Washington, D.C.

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

---

Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

11/26/2025

---

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

Anthony P. Lanzillotti’s position is currently classified as Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-13, but he believes it should be classified as GS-1811-15. The position is assigned to the Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement (EE), Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) Forward Assigned Post-Tampa (FAP), in Tampa, Florida. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) accepted this appeal on January 23, 2024, and received the agency administrative report on March 8, 2024. OPM decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.). For the reasons discussed herein, OPM finds the position is properly classified as Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-13.

General issues

The appellant believes he is performing work similar to the Senior Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-15, position assigned to his organization. He expressed his work extends beyond the scope of his assigned grade and emphasized his role as the sole BIS/OEE representative in Central Florida, as well as his collateral duties as a Liaison Officer (LNO) to both the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) and United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base. He asserts the LNO duties, combined with his investigative caseload, make him equivalent to other Federal law enforcement officers at the GS-15 level and exceed the responsibilities described in his official position description (PD). By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their 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 other positions, which may or may not have been properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal.

Like OPM, the appellant’s employing agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has responsibility for ensuring its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. Because he believes he is performing work similar to a higher-graded position assigned to the office, he may pursue this matter by writing to the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), DOC if he considers his position so similar to the position that they warrant the same classification. He should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the position in question. If the position is found to be basically the same as the appellant’s, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the difference between his position and the other.

A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by an employee. Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on 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 to and performed by the appellant.

Position information

The appellant’s position is responsible for criminal and administrative investigations under the Export Control Reform Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The appellant is also responsible for conducting industry outreach activities to promote voluntary compliance and reporting of suspicious export activity. He routinely screens export license applications and performs end-use checks to identify and deter unauthorized transactions. He utilizes a variety of Federal law enforcement systems and databases to carry out these duties and provides support to other OEE offices as needed. The appellant’s position is directly supervised by the Assistant Special Agent in Charge, a GS-1811-14 position.

The appellant’s position requires the application of advanced investigative techniques to identify, prevent, and prosecute violations of U.S. export control laws involving dual-use commodities, sensitive technologies, and illicit end-users. Investigations typically involve highly sensitive and complex matters that may span multiple jurisdictions and involve coordination with a range of Federal agencies and international partners.

The appellant independently plans and conducts investigations, initiates and develops investigative leads, and collects evidence through interviews, sworn statements, document reviews, and surveillance activities. He prepares subpoenas and affidavits, seizes evidence, and manages investigative case files from initiation through final disposition, including referral for prosecution or civil penalties. He collaborates closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, BIS Office of Chief Counsel, and other regulatory and law enforcement agencies to coordinate enforcement actions and prosecutions.

In addition to these primary responsibilities, the appellant has taken on collateral duties as a Liaison Officer (LNO) to U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), both located at MacDill Air Force Base. While these duties have involved coordinating joint operations, delivering briefings, and representing BIS in interagency forums, they are not formally assigned. Rather, they reflect the appellant’s proactive engagement within the scope of his existing responsibilities.

It is an established expectation within the OEE that Criminal Investigators assigned to FAPs are to operate autonomously, often working across offices and regions, and to collaborate with external contacts, including those in positions of higher grade or rank. As confirmed during fact-finding with the supervisor, the position is classified as part of a mobile workforce. These engagements, though involving high-level interagency coordination, are intrinsic to the mobile nature of the position and do not, in isolation, support a higher-grade classification.

In reaching our classification decision, a comprehensive review was conducted of the written record, including the appellant’s statements, his official PD (BI0583), organizational structure and mission, supervisory input, performance documentation, and applicable classification standards. Our review determined that the work performed, including both assigned and collateral duties, is encompassed within the parameters of the officially classified position description. The work performed including both assigned and collateral duties that fall within the parameters of the established PD. In addition, to gain more information we conducted fact-finding with the appellant and his immediate supervisor.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position to the GS-1811 Criminal Investigation series and titled it Criminal Investigator. The appellant does not disagree, and after careful review of the record, we concur. The work performed by the appellant supports classification to the GS-1811 series because the paramount purpose and nature of the work is the investigation of criminal violations of Federal laws related to export enforcement. The duties focus on conducting complex, long-term investigations involving criminal conspiracies and unauthorized exportation of controlled technologies. The position requires knowledge and application of Federal criminal statutes, investigative techniques, the rules of evidence, and law enforcement procedures including surveillance, execution of search and arrest warrants, and coordination with U.S. Attorneys and other Federal and international enforcement partners.

The work is operational and law enforcement in nature and not administrative, regulatory, or compliance-focused, which supports exclusion from other potentially related series such as the GS-1801 General Inspection, Investigation, and Compliance Series. The work performed requires full law enforcement authority, including the authorization to carry a firearm and make arrests, which is consistent with positions properly classified in the GS-1811 series. Although some duties such as compliance consultation or administrative coordination may involve skills found in other occupational series, they are collateral and do not govern the series determination. The essential knowledge required, the nature of the assignments, and the primary purpose of the position are consistent with the GS-1811 series. Therefore, we find the position is properly classified to the GS-1811, Criminal Investigation series. The proper title for nonsupervisory positions in this series is Criminal Investigator, as prescribed by the OPM titling guidance.

The appellant’s position is properly evaluated against the criteria in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Group, GS-1800, specifically the Criminal Investigator Series, GS-1811. The JFS includes clear guidance for evaluating factors such as Knowledge Required by the Position, Supervisory Controls, Guidelines, Complexity, and Scope and Effect. It provides consistent, governmentwide benchmarks that ensure accurate classification across all investigative series. As such, the agency should update the classification of all 1800 series positions using the current evaluation criteria outlined in this standard to ensure compliance with Federal classification policy.

Grade determination

The GS-1800 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors to determine the grade level. Each factor is assigned a level with associated point values. The total is converted to a grade level by use of the grade conversion table provided in the JFS. Under the FES, each factor-level description provides the minimum criteria needed to receive credit for the described level. If a position fails to meet the minimum 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 respects and still not be credited at a higher level.

The agency evaluated Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position, at Level 1-8; Factor 2, Supervisory Controls, at Level 2-4; Factor 3, Guidelines, at Level 3-4; Factor 4, Complexity, at Level 4-5; Factor 5, Scope and Effect, at Level 5-5; Factor 6, Personal Contacts, at Level 6-3; Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts at Level 7-3; Factor 8, Physical Demands at Level 8-3; and Factor 9, Work Environment, at Level 9-3.

The appellant disagrees with the factor level assigned by the agency to Factor 2, requesting 2-5; Factor 3, requesting 3-5; Factor 6, requesting 6-4; and Factor 7, requesting 7-4. Under the JFS, Factors 6 and 7 are interdependent. The appellant agrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9; after careful review and application of the JFS, we concur. Therefore, our evaluation below focuses solely on Factors 2, 3, 6, and 7.

Factor 2, Supervisory Controls

Factor two 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 2-4, the supervisor outlines overall objectives and available resources, discusses projects and timeframes with the employee, and determines the parameters of the employee’s responsibility. The employee determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue, decides the practices and methods to apply in all phases of assignments including the approach to take and the depth and intensity needed, interprets policy and regulations and resolves most conflicts as they arise, coordinates projects or cases with others as necessary, and keeps the supervisor informed of progress and potentially controversial matters. The supervisor does not normally review the methods used but reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach, effectiveness in producing results, feasibility of recommendations, and adherence to requirements.

At Level 2-5, the supervisor provides general administrative direction for assignments in terms of broad program objectives and agency resources. The employee is responsible for a significant program, project, or investigation; independently plans, organizes, and carries out the work to be done; and analyzes objectives or interprets policies promulgated by senior authorities and determines their effect on the agency’s programs. The supervisor reviews the work for potential impact on broad agency policy objectives and program goals; usually evaluates the employee’s recommendations for new systems, methods, projects, or program emphasis in light of the availability of funds and personnel, equipment capabilities, and agency priorities; and normally accepts work as technically authoritative and rarely makes changes to the employee’s work.

Level 2-4 is met. At this level, the supervisor sets the overall objectives and resources available. The appellant is responsible for independently planning and conducting investigations based on general objectives provided by a supervisor. The appellant determines the scope and direction of cases, conducts interviews, gathers and analyzes evidence, prepares affidavits and reports, and coordinates with other agencies as needed. They apply established laws, regulations, and investigative techniques, exercising discretion in the use of surveillance, subpoenas, and search warrants. The supervisor is kept informed of major developments but does not direct daily activities or methods. Completed work is reviewed for overall effectiveness and compliance with policy, not for detailed technical accuracy. These responsibilities reflect the level of judgment and autonomy expected at Factor Level 2-4.

Level 2-5 is not met. The work of this level reflects work performed with administrative supervision under a full delegation of technical authority. The level of authority is typically accompanied by exclusive responsibility for a significant program or function. Unlike this level, the appellant’s position is neither delegated full technical authority nor responsible for a significant program. Unlike Level 2-5, the appellant position does not perform the work under general supervision, with only major investigative decisions and resource commitments requiring supervisory approval. The appellant does not operate as a recognized technical authority and does not have full responsibility for independently initiating or managing long-term, complex investigations. The level of oversight and lack of strategic autonomy do not support crediting this factor at level 2-5.

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

Factor 3, Guidelines

Factor three covers the nature of guidelines, and the judgment employees need to apply them. Individual assignments may vary in the specificity, applicability, and availability of guidelines; thus, the judgment employees use similarly varies. The existence of detailed plans and other instructions may make innovation in planning and conducting work unnecessary or undesirable. However, in the absence of guidance provided by prior agency experience with the task at hand or when objectives are broadly stated, the employee may use considerable judgment in developing an approach or planning the work.

At level 3-4, the employee uses administrative policies and precedents which are applicable but stated in general terms. Guidelines for performing the work are scarce or of limited use. The employee uses initiative and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to: address specific issues or problems; identify and research trends and patterns; develop new methods and criteria; or propose new policies and practices.

At level 3-5, the employee uses as guidance basic legislation, judicial rulings, and broad policy statements which are often ambiguous and require extensive interpretation. There are frequently no comparable precedents to use as a guide. The employee uses considerable judgment and ingenuity to interpret the intent of new or revised guidance and develops policy, guidelines, and practices for specific areas of work.

Level 3-4 is met. At this level, the appellant is responsible for applying administrative policies, investigative guidelines, and agency precedents which are applicable but stated in general terms. Guidelines for performing the work are limited in detail, requiring the appellant to use initiative and resourcefulness in adapting or deviating from established methods to resolve specific investigative problems, identify and research trends or patterns, and recommend improvements in approaches or practices. The work currently performed matches Level 3-4 where judgment is required to interpret broadly stated guidance and determine the most effective course of action.

Level 3-5 is not met. At this level, work situations where guidelines consist primarily of basic legislation, judicial rulings, and broad policy statements that are often ambiguous and without precedent are reflected. The employee must exercise considerable judgment and ingenuity to interpret legislative or policy intent and to develop new policy, guidelines, and practices for broad program areas. The appellant’s work does not involve creating new agency policy or authoritative guidance but rather applying and adapting existing frameworks to case-specific issues. Therefore, the requirements of Level 3-5 are not met.

Factor 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 is determined by applying the point assignment chart for Factors 6 and 7 in the JFS.

Personal contacts

At Level 6-3, contacts are with individuals or groups from outside the agency in moderately unstructured settings and on a non-routine basis. The extent of each contact is different. Typical contacts are with investigators from other agencies, district attorneys, witnesses, informants, claimants, public interest groups, and the news media.

At Level 6-4, contacts are with high-ranking officials outside the agency at national or international levels in highly unstructured settings (e.g., officials may be relatively inaccessible, or each contact may be conducted under different ground rules). Typical contacts are with members of Congress, leading representatives of foreign governments, presidents of large national or international firms and organizations, State governors, mayors of large cities, or nationally recognized representatives of the news media.

Level 6-3 is met. Like this level, the appellant’s regular and recurring contacts include high-ranking officials from Federal, state, and international law enforcement agencies, private sector representatives, and prosecutors.

Level 6-4 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant is not regularly in contact with high-ranking officials outside the agency at national or international levels such as members of Congress, high-level foreign government representatives, State governors, or equivalent contacts in highly unstructured settings as expected at Level 4.

Purpose of contacts

At Level 7-C, the purpose of contacts is to influence, persuade, interrogate, or control people or groups. The people contacted may be fearful, skeptical, uncooperative, or

dangerous. Therefore, the employee must be skilled at approaching the individual or group to obtain the desired effect, such as gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion or negotiation or gaining information by establishing rapport with a suspicious informant.

At Level 7-D, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues and/or problems. Work at this level usually involves active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations about problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance. Persons contacted typically have diverse viewpoints, goals, or objectives which require the employee to achieve a common understanding of the problem and a satisfactory solution by convincing them, arriving at a compromise, or developing suitable alternatives.

Level 7-C is met. Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts includes the responsibility to persuade or negotiate agreements, coordinate efforts, or gain cooperation in complex criminal investigations.

Level 7-D is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s contacts are not to justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues or problems. His work does not involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations about problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance. These matters are handled by higher-level managers within the agency.

The combined factors are credited at Level 3C, and 180 points are assigned.

Table 1. Grade Determination

Factor	Level		Points
Knowledge required by the position	1-8		1550
Supervisory Controls	2-4		450
Guidelines	3-4		450
Complexity	4-5		325
Scope and Effect	5-5		325
Contacts Personal Contact Purpose of Contacts	6-3 7-C		60 120
Physical Demands	8-3		50
Work Environment	9-3		50
Total Points		3380
Grade Conversion		GS-13

 

Back to Top