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

12/17/2025

---

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 to 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).

Since this decision changes the grade of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision, as permitted by 5 CFR 511.702. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report consisting of the Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

On April 16, 2024, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received a classification appeal from Alicia G. Cherep (“appellant”), a Transportation Support Assistant (GS-2102-06) at the VA Louisville Healthcare System, part of Veterans Integrated Service Network 9, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. The agency submitted its administrative report on May 8, 2024. While the appellant agrees that the position description (PD) is accurate, she contends the role should be reclassified to either GS-0343 (Fleet Program Analyst), GS-0344 (Transportation Program Assistant), or GS-0303 (Transportation Specialist), at the GS-07, GS-08, or GS-09 level. The position is located at the Robley Rex Medical Center in Louisville, KY. OPM has accepted and adjudicated the appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 5112.

To help decide the appeal, we conducted fact finding interviews with the appellant on May 27, 2025, and with her immediate supervisor on June 24, 2025. In reaching our classification decision, we have reviewed the findings, and all information of record furnished by the appellant and his agency, including her official position description (PD), number 40387-O. For the reasons discussed herein, the appellant’s position is properly classified as Transportation Support Assistant, GS-2102-07.

Background information

From 2008 to 2024, the appellant’s position was classified as a Program Support Assistant, GS-0303-06. A desk audit was requested by the appellant in 2022 and performed in 2024. The appellant noted that her position description had been re-written four times prior to the desk audit, and states that the knowledge and skill set required to perform her duties have grown over the years. The outcome of the desk audit adjusted her position to Transportation Support Assistant, GS-2102-06; the appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with OPM.

General issues

The appellant references a list of duties and responsibilities she created which outline those she believes have not been taken into consideration. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decisions on the proper classification of her position. 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 the PCS and guidelines is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we will compare the appellant’s current duties which have an impact to the position’s classification to those PCS and guidelines.

Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has the primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. The agency provided OPM appeal decision C-2102-06-03 dated 6/16/2006 as an appeal certificate related to the classification of this position. Although appeal certificates are issued and should be applied to similar, like, or identical positions, each appeal and position is to be reviewed in comparison to the PCS and codified guidelines independently within the context of each position’s own unique duties and responsibilities. If the appellant considers her position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, she may pursue the matter by writing to her human resources office. In doing so, she should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as hers, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to her the differences between her position and the others.

The appellant and her supervisor believe that the position description content is accurate but misclassified. A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign the work. 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 performs a variety of duties in support of fleet management, including acquisition, accountability, maintenance, and safe operation of the vehicles. The fleet is comprised of approximately 150 various vehicles either owned by the HCS (which includes the VA Medical Center and several clinic locations throughout KY and IN) or leased through the General Services Administration (GSA). The appellant is responsible for processing requests for vehicle authorizations and assignments in accordance with VA requirements, including recommending alternatives to achieve greater performance and cost efficiencies. The appellant tracks and analyzes vehicle use, maintenance, all related costs incurred for rental of replacement vehicles and expenses related to GSA leases, employee usage, and education to ensure the HCS’ program is compliant with program requirements. Together with her supervisor, the appellant ensures changes in fleet composition are authorized without interruption to the HCS, with the goal of providing modern solutions.

The appellant is the main contact person and operational decision maker for the fleet program. She has created computerized tracking mechanisms designed to determine appropriate costs, required actions, and to serve as customized historical data files which are not easily available in VA data systems. She maintains records on all vehicle-related costs and reconciles accounting of authorized costs vs. expected expenditures prior to the release of payment each month. The appellant is the main point of contact for GSA contracts and resolves routine and nonroutine issues surrounding contract compliance, usage, and financial discrepancies. Examples of these issues include erroneous or duplicate charges to accounts by GSA services, out of contract charges, and non-contractually specified items. Deviations to policy are processed independently by the appellant, except where final budget allocations and fleet composition are concerned.

The appellant performs analysis of the fleet’s usage and composition, which is used in times of budget creation and the procurement process. She provides input that is evaluative of the fleet’s past usage, future needs, and availability of vehicles for purchase or lease. Procurement and final budget decisions are ultimately made by her supervisor in consideration of the appellant’s analysis. Concerns related to the fleet composition, which may be sought out as agency exceptions, are handled with input from her supervisor, and resolution is then finalized collectively.

Through the appellant’s review of fleet management data, instances of fraud and abuse perpetrated by employees have been uncovered. Examples include employees using assigned vehicles for personal use, filling up gas tanks of their personal vehicles, or not maintaining the vehicle according to contract specifications. These issues require the appellant to assist VA police and others in pursuing the appropriate course of action, and/or coordinate with supervisors and the education department for remedial training on proper vehicle use.

Depending on the department, employees may reach out directly to the appellant or communicate through a transportation coordinator who is the main point of contact to then work with the appellant. The appellant provides guidance to employees throughout the HCS who have responsibility for ensuring safe operations, maintenance of the vehicles, and compliance with VA and GSA policies. She ensures HCS employees are fully trained on program requirements and vehicle use policies prior to being assigned vehicles. The training available to the HCS employees has either been created by the appellant or coordinated through the appellant to provide subject matter expertise to the education department. Additionally, should employees experience an on-road vehicle service emergency, the appellant coordinates the delivery of those services as appropriate.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency, including but not limited to the official PD, agency evaluation decision, and historical documentation provided by appellant and the HR department. In addition, to gain more information about the appellant’s work, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her supervisor.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position to the Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series, GS-2102, titling it Transportation Support Assistant. The agency evaluated the position using the PCS for Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series. The appellant disagrees, believing the position is better fit to the GS-0343, GS-0344, or GS-0303 series. We find the GS-2102 series determination is appropriate, as outlined below.

The GS-0343 series includes positions that primarily serve as analysts and advisors to management on the evaluation of the effectiveness of government programs and operations or the productivity and efficiency of the management of Federal agencies or both. Positions in this series require knowledge of the substantive nature of agency programs and activities; agency missions, policies, and objectives; management principles and processes; and the analytical and evaluative methods and techniques for assessing program development or execution and improving organizational effectiveness and efficiency. While the appellant is evaluating the use of the fleet, ensuring its operations are within policy and efficiently managed, the appellant is not required to have knowledge of the substantial nature of agency programs and activities. Her position does provide elements of the two-grade interval nature where knowledge of administrative analysis is performed, however, the overall position is more fit to a one-grade technical knowledge requirement. The level of incorporating theory and analytical principles expected of two-grade interval work is not present in her position. GS-0343 is therefore not the appropriate series for this position.

The GS-0344 series includes positions involved in supervising or performing clerical and technical work in support of management analysis and program analysis, the purposes of which are to evaluate and improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of organizations and programs. The work requires a practical knowledge of the purposes, methods, and techniques of management analysis and/or program analysis and the structures, functions, processes, objectives, products, services, resource requirements, and similar features of Government programs and organizations. Excluded from this series are positions that involve performing clerical or technical work to assist in providing various administrative services essential to the management, direction, and operation of an organization in the appropriate specialized series. Since a more specialized series which reflects the fleet-oriented nature of the appellant’s work exists, the GS-0344 series does not apply to this position.

The GS-0303 series includes positions, the duties of which are to perform or supervise clerical, assistant, or technician work for which no other series is appropriate. The work requires a knowledge of the procedures and technique involved in carrying out the work of an organization and involves application of procedures and practices within the framework of established guidelines. Excluded are positions that involve work which require knowledge of specialized processes or subject matter for which a specific series exists. Since a more specialized series which reflects the fleet-oriented nature of the appellant’s work exists, the GS-0303 series does not apply to this position.

The GS-2102 series includes positions that involve supervising or performing work to arrange transportation for or perform other actions in connection with the movement of freight, passengers, or personal property by Government or commercial means. This series also includes other transportation support work not covered specifically by another one grade interval series in the Transportation Group (e.g., fleet management, safety or regulatory program support, quality control and inspection, carrier performance evaluation, or transportation report analysis and preparation). The work requires a practical knowledge of the regulations and methods governing traffic management or transportation programs.

After careful consideration, the appellant’s position is properly classified to the GS-2102 series and evaluated using the PCS for Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series. The appellant’s duties and responsibilities match the series definition for positions classified in the 2102 series in that the position requires knowledge of transportation programs and fleet management regulations. The analysis performed by the appellant is related to transportation cost reports, vehicle usage, needs, and maintenance, and user adherence to established regulations and policy. The appellant is not performing a higher degree of analysis requiring the use of statistical or other two-grade interval research skills related to theory.

The authorized title for GS-2102 positions GS-5 and above is Transportation Assistant. OPM has suggested parenthetical titles for this series, for example, (Fleet Management), and agencies may add those parentheticals for ease of recruitment, promotion, or other purposes. The series specific parenthetical is a suggestion only; the agency may supplement the official title with a parenthetical designation at their discretion.

Grade determination

The PCS for Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series, GS-2102 is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor level description in a standard 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. Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some respects and still not be credited at a higher level.

The appellant provided a list of duties she performs which she believes have not been properly credited. That list includes items which do not have bearing or impact on classification. Volume of work (fleet size and growth), tasks performed in the absence of others (supervisory or motor vehicle/grounds coverage), and those tasks which are clerical in nature to a level below the regular and recurring, higher-graded duties will not be considered as grade-controlling duties1. As an example, she performs timekeeping, dispatch, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card Sponsor, and supply ordering, which are clerical in nature and do not fully meet the higher factor levels of her other responsibilities outlined further in this certificate. Therefore, we will not evaluate those duties in this decision. Other duties which are regular and recurring and may impact the grade determination will be considered within the grade evaluation process outlined below.

As the appellant disagrees with every factor level assigned by the agency, we will provide a complete review. Our evaluation with respect to all nine FES factors follows. Work illustrations are provided within the GS-2102 PCS for four essential transportation functions including Freight, Passenger, Personal Property, and Fleet Management. Reference for illustrations for evaluation purposes will be provided as applicable.

Evaluation using the PCS or GSSG for Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series, GS-2102

Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts an employee must understand to do acceptable work (e.g., steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts) and the nature and extent of the skills necessary to apply that knowledge. To be used as a basis for selecting a level under this factor, knowledge must be required and applied.

Level 1-3 requires knowledge of a body of standardized transportation regulations, procedures, and operations related to one or more transportation support functions. The standard illustrates positions in a fleet management function which require this level of knowledge as those in which employees perform a variety of duties in connection with day-to-day management of assigned vehicles, such as making arrangements for vehicle use, verifying invoices for payment, maintaining records on Government-owned vehicles, etc. Illustrations for fleet management state that at the 1-3 level, employees perform a variety of duties in connection with the day-to-day management of assigned vehicles, and call vendors to discuss discrepancies. They prepare accident reports based on information received from the customer. From this information, employees provide advice to customers on the number of repair estimates needed and places to get estimates. Employees maintain records on Government-owned vehicles. They ensure that information pertaining to vehicle identification tags, field assignment or termination, and maintenance or repair records is accurate and current.

At Level 1-4, the highest level described, the work requires knowledge and application of an extensive body of transportation regulations, methods, and practices to perform a wide variety of interrelated or nonstandard transportation support assignments and resolve a wide range of problems. At this level, employees in the fleet management function assist in evaluating the overall program. For example, employees collect data and review a variety of reports relating to vehicle use, expenses, and income to identify problems or trends for further review. They assist in auditing vehicle files, motor vehicle accident records, and license tag and credit card registers. Illustrations for fleet management state that at the 1-4 level, employees assist fleet managers in evaluating the overall fleet management program. For example, employees recommend the rental rates that should be used by each fleet management center to ensure recovery of costs. They assist with procurement actions, and the dispatch vehicle reservation system.

Level 1-4 is met and not exceeded. The appellant’s duties require knowledge of GSA and VA fleet and transportation regulations, along with specialized and standard automotive care and maintenance expectations to ensure program and vehicle requirements have been met by the HCS. Using these requirements, she is expected to perform a wide variety of interrelated support assignments and resolve a wide range of problems. Data information and analysis surrounding the fleet program include utilization, maintenance, competencies involved in the fleet’s use, and assisting with vehicle procurement. The appellant ensures vehicles are inspected and receive the appropriate state-level tag or other inspection-based authorization prior to releasing vehicles for use. She then continuously monitors each vehicle’s use and maintenance. Each month, she verifies utilization, mileage, maintenance, and cost applying analysis to determine if vehicles are used in accordance with the authorized intent e.g., hours and miles used per month, functions performed, as well as verifying and/or disputing budget items with the GSA point of contact and advising the Engineering unit’s Program Analyst on which budget items are to be approved, and which are in dispute. All costs related to the fleet (fees from GSA, state inspections, routine and non-routine maintenance, rental rates of replacement vehicles, etc.) are tracked by and verified through the appellant. She resolves any budget issues directly with the GSA or HCS representative, and provides evidence (copies of procurement agreement, vendor receipts, GSA policies, etc.) when necessary. The appellant also identifies any nuanced instances where items may not appear accurate based on VA system reporting but nonetheless are accurate. Examples include a range of rationale: a mechanic did not reset a sensor in the previous maintenance session, GSA- specific requirements for maintenance items which differ from industry standard, and the identification of employee misuse or fraud.

Employee education is based on VA and GSA policy, with the appellant serving as the subject matter expert for fleet related content and employee requirements. The appellant has created original training content, which the education department has uploaded through the HCS’ learning management system. The appellant will ensure anyone using the vehicle fleet has been trained on the vehicle’s proper use and VA/GSA policies, including the proper use of credit cards to supply the vehicle’s gasoline and other maintenance charges.

The appellant provides guidance to the supervisor (who is a WS-5703 Motor Vehicle Operator Supervisor serving as de-facto Fleet Manager) on acquiring vehicles, recommending specific vehicle types based on her review of the criteria outlined in GSA and VA regulations along with the needs of HCS staff. She has the authority to redistribute vehicles from units with underutilized assets or lower priority needs. She prepares and submits for approval any vehicle modification requests needed for specialty items (police vehicles, snow removal plows, etc.) as they arise. She identifies assets which have met their life expectancy and prioritizes requests which impact a unit’s ability to effectively meet its mission. Examples include: one unit may benefit from changing their assigned vehicle to an SUV, another would be better served having a minivan – this may mean rotating vehicles or ensuring the next purchase or lease is a different vehicle type; another unit may no longer have the need to hold their own assigned vehicle but may still pull vehicles for use as needed from the main fleet.

Factor 1 is therefore evaluated at Level 1-4; 550 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory Controls

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

At Level 2-2, the supervisor or other designated authority provides standing instructions on recurring assignments by indicating what is to be done, applicable transportation policies and procedures to follow, quality and quantity of work expected, deadlines, and priority of assignments. The supervisor or others provide additional, specific guidance and reference sources on new or difficult assignments (e.g., those not covered by standing instructions). Employees use initiative to perform recurring or individual assignments independently (e.g., investigate recurring discrepancies in transportation documents, obtain missing information from originators, or explain procedural requirements). Employees refer situations not covered by initial instructions or precedents to the supervisor or a senior employee for assistance. The supervisor or others evaluate the accuracy and adequacy of both individual assignments and recurring work by reviewing the frequency and nature of problems resulting from data entry errors or problems with responding to inquiries or requests. The supervisor may also consider the nature and frequency of complaints, review production reports, or use controls built into the system.

At level 2-3, the highest level described, the supervisor or other designated authority outlines objectives, priorities, and deadlines and provides guidance on dealing with unusually involved or one-of-a-kind situations. Employees independently plan and carry out the successive steps to complete transportation support duties and use accepted practices to resolve problems and deviations. Problems and deviations include, for example, transportation actions that cannot be processed, monitored, or otherwise acted on using standing instructions. This may result because of the specialized nature of the problems, the existence of various conflicting documentation, the lack of documentation or information available, or other conditions. The supervisor or others review completed work for technical soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policy and requirements. In some situations, work can be reviewed only after the fact in response to complaints from customers, carriers, or contractors. The methods the employee uses to complete the assignment usually are not reviewed in detail.

Level 2-3 is met and not exceeded. The supervisor provides the objectives, priorities, and deadlines. Guidance on dealing with unusually complicated situations is also provided after review of the appellant’s suggested course of action. The appellant independently plans and carries out day-to-day fleet operations for the HCS and resolves problems encountered, including deviations. The supervisor assists with controversial problems and approves the procurement of new vehicles, along with final budget approvals. The methods used by the appellant are not reviewed in detail, completed work is reviewed by the supervisor for adherence to policy requirements.

Factor 2 is evaluated at level 2-3, and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor 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 innovations 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.

Level 3-2 describes numerous procedures for doing the work that have been established, and many specific guidelines are used. Guidelines include volumes of transportation regulations, manuals, guides, directories, tenders, or operating procedures. For example, guides may cover the kinds of paperwork required, special instructions or markings to use, kinds of carrier equipment available, clearance requirements, conditions for authorizing various entitlements, or carrier selection criteria. Because of the number and similarity of guidelines or the diverse circumstances of individual actions, employees must use judgment to identify and select the appropriate reference and procedure for each phase of the process, question, or condition that develops. Employees refer situations requiring significant judgment or interpretation to the supervisor or others for guidance or resolution.

Level 3-3, the highest level described, describes guidelines which are similar to those described in Level 3-2 but are not applicable completely to many aspects of the work because of the problem solving or complicated nature of the assignments. For example, there may be no directly related precedent cases or reference sources to use in deciding if justifications for a higher-than-normal level of service are valid. Employees use judgment to interpret guidelines, adapt procedures, decide approaches, and resolve specific problems. Judgement includes, for example, evaluating customer justifications for premium service or reconciling incomplete and conflicting information when precedents or guidelines are not available or are not related directly.

Level 3-3 is met and not exceeded. While there are policies outlined by the VA and GSA, the appellant’s work includes a multitude of both standard and nonstandard issues which require the use of expertise in determining the best options available for resolution. There are no directly related precedent cases or reference sources to use in determining the best way to resolve the multitude of factors which contribute to the complexity of vehicle assignment, justifications for emergency service, extending levels of fleet services, or resolving erroneous budget items. The appellant’s practical expertise is relied upon to assist in solving problems related to fleet management.

Factor 3 is evaluated at Level 3-3, and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

Factor 4 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 4-2, the work involves performing related processing and procedural tasks in support of transportation related functions. For example, processing a transportation action may involve sorting incoming forms or requests, reviewing documents for gaps in information, assembling the appropriate document control forms, entering data into automated or manual files, verifying calculations, and distributing documents to the appropriate personnel. Employees make decisions, such as how to sort incoming documents, locate and assemble information, and correct errors. They do this by reviewing similar cases or standard operating procedures and selecting from among clearly recognizable alternatives. Employees take action using established instructions, practices, or precedents for format, content, and processing of transportation documents and requests. Actions taken are similar and well-established, although the specific pattern of actions taken may differ somewhat, i.e., the order and kinds of personnel contacted, the reference sources checked, and the entries or corrections made may differ depending on the given situation and the information available.

Level 4-3, the highest level described, involves performing one or more transportation support functions that require the use of different and unrelated procedures and methods. The use of different procedures may result, for example, because transactions are interrelated with other systems and often require extensive coordination with various, different personnel. Employees identify the nature of the request, problem, or issue, and determine the need for and obtain additional information through oral or written contacts and review of regulations and manuals. Employees may have to consider previous actions and understand how these actions differ from or are similar to the issue at hand before deciding on an approach. Employees make recommendations or take actions (e.g., select the optimal means of transportation, determine entitlements, or verify compliance) based on a case-by-case review of pertinent transportation regulations and documents. For example, review and prepare various manual and automated products related to vehicle use, coordinate vehicle assignment or other actions (e.g., maintenance, safety inspections, repairs), employees may monitor for misuse or negligence and maintain current inventories of assigned vehicles.

Level 4-3 is met and not exceeded. The appellant applies different and unrelated transportation functions including acquisition, accountability, maintenance, and safe operation of the vehicles, to assist her supervisor in all aspects of the transportation program for the HCS. The assignments involve broad and varied situations involving not only logistics of assigning vehicles but also ensuring the readiness of vehicles and accurate accounting of actions taken, funds charged and reimbursed, and employee guidance and accountability. Each work method is not completely standardized, and actions are coordinated with various personnel.

Factor 4 is evaluated at Level 4-3; 150 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and Effect

Factor 5 covers the relationship between the nature of the work (i.e., the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment), and the effect of the work products or services both within and outside the organization. Effect measures such things as whether the work output facilitates the work of others, provides timely services of a personal nature, or impacts on the adequacy of research conclusions. The concept of effect alone does not provide sufficient information to properly understand and evaluate the impact of the position. The scope of the work completes the picture and allows consistent evaluations. Only the effect of properly performed work is to be considered.

At Level 5-2, the purpose of the work is to provide a full range of transportation services or to perform other transportation support work that is covered by well-defined and precise program procedures and regulations. Work products, in the form of corrected errors, completed transportation documents and reports, records of discussions about status or delays, or other actions affect the accuracy and reliability of further processes or services. For example, correcting errors in reports or records enables others to base decisions on accurate information. Ensuring complete and accurate paperwork and instructions furthers the timely movement of freight, personal property, or passengers.

At Level 5-3, the highest level described, the purpose of the work is to apply conventional practices to treat a variety of problems in transportation transactions. Problems might result, for example, from requests to expedite urgently needed items, a carrier's inability to meet the needs of the traveler or shipper, unexpected problems in transit, or conflicting information in documents or reports. The employee treats these or similar problems by applying established procedures. In some situations, the work results in recommendations, actions, or reports that affect the ability of serviced programs to conduct business adequately. For example, arranging for accurate and timely mass movement of equipment and personnel affects the ability of an agency or activity to conduct military exercises, training, or other activities adequately. In other work situations, the quality of the transportation advice and decisions may affect the operation of certain programs. For example, monitoring carriers for compliance with regulatory, safety, or service requirements and preparing recommendations related to same, affects the adequacy of investigations into noncompliance with agreements and contracts, or investigations of safety violations or other regulatory provisions. In still other situations, the work may affect the physical well-being of people, or it may affect substantial costs incurred by the agency or activity. For example, arranging for the timely transport of emergency personnel, critical equipment, or urgently needed supplies affects the adequacy of patient care. Selecting the most effective, efficient, and lawful handling of items or personnel, and committing the agency or activity to these services ensures the most advantageous costs to agencies and employees.

Level 5-3 is met and not exceeded. The purpose of the work is to ensure compliance of the fleet management program, assisting her supervisor with day-to-day operations, verification of vehicle assignments and use, maintenance, budget items, and employee compliance. The work primarily affects the HCS ability to mobilize their staff to directly serve or treat the veteran populations served, but also the staff’s ability to maintain off-site services, attend in-person training, meetings, and other events. The budget of the fleet program is also impacted by the appellant’s ability to identify and defend proper charges incurred and extend the life of the fleet vehicles.

Factor 5 is evaluated at Level 5-3; 150 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Personal contacts / Factor 7, Purpose of contacts

These two factors are interdependent. The relationship between Factors 6 and 7 requires that the same contacts be evaluated under both factors. These factors cover the type and level of contacts made in performing the work, and the reasons for those contacts. Under the PCS for Transportation Clerk and Assistance Series, they are evaluated separately, but a combined point credit is established by determining where the selected levels assigned intersect in the chart in the PCS

Factor 6, Personal Contacts

Level 6-1 describes contacts with employees in the immediate organizational unit or in closely related support units, and/or contacts with employees outside the organization or with members of the general public in very highly structured situations. For example, contacts may be with carriers or customers who are requesting specific forms or information or checking on the status of shipped items, travel documents, or vehicle availability.

Level 6-2, the highest level described, describes contacts with employees in the same agency but outside the immediate organization. Contacts also may include transportation clerks at other installations, supply personnel onsite, or employees in other agencies who are providing, requesting, or coordinating actions and information, and/or members of the general public in a moderately structured setting.

6-2 is met and not exceeded. The appellant has regular and recurring contact with individuals within and outside the agency in order to coordinate transportation activities. Contacts include all levels of HCS staff, VISN and national transportation contacts, GSA transportation coordinators, and other vendors, contractors, or public businesses.

Factor 6 is evaluated at Level 6-2.

Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts

At level 7-a, the purpose of the contacts is to obtain, clarify, or provide information related to transportation support assignments. Contacts may involve answering a simple question, such as whether a particular vehicle is available, a specific shipment has arrived, or a government plane has left. Contacts also may involve explaining more technically oriented subject matter, such as restrictions on use of modes, contract carriers, or vehicles.

At level 7-b, the highest level described, the purpose of the contacts is to plan and coordinate actions to prevent or correct errors, delays, or other complications from occurring. Examples include briefing various personnel on their transportation entitlements; tracing missing freight or personal property through various channels; advising on or discussing shipment requirements; ensuring the timely and accurate receipt of travel documentation; or performing similar actions.

At 7-b is met and not exceeded. The appellants’ contacts are made to plan and coordinate the use and appropriate maintenance of fleet vehicles, prevent or correct errors in accounting, and ensure the fleet and its users are compliant with program requirements.

Factor 7 is evaluated at Level 7-b.

Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Level 6-2 and 7-b, and by application of the chart in the PCS, a total of 75 points is assigned.

Factor 8, Physical Demands

Factor 8 covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment. This includes physical characteristics and abilities (e.g., agility or dexterity requirements) and the physical exertion involved in the work (e.g., climbing, lifting, pushing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling or reaching). The frequency or intensity of physical exertion must also be considered. For example, positions requiring prolonged standing involve more physical exertion than a job requiring intermittent standing.

Level 8-1 may require some physical effort, such as standing, walking, bending, or sitting. There are no special physical demands.

Level 8- 2 requires above average physical agility, such as regular and recurring periods of prolonged standing, bending, stretching, and lifting (e.g., work at passenger check-in centers or shipment document pickup counters).

Level 8-1 is met, as the appellant is typically required to perform some physical effort such as walking and carrying light package. The appellant may also be required to drive a vehicle.

Level 8-2 is not met; the appellant does not regularly experience long periods of standing and recurring stooping, bending, or climbing equivalent to above average physical agility.

Factor 8 is evaluated at Level 8-1, and 5 points are assigned.

Factor 9, Work Environment

Factor 9 considers the discomfort and risk of danger in the employee’s physical surroundings and the safety precautions required. Although safety regulations and techniques can reduce or eliminate some discomfort and dangers, they typically place additional demands upon the employee.

At Level 9-1, the employee works primarily in an office setting involving everyday risks or discomforts. Normal safety precautions are adequate.

At Level 9-2, the employee works in areas with moderate risks or discomforts that require the use of special safety precautions. For example, employees who work in warehouses or on loading docks may have to exercise special care when working around moving parts, materials handling equipment, conveyors, or crates. In some situations, employees may be required to wear protective clothing or gear.

Level 9-1 is met, as the appellant may utilize normal safety precautions and typically within an adequately heated and ventilated area, with some exposure to garage or other fleet-based facilities.

Level 9-2 is not fully met. While the appellant’s work may involve driving a car, and being exposed to a typical garage setting, no special safety precautions are required.

Factor 9 is evaluated at Level 9-1, and 5 points are assigned.

Summary
Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level		Points
Knowledge required by the position	1-4		550
Supervisory Controls	2-3		275
Guidelines	3-3		275
Complexity	4-3		150
Scope and Effect	5-3		150
Personal Contacts	2b		75
Purpose of Contacts
Physical Demands	8-1		5
Work Environment	9-1		5
Total Points		1485

A total of 1485 points places this position in the GS-07 range on the grade conversion tables provided within the Position Classification Standard for Transportation Clerk and Assistant Series, GS-2102.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Transportation Assistant, GS-2102-07. Parenthetical title at agency discretion.

Back to Top