.

2. The foregoing is typical of Degree C in that the tasks discussed constitute “adaptation and interpretation of program material for application to…individual cases…which [the] assignment covers.”

3. In comparison to the above, Degree E, further described immediately below, would be typified by the position of the Industrial Specialist who would have studied the entire machine tool industry in light of the current and foreseeable machine tool requirements of the military department. The incumbent of this position, located in the organization cited above as having overall responsibility for the procurement of machine tools for the department, would develop and recommend the policies and guidelines which the various subordinate offices would follow with regard to procurement and production of machine tools.

At Degree E, assignments are primarily concerned with the study and development of regulatory and directive material, systems, and procedures for establishment and implementation of agency programs. The work involves explanation of the needs or purposes which the program must serve with respect to Government and industry; analysis and interpretation of enabling statutes and orders; and translation of these into proposed documents which will govern the operating offices or activities which will carry out the program. This requires anticipation of the overall effect of the program and the action which the agency must take to get the program into operation. In carrying out such assignments, the specialist must apply a thorough knowledge of the organization which has responsibility for program direction, its administrative and operational framework, and its specific relationships to other Government agencies having kindred functions and programs. The employee must also have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the way in which that segment of industry with which the assignment is concerned (e.g., an entire industry, or those portions of a number of industries involved in the production of complex equipment systems) is affected by the programs of the employing agency.

The appellant’s position fully meets the description at Degree C. Similar to this degree level, he is responsible for adapting and interpreting program materials for application to individual work situations. The U.S. Field is divided into eight regions including the Southern Network. The Orlando Center is part of the Southern Network, which encompasses 13 export assistance centers and provides services to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Like Degree C, the appellant’s position is assigned to an activity which carries out a segment of the program established and directed by higher-level regional and nationwide organizations. Consistent with this degree level, he must thoroughly understand the role and expectations of his position in relation to the general aims of his program. His Center provides services within parameters set by authorizing legislation in 15 U.S.C. 4721, as well as by the organizations with overall program responsibility. His operating framework consists of mission and policy statements, delegations of authority, procedural manuals, and other guidelines such as trade agreements, and statutes, regulations, and standards of the United States and foreign governments. Industry sectors are divided between the Center’s two specialists. The appellant is responsible for the aerospace and defense, marine, automotive, advanced manufacturing, franchising, design and construction, and other industries. He works with clients from his area of responsibility (Orlando) and assigned industry to advise or provide information in various areas including, but not limited to, export basics, export licensing, export controls, trade agreements, duty preference, import duties and quotas, intellectual property rights in international trade, and development of export markets. In addition, the appellant applies judgment in interpreting the DEC Policies and Procedures Manual to ensure his DEC operates within established guidelines. For example, he advises its education and outreach committee on Freedom of Information Act provisions relating to client engagement and disclosure of client information.

The appellant asserts his position should be credited at Degree E, stating in his appeal to OPM:

To perform tasks, I have to apply the highest levels of independent judgment and originality in the application of U.S. and foreign government policies, regulations, standards and procedures. For example, in as much as I cannot tell a U.S. exporter that his or her items are the Commodity Jurisdiction of any agency of the United States government, what the Commodity Classification may be or that an export license is or is not required, I need to be prepared to explain the entire process to arrive at these determinations and persuade sometimes skeptical executives that compliance with U.S. export controls is important to the success of their export endeavors. Similarly, I may need to counsel this same company on the wisdom of registering their trademarks before seeking a foreign agent, distributor or representative to preempt squatting by Intellectual Property thieves or defensive registrations by would-be competitors and, without providing legal advice (what the client should do or the cost-benefits involved). I may need to discuss the applicability of International Registration through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Madrid Protocol Secretariat or National Registration through the trademark registries in the export markets in question. I may need to work with this client to determine whether their products qualify for duty preference under existing trade agreements by using the appropriate Rules of Origin for the Harmonized Schedule classification of their product, which also means working through a Bill of Materials and the appropriate Regional Content formulas. There are no one-size-fits-all guidelines that can be applied across industries and exporters; and I have to understand the limits of what I can say to avoid creating liability for the [Department] and for myself.

The appellant’s rationale is similar to the description at Degree C. Similar to this degree level, his position requires adapting and interpreting agency program directives to his local assigned industries. He must be cognizant of the characteristics and peculiarities of the particular community or industry in which his assignments are concerned as well as the immediate effects of his activities upon that community. His work also requires understanding of his client’s item or product, the trade irritant and other issues involved, and the target export market so that he can anticipate any regulatory issues (e.g., U.S. export controls including economic and trade sanctions and foreign standards and regulations); market size, direction, and other competitive issues; potential opportunities and threats; and available solutions.

The appellant’s position does not meet Degree E. In contrast to this degree level, his assignments do not involve studying and developing regulatory and directive materials, systems, and procedures for the establishment and implementation of agency programs. The Orlando Center is responsible for providing business counseling, partner identification, partner qualification, commercial advocacy and diplomacy, and other services to clients and stakeholders in the area of responsibility. The appellant performs his work within an operating framework of laws, regulations, and standard operating procedures including, but not limited to the: (1) authorizing law in 15 U.S.C. 4721; (2) service eligibility policy to determine eligibility of a U.S. exporter or item (commodity, service, technology, or software) for service; (3) DEC Policies and Procedures Manual; (4) trade agreements to identify interests of the U.S. exporters; (5) U.S. economic and trade sanctions for countries and regions of the world subject to sanctions to advise clients on compliance obligations under the sanctions program; and (6) the Consolidated Screening List to identify parties that the U.S. Government maintains restrictions on particular exports, re-exports, or transfers of items. Although the appellant’s work involves analyzing and interpreting statutes, orders, and other guidelines as described at Degree E, trade specialists at this degree level analyze and interpret guidelines for the express purpose of translation into proposed documents which serve to govern other operating offices delegated responsibility for carrying out program activities. His position, however, is not delegated the broader responsibility of establishing guidelines to govern other operating offices or activities as expected at Degree E.

Unlike Degree E, the appellant’s position does not require consideration of the actions the agency must take to get the program into operation. Once broad mandates and orders are issued by offices such as the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, various organizations are responsible for interpreting the orders into actualized guidelines, to be applied by operating offices, including the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S. Field Operations and National Field Director for the ITA, the U.S. Field’s Office of Strategic Engagement, and the Southern Network, who may supplement guidelines when necessary to ensure consistency of interpretation and program direction among the 13 export assistance centers in the region. Because offices external to the Orlando Center are responsible for the program establishment responsibilities (e.g, defining ownership, delegations of authority, and accountability) described at Degree E, we conclude the appellant’s position fully meets but does not exceed Degree C.

Summary

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Degree	Points
1. Scope and Complexity of Assignment	E	10
2. Availability of Guidelines and Originality Required	C	6
3. Level of Responsibility	E	10
Total Points		26

A total of 26 points falls within the GS-13 range (26-28) on the grade conversion table provided in the GS-1150 PCS.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as International Trade Specialist, GS-1140-13.

Back to Top