Washington DC

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

---

Lakshmi Bouchard
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


10/09/2018

---

Date

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).

As discussed in this decision, our findings show the appellants’ official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellants’ PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and Standard Form 50s 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), Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants occupy identical additional positions, hereinafter referred to as position, currently classified as Supervisory Helicopter Pilot, GS-2181-13, but they believe it should be classified at the GS-14 grade level. The position is assigned to 11th Aviation Command, 244th Aviation Brigade, U.S. Army Reserve Command, at the Aviation Support Facility (ASF) in Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Eustis, Virginia; Conroe, Texas; Clearwater, Florida; and Olathe, Kansas. The appellants perform essentially identical duties and are currently assigned to the same official PD, number DE11371. Therefore, we have processed this case as a group appeal. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background and general issues

In response to their filing a classification appeal with OPM, the office with classification authority over the appellants’ position (hereinafter referred to as “agency”) conducted a review of the classification of the appealed position based on application of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). The agency’s evaluation, dated May 14, 2017, proposed raising the levels assigned to the position for Factor 2, Organizational Setting, from Level 2-1 to 2-2; Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, from Level 3-2c to 3-3b; and subfactor B, Purpose of Contacts, for Factor 4, Personal Contacts, from Level 4B-2 to 4B-3. In addition, the agency’s evaluation proposed lowering the levels assigned to the appealed position for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, from Level 5-8 to 5-4 (for the position at Fort Eustis, Conroe, and Clearwater) or 5-5 (for the position at Fort Lewis and Olathe). Their evaluation also proposed lowering the level assigned for Factor 6, Other Conditions, from Level 6-5a to 6-3b (for the position at Fort Eustis, Conroe, and Clearwater) or 6-4b (for the position at Fort Lewis and Olathe). The agency’s evaluation concluded the position at Fort Lewis and Olathe is appropriately classified as GS-2181-13, while the position at Fort Eustis, Conroe, and Clearwater should be classified as GS-2181-12. However, no action was taken to downgrade the position.

When initially filing their classification appeal with OPM, the appellants did not contest any of the factor levels assigned by the agency in its September 1, 1998, evaluation of the position. They requested classification to the GS-14 grade level based on the adjustment provision provided for by the GSSG, which applies to positions when the supervisory work does not fall at least one grade above the base level of work supervised as determined under Factor 5. That provision allows adjusting the final grade for the supervisory work to one grade above the “base” grade of work directed. The agency originally determined the GS-13 grade level as the base level of work supervised by the appellants’ position. Because their delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities met the minimum level of authority and responsibility described at Level 3-2 as required for application of the adjustment provision, the appellants asserted the final grade of their position should be GS-14, i.e., one grade above the base level of work supervised. Subsequent to the agency’s May 2017 evaluation, the appellants disagreed with the levels assigned to Factors 4A, 5, and 6.

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

The appellants forwarded a PD, number 0644000, for a Supervisory Aircraft Pilot, GS-2181-14, position with the National Guard Bureau (NGB). Implicit in their rationale is a concern that their position is classified inconsistently with other positions. Since comparison to OPM’s PCSs and guidelines is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellants’ current duties to another position, which may or may not be classified properly, as the basis for deciding their appeal. Regardless, we noted similarities between the appealed position and the work described by the NGB PD, including the responsibility for management and direction of an aviation support facility providing flight operations, proficiency training to aviators and crewmembers, aviation safety, and support maintenance for assigned aircraft. Because the NGB PD does not identify any position locations, there is no evidence the PD is currently assigned to an actual position and we thus lack sufficient information to warrant tasking a classification consistency report on the position cited by the appellants.

The Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service has responsibility for classification consistency within Defense components. By copy of this certificate, we are apprising that office of our classification concerns regarding inconsistencies in the evaluation of the similarly described duties and responsibilities. Like OPM, the appellants’ agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM PCSs and guidelines. The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. As discussed on page ii of this decision, the agency is obligated under 5 CFR 511.612 to review its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with our decision.

Position information

The appellants’ ASF manager position is assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Aviation Command (ARAC), which provides command and control for all Army Reserve aviation units and individuals. Their ASFs provide aviation units with support in areas including rotary wing aviation operations, training programs and pilot evaluations, aircraft maintenance, supply, safety, aviation life support equipment, and standardization. The appellants’ position is supervised by the Aviation Program Manager, a GS-0301-14 position that reports to the Commanding General of the ARAC.

The volume and types of positions assigned to the ASFs differ significantly as the composition of the workforce depends on the aircraft managed by an ASF. We discuss the workforce assigned to each ASF in more detail later in the decision. In general, each ASF is divided into three work centers, i.e., flight operations, maintenance, and quality control/safety. The Flight Operations Work Center is supervised by a GS-2181-13 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor and staffed with instructor pilot, dispatcher, and aircraft flight equipment repairer positions. That work center manages aviator training programs by planning and conducting flight training and instruction for rated pilots and non-rated crewmembers to include basic and advanced instrument flight, tactics, terrain flight, night vision devices, and special unit mission tasks. The center also evaluates instructor pilots in the conduct of qualification, mission, and continuation training; maintains a centralized flight planning area; and ensures flight records and individual aviator training folders are maintained according to applicable regulations and directives. The Maintenance Work Center is supervised by a GS-2181-13 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot and staffed with maintenance and electronic integrated systems mechanics, production control technicians, and supply technicians. The work center receives maintenance work orders, schedules and performs aircraft maintenance, monitors maintenance work, coordinates inspections, conducts maintenance test flights, manages the supply function, and maintains maintenance records and reports. Supervised by a GS-2181-13 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, the Quality Control/Safety Work Center enforces maintenance and safety standards, conducts safety inspections of the work and shop areas, maintains the master technical library, and ensures all safety, hazardous material, and other program requirements are met.

The appellants and supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellants’ official PD. However, the agency states in its administrative report to OPM:

Upon review of PD DE11371 and the ASF structures the appellants manage, it was determined that each is different in terms of workload and number of subordinate employees assigned, which affects the base level of work performed. Therefore, the use of one PD for all of the appellants is not appropriate.

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 employees. An OPM appeal decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant. An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and not simply the PD. This decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellants.

Nonetheless, a PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position or job by an official with authority to assign work. OPM considers a PD to be accurate for classification purposes when the major duties and responsibilities of the position are listed and proper classification can be made when the description is supplemented by otherwise accurate, available, and current information on the organization’s structure, mission, and procedures. Major duties are normally those occupying a significant portion of the employee’s time. They should be only those duties currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time. Although the agency’s May 14, 2017, evaluation proposed changing the levels assigned to the position for Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, no further action was taken to update the PD at the time. We find the PD contains incorrect, inadequate, and/or misleading descriptions for Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. For example, the PD states the appellants’ supervisor reports to a position two reporting levels below a general officer, crediting the position with Level 2-1. However, the appellants’ supervisor reports to a position one reporting level below a general officer or equivalent position. The PD must be revised to correct the reporting levels, in addition to its failure to describe responsibility for supervision of subordinate supervisors, the purpose of their contacts, the base level of work supervised, and other inaccuracies. Therefore, the appellants’ PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 10-11 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information provided by the appellants and their agency including the official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. To gain more information about their work, we conducted a telephone audit with the group of appellants, followed by either telephone or email contact with individual appellants to gather information unique to each ASF. We also conducted a telephone interview with their immediate supervisor.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Aircraft Operation Series, GS-2181, titling it Supervisory Helicopter Pilot, and the appellants do not disagree. We concur with the agency’s title and series determination, noting the appellants’ supervisory responsibilities fully meet the coverage requirements for titling as a supervisor addressed in the GSSG. As discussed in the titling instructions in the GS-2181 PCS, the prefix “Supervisory” is appropriately added to the basic title of “Helicopter Pilot” prescribed for pilots operating rotary wing aircraft. Because the appellants spend nearly all their work time performing supervisory and related managerial responsibilities, we have solely applied the criteria in the GSSG to evaluate the grade of those duties. Our application of the grading criteria of the GSSG follows.

Grade determination

The GSSG is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-5 through GS-15. The GSSG employs a factor-point evaluation method that assesses six factors common to all supervisory positions. To grade a position, each factor is evaluated by comparing the position to the factor-level description for that factor and crediting the points designated for the highest factor level which is fully met, in accordance with the instructions specific to the factor being evaluated. The total points assessed under all factors are then converted to a grade by using the grade conversion table in the GSSG.

The appellants disagree with the agency’s May 2017 evaluation, seeking to credit their position with Levels 4A-3, 5-8, and 6-5. We reviewed the agency’s evaluation for Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4-B, concur, and have credited the position accordingly. Our evaluation with respect to the three factors in question follows.

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

This is a two-part factor assessing the nature and purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of contacts, credited under subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts, credited under subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

Subfactor 4A: Nature of Contacts

This subfactor covers the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with the personal contacts. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following: (1) members of the business community or the general public; (2) higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level), or major organization level of the agency; (3) representatives of local public interest groups; (4) case workers in Congressional district offices; (5) technical or operating level employees of State and local Governments; and (6) reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. Contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, televised, radio, or similar contact, and sometimes require nonroutine or special preparation.

At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following: (1) high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; (2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; (3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; (4) congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; (5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; and (6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local Government managers doing business with the agency. Contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management. They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

The nature of the appellants’ contacts meets Level 4A-2. As at this level, their frequent contacts are with higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other offices throughout the ARAC; general officers and other military officials for aviation units serviced; members of the general public and business community; and operating level employees of local, State, and Federal agencies. Because the ASFs support rescue and other domestic emergency operations, the appellants regularly have contact with operating-level employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other components of the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Park Service, and the Department of Public Safety at the State and local levels as described at Level 4A-2. Also similar to this level, their contacts require special preparation in order to explain operations, problems, and available options.

The appellants seek to credit their position at Level 4A-3, stating in part that they communicate with and conduct briefings for Congressional committees and members, as well as with local and State representatives. For example, an appellant communicated with a Congressman to obtain the funds to build a facility large enough at the ASF to accommodate the MEDEVAC helicopters he wanted available for his constituents in the district. The Aviation Program Manager states all ASF managers have contact with members of the U.S. Congress at least three to four times a year for visits and other purposes. The appellants also have contact with local journalists to promote recruitment, retention, and community involvement efforts, e.g., at major airshows and other community events. The appellants describe their contacts with journalists and Congressional members, but these are not frequent and do not often require the extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date familiarity with complex subject matter described at Level 4A-3. Even if, assuming arguendo, the appellants have frequent contact with Congressional members and journalists, classification principles require us to use the same personal contacts that serve as the basis for the level selected for Level 4B, Purpose of Contacts, when selecting the appropriate level for Level 4A. We agree with the agency’s crediting of Level 4B-3, as we found the purpose of their contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the ASF, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. In contrast, the appellants’ contacts with journalists and Congressional members are typically for the purpose of exchanging factual information typical of Level 4B-1, and not for the purpose of obtaining or committing resources on a regular and recurring basis as described at Level 4B-3. Since we are required to use the same personal contacts serving as the basis for the level selected under Factor 4A when selecting a level for Factor 4B, crediting the position with Levels 4A-3 (75 points) and 4B-1 (30 points) would result in a total of 105 points, a decrease of 45 points from the 150 points derived from the crediting of Level 4A-2 (50 points) and 4B-3 (100 points).

Unlike Level 4A-3, the appellants’ contacts are not with high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies. The appellants control ASF resources and are delegated with the requisite authority necessary to gain support and compliance on policy and other matters, specifically exercising such authority in communication with battalion/company commanders of supported aviation units. They advise and assist unit commanders in the development, management, and execution of individual and collective unit training programs, routinely negotiating with them on provisions relating to facilities and equipment, maintenance support, flight training, and other assistance when requested. Although the appellants have regular contact with high ranking military and civilian managers throughout the ARAC, that organization is a functional command within the U.S. Army Reserve and is thus not equivalent to a bureau level as described at Level 4A-3.

Level 4A-2 is credited for 50 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed, as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility.

The agency proposed crediting Level 5-4 for positions at Fort Eustis, Conroe, and Clearwater, identifying GS-8 as the base level of work for those organizations. The agency proposed crediting Level 5-5 for positions at Fort Lewis and Olathe, identifying GS-9 as the base level of work. However, the appellants assert the GS-13 as the base level of work for their organizations and that Level 5-8 is appropriate for their position. They state in comments to the agency administrative report:

We also find that the formula to determine the “base level of work” is flawed and does not include all positions that are authorized within the ASF’s. In addition it doesn’t not [sic] give the GS-13 supervisory [instructor pilots] or [maintenance test pilots (MTP)] any credit at the GS-13 level for non-supervisory work performed. We would also point to the fact that the Supervisory Instructor Pilot (PD DEASF006) is given credit under factor 5 for “At least 25% of the work load is at the GS-13 level” while the Supervisory MTP (PD DEASF007) under factor 5 is given credit for “50% of the work-load is at the GS-12 level.” Based on the formula used by [the agency] in their review the Appellant’s are penalized for having a larger workforce.

Because the positions assigned to the ASFs vary in volume and grade levels assigned, we evaluated the base level of work for each organization separately. Our analysis for each ASF is provided within the attached enclosure. We find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed at each ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level. If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 6-4a, where supervision requires substantial coordination and integration of a number of major work assignments, projects, or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level. As discussed under Factor 5, we find the base level of work for the ASFs is the GS-10 level, not the GS-11 level expected at Level 6-4a.

Similar to Level 6-4b, the appellants’ position directs subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-9 or GS-10 level. Such base work requires coordination similar to that described at Level 6-3a (i.e., required coordination at Level 6-4b ensures consistency of product, service, interpretation, or advice; conformance with the output of other units, with formal standards or agency policy over a higher level of work than that expected at Level 6-3a) for first-line supervisors. The flight operations, maintenance, and quality control/safety work centers each have substantial workloads equivalent to at least the GS-9 level as expected at Level 6-4b. ASFs are responsible for providing training programs including basic and advanced instrument flight, tactics, terrain flight, night vision devices, and special unit mission tasks in compliance with agency directives. They are also responsible for providing maintenance and supply services to aviation units. To perform such work, the subordinate supervisors coordinate inside and outside of their work centers to ensure their output is consistent with stringent product, service, and other standards established by the agency concerning aviator training programs. We find the appellants’ position fully meets Level 6-4b.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 6-5a, 6-5b, or 6-5c. In contrast to Level 6-5a, their position does not require supervision and oversight requiring significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level. The ASFs’ base level of work is the GS-10 level, not the GS-12 level expected at Level 6-5a.

Unlike Level 6-5b, the appellants’ position does not require supervision of highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory, or comparable implications.

Unlike Level 6-5c, the appellants’ position does not require managing work through subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level. The Maintenance Work Center represents, by far, the largest of an ASF’s three work centers and the only work performed at the GS-11 or higher grade level is the nonsupervisory work assigned to the Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, i.e., the supervisory position over the entire work center.

Level 6-4b is credited for 1,120 points.

Summary

Factor	Level	Points
1.  Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
2.  Organizational Setting	2-2	250
3.  Supervisory & Managerial Authority Exercised	3-3b	775
4.  Personal Contacts
A.  Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
B.  Purpose of Contacts	4B-3	100
5.  Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-5	650
6.  Other Conditions	6-4b	1120
Total		3,295

This point total falls within the GS-13 range (3,155-3,600) on the grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.

Decision

The appellants’ position is properly classified as Supervisory Helicopter Pilot, GS-2181-13.

Enclosure

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

In evaluating second (and higher) level supervisors like the appellants under this factor, the GSSG instructs to first use the method described for first-level supervisors. This involves determining the highest grade of basic (mission-oriented) nonsupervisory work performed that constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload of the organization.

The following types of work are specifically excluded from this workload calculation:

• subordinate work that is graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties;

• work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3 (including such basic administrative supervisory functions as approving leave and evaluating performance); and

• lower level support work that primarily facilitates the basic work of the unit.

The appellants raise various issues regarding the agency’s evaluation of Factor 5, specifically the grade levels credited to nonsupervisory work performed by subordinate supervisors and other positions; the equivalent GS grades determined by the agency for Federal Wage System (FWS) work; and the comparison to the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Equipment, Facilities, and Services Group, GS-1600, to determine the FWS to GS work equivalencies. Furthermore, the appellants’ characterization of the FWS work as “support work” implicitly raises the question of their inclusion into the workload calculation. However, we considered the maintenance, repair, and trade work performed by the mechanics and other FWS jobs as reflective of the ongoing work of the Maintenance Work Center. Their work does not facilitate (aid) the basic work of the ASF, but rather directly and significantly serves the ASF mission of providing maintenance and supply services to United States Army Reserve aviation units. Additionally, although we normally assume the agency’s classification of a position is accurate when assessing the base level of an organization’s work, the agency states that ARAC managers exercised delegated classification authority to override the agency’s classification determination for positions including the Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DE271118. For these and other reasons, we evaluated the ASFs’ PDs, which are mostly standardized and assigned to positions across the ASFs, to make our own determination concerning workload calculation. Our analysis of the base levels assigned to each ASF follows our findings below relating to our evaluation of the PDs.

Grade levels credited to Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DEASF025. Our workload calculations normally credit the grade levels associated with the various duties performed by a position as documented in the official PD, rather than assume the entire workload of the position is at the same grade level. According to the agency, the position performs GS-13 work for 45 percent of the time and GS-11 work for 55 percent of the time. Because we assume the agency’s classification of a position is accurate when assessing the base level of an organization’s work, we noted the agency in its evaluation statement of the position classified it at the GS-13 level based on work associated with instructing and evaluating rated aviators in maintenance test flight procedures, conducting flight evaluations to ensure competency of maintenance test pilots, performing progress evaluations for students, etc. The PD shows the position performs such work for 60 percent of the time. The incumbent also spends 20 percent of the time assisting the supervisor “in the conduct of all phases of operation, flying training, and maintenance of the facility to include the development and monitoring of an aviation safety program.” Because this duty incorporates instruction and program development work normally assigned to an organization’s higher-graded positions, we credited this work at the GS-13 grade level though we note this addition represents the maximum proportion of GS-13 work creditable to the position but may overstate its volume. Regarding the remaining 20 percent, we concur with the agency’s crediting of such work, e.g., maintaining flight proficiency, serving on aviation flight status boards, and conducting operational checks, at the GS-11 level.
(80% at the GS-13 and 20% at the GS-11)

Grade levels credited to Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DEASF006. The agency states the position performs supervisory work for 30 percent of the time, GS-12 work for 25 percent, and GS-11 work for 45 percent. A review of the PD confirms the incumbent spends 30 percent of the time on supervisory work. However, the PD describes duties identical to that performed by helicopter flight instructors assigned to PD number DEASF025. Because the agency concluded that the position met the GS-13 grade level based on instructor-related work, we must also consider such instructor work personally performed by the supervisory helicopter flight instructor as similarly creditable to the GS-13 level. PD number DEASF006 shows the incumbent performs such instructor work for approximately 45 percent of the time. Regarding the remaining 25 percent, we concur with the agency’s crediting of the work, i.e., maintaining flight proficiency and planning, developing, and directing the flight operations and training activities for the ASF (e.g., inspecting flight records and monitoring physicals), at the GS-11 level.
(45% at the GS-13 and 25% at the GS-11)

Grade level credited to Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DE271118. According to the agency, the position performs GS-13 work for 35 percent of the time and GS-11 work for 65 percent of the time. The PD states the incumbent conducts maintenance test flights and operational checks following maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of parts, components, or systems to assure airworthiness of aircraft. This work is characteristic of that described by the GS-2181 PCS for a maintenance test pilot at the GS-12 grade level, which the PCS describes as work “[t]o conduct functional flight checks of light airplanes or helicopters following repair, maintenance, or the installation of approved modifications to aircraft systems.” The GS-2181 PCS does not describe any assignments characteristic of maintenance test pilots at the GS-13 level. Although the evaluation statement shows the agency classified the position at the GS-12 level, the Command Executive Officer in an August 2, 2013, memorandum, exercised delegated classification authority to “override” the agency’s determination and classify the position to the GS-13 level. Since we find the maintenance test pilot work consistent with the GS-2181 PCS description at the GS-12 level, we credited the work performed by the position at that level.
(100% at the GS-12)

Grade levels credited to Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DE16999. The agency states the position spends 25 percent of the time on supervisory work, 10 percent on GS-12 work, and 65 percent on GS-11 work. The evaluation statement shows the agency classified the supervisory work at the GS-11 level; because there is no separate evaluation for the nonsupervisory work, we assume the agency classified the position at the GS-13 level based on personally performed work. However, the PD describes duties identical to that performed by maintenance test pilots assigned to PD number DE271118. Because we conclude the work performed by that position meets the GS-12 level, we must also consider such work personally performed by the supervisory maintenance test pilot as similarly creditable to the GS-12 level. PD number DE16999 shows the position performs supervisory work for 25 percent of the time, maintenance test pilot work for 70 percent, and maintenance of aviator proficiency work creditable at the GS-11 level for 5 percent.
(70% at the GS-12 and 5% at the GS-11)

Grade levels credited to Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181-13, position assigned to PD number DEASF0007. The agency states the position spends 25 percent of the time on supervisory work and 75 percent on GS-11 work. Because this PD also describes duties identical to that performed by maintenance test pilots assigned to PD number DE271118, we must also consider the work personally performed by the supervisory maintenance test pilot as similarly creditable to the GS-12 level. PD number DEASF0007 shows the position performs supervisory work for 25 percent of the time, maintenance test pilot work for 70 percent, and maintenance of aviator proficiency work creditable at the GS-11 level for 5 percent.
(70% at the GS-12 and 5% at the GS-11)

Grade levels credited to FWS jobs. All nonsupervisory trade jobs perform mission essential work and must be included in workload calculations. Since this factor measures the difficulty of work supervised in terms of GS grades, the work performed by non-GS employees must be converted to the appropriate GS equivalent grades for the purpose of applying these criteria. The grades of FWS positions do not correspond to GS grades, e.g., an FWS position classified as WG-12 is not considered equivalent to GS-12 because GS positions involve the application of knowledge and skills that are not required for FWS positions. FWS positions must be converted to their GS equivalent grades by comparing them to GS classification standards for occupational series involving the performance of similar or related activities. We approached the conversion of FWS positions to GS equivalent grades, as follows.

The agency states the Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD numbers DEASF014 and DE11319), and Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD numbers DE16966 and DEASF013), jobs are equivalent to the GS-9 grade level. The PD shows the WG-2610 mechanic is responsible for installing, troubleshooting, testing, repairing, and analyzing malfunctions on complex integrated electronic avionics systems, subsystems, and aircraft electrical power control and distribution systems. The PD for the WG-8852 job shows the inspector is responsible for performing quality assurance inspections and evaluations of ASF- or contractor-performed aircraft maintenance and repairs, inspecting aircraft fuselage and airframes, landing gears, tires and/or skids, fuel, electrical, hydraulic, flight controls, instruments, and other systems required to make the aircraft mission capable. We find the jobs are involved in maintenance and inspection work requiring judgment and interpretation of technical guides, schematics, or blueprints in carrying out the work. Work in these occupations are equivalent in nature to GS technical work, defined as requiring extensive practical knowledge gained through experience and/or training and involving the carrying out of tasks, methods, procedures, and computations laid out in published instructions and covered by established guidelines. Technical work typically follows a one-grade interval pattern and does not require the application of knowledge and skills equivalent to those required for two-grade interval work. These jobs can be converted to GS equivalent grades by comparing them to criteria contained in the JFS for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, GS-800, which covers related installation, maintenance, operating, and testing work. At the GS-9 level and above in the series, duties begin to resemble work performed by beginning professional employees in the same general occupational field.

The GS-800 JFS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, under which factor levels and accompanying point values are assigned for each of the nine factors with Factor 1 (Knowledge Required by the Position) carrying the most weight. Given the incumbents of the WG-12 jobs are responsible for the most complex maintenance and inspection work performed at the ASF and the accompanying level of knowledge and skills required, we will credit their work at Level 1-6, which requires practical knowledge of a wide range of technical methods, principles, requirements, work techniques, and practices of an area of specialization, and skill in applying standardized, analytical, and evaluative methods and techniques sufficient to, e.g., perform installation, maintenance, operations, and testing duties and to advise on and/or resolve difficult but well-precedented factual, procedural, and/or recurring issues. By reference to The Classifier’s Handbook (which provides tables illustrating how FES factors are typically used in positions, helping to understand how the most common factor levels are used at various grades for different kinds of work), the factor-level relationships described for technical work identify Level 1-6 as the common factor level assigned to GS-9 positions, which is the highest grade identified by the table for technical work. However, as a result of the specialized nature of the work performed in the highly regulated and unique aviation environment, and because the WG-12 PDs state the mechanic works “without technical supervision” and the inspector with only “general supervision,” we conclude the resulting factor-level assignments by comparison to the GS-800 JFS would result in GS-10 as the highest GS equivalent grade for the WG-12 jobs.
(GS-10 equivalent grade)

According to the agency, the Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic Leader, WL-2610-12, assigned to PD number DEASF012, spends 85 percent of the time on leader work and 15 percent on GS-9 equivalent work. The PD identifies mostly non-leader duties with the exception of a statement that the incumbent “[p]rovides technical assistance to workers of lower grade,” which was described along with other duties occupying 15 percent of the time. Also given the small groups led, it is not plausible to credit each team leader with spending 85 percent of the time on leader work. The Job Grading Standard for Leader is used to grade the jobs of leaders who as a regular and recurring part of their jobs, and on a substantially full time and continuing basis, lead three or more workers. For purposes of this decision, we will credit the subordinate leaders with spending 25 percent on leader responsibilities. The PD shows the incumbent performs work along with the WG-12 mechanics led, which we considered equivalent to the GS-10 level as explained previously. For workload calculations, we excluded the leader work and credited 75 percent at the GS-10 level.
(75% at GS-10 equivalent grade)

We concur with the agency’s assertion that the Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD numbers DEASF015 and DE00U23), job is equivalent to the GS-9 grade level. The PDs show the mechanic performs the full range of aircraft mechanic duties including diagnosing malfunctions, troubleshooting, and conducting inspections. The work, which may be converted to a GS equivalent grade by comparison to criteria in the GS-800 JFS, is also characteristic of positions at Level 1-6, which require practical knowledge of a wide range of technical methods, principles, requirements, work techniques, and practices to perform installation, maintenance, operations, and testing duties. Because the PDs show the WG-11 mechanics “may work independently” and “[w]ork is subject to check in progress and upon completion for acceptability and adherence to instructions and established standards,” we conclude they do not work with the same level of independence as WG-12 mechanics. Based on the resulting factor-level assignments by comparison to the GS-800 JFS, GS-9 level is the highest GS equivalent grade for the WG-11 job.
(GS-9 equivalent grade)

Regarding the Aircraft Mechanic Supervisor, WS-8852-11, job assigned to PD number DEASF008, the PD describes mostly supervisory-related duties divided into categories identified as management, planning, and work direction. Because we are unable to identify any nonsupervisory work or the percentage of time any such work is performed by the incumbent based on our PD review, we excluded the entire position for workload calculation purposes.

The agency states the Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD numbers DE01U05, DEASF016, DEF0450, and DE10961); Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438); Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DE16441); Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019); and Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD numbers DEASF021 and DE10899[1]), jobs are equivalent to the GS-8 grade level.  The agency, however, asserted the Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10, job assigned to PD number DEASF018, is equivalent to the GS-9 grade level.  A review of the various WG-10 mechanic PDs show similarities in the work performed, as well as how work is assigned, supervised, and reviewed.  In general, the WG-8 mechanics perform a variety of work involving maintenance and repair tasks on hydraulic systems, aircraft components, parts and components of various aviation ground support equipment, etc., to ensure reliability, acceptability, and airworthiness of aircraft.  Their work can be converted to a GS equivalent grade by comparison to criteria in the GS-800 JFS and is characteristic of positions at Level 1-5, which require practical knowledge of, and skill in applying, standardized rules or operations requiring substantial training or experience in methods and practices sufficient to perform limited projects involving specialized or complicated procedures; interpret drawings, plans, and specifications; identify and correct deficiencies; ensure appropriate interaction between components; and employ a variety of complex precision instruments, gauges, and methods.  By reference to The Classifier’s Handbook, the factor-level relationships described for technical work identify Level 1-5 as the common factor level assigned to GS-7 and GS-8 positions.  Because the PDs show the shop foreman generally assigns, prioritizes, and oversees the work of the WG-10 mechanics, we conclude GS-8 would be the highest GS equivalent grade based on the resulting factor-level assignments.

(GS-8 equivalent grade)

The agency states the Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10, job assigned to PD number DE11380, spends 85 percent of the time on leader work and 15 percent on GS-9 equivalent work. The PD shows the incumbent spends 77 percent of the time on leader work and 23 percent on performing work along with the mechanics led, which we considered equivalent to the GS-8 level as explained previously. For workload calculations, we excluded the leader work and credited 23 percent at the GS-8 level.
(23% at the GS-8 equivalent grade)

The agency states the Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10, job assigned to PD number DEZ6027, spends 85 percent of the time on leader work and 15 percent on GS-9 equivalent work. Although it describes mostly leader-related duties, e.g., providing instructions, ensuring sufficient work to the crews, and demonstrating proper work methods, the PD states the incumbent works along with other employees and sets the pace by performing the same kind and level of work as that performed by the group led. The PD provides no work percentages, but we find the agency’s allocation of 85 percent on leader work plausible. The PD also confirms the incumbent performs the same work as the WG-10 mechanics led, which we considered equivalent to the GS-8 level. For workload calculations, we excluded the leader work and credited 15 percent at the GS-8 grade level.
(15% at the GS-8 equivalent grade)

We agree with the agency’s assertion that the Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-8, job assigned to PD number DE16442, is equivalent to the GS-6 level. The PD shows the repairer is responsible for inspecting, classifying, testing, repairing, replacing, fabricating, issuing, storing, and maintaining aviation life support equipment (e.g., night vision goggles, flight clothing, protective helmets, communications systems, and survival equipment) for issue to aircrew personnel. We compared the work to criteria contained in the PCS for Medical Supply Aide and Technician Series, GS-622, which covers duties providing hospital facilities with medical supplies, instruments, sets, and equipment. The WG-4818 work is characteristic of positions at Level 1-4, which require knowledge of the uses, physical characteristics, maintenance procedures, and assembly, adjustment, and processing procedures for the full range of supplies and equipment used in the hospital. By reference to The Classifier’s Handbook, the factor-level relationships described for assistance work identify Level 1-4 as the common factor level assigned to GS-6 positions. We conclude the GS-6 level is the highest GS equivalent grade for the WG-8 job.
(GS-6 equivalent grade)

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed for ASF Fort Eustis, Virginia

The appellant states his ASF’s workforce is currently comprised of 56 authorized full time equivalent (FTE) positions, in contrast to the 33 FTEs reported by the agency. Army Regulation 140-1, dated January 20, 2004, requires the ASF’s staffing levels to be maintained at 100 percent of authorizations. In the event staffing levels drop below 85 percent of requirements exceeding 120 days, the ARAC must obtain a waiver in order for the ASF to continue flight operations. The supervisor confirmed the information reported by the appellant is a more accurate reflection of the workforce as it is currently configured. Since the appellant’s information includes positions in the process of being filled, we will consider all FTEs reported by him for workload calculation purposes in order to maintain the relevancy of our analysis by reflecting the organization as it will be in the near future. Regardless, we note that GS-10 would be fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF even if we had only considered the 33 FTEs reported by the agency.

Of the 56 FTEs reported by the appellant, 13 positions are under the GS and 43 jobs are under the FWS. One position is excluded as lower-level support work, i.e, a position allocated to the GS-303 Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant Series, which facilitates the basic work of the unit, in addition to excluding supervisor or leader work based on information provided by the appellant and agency. Therefore, the total staff for purposes of workload calculation after the supervisor, leader, and lower-level support work is excluded is 49.12 FTEs. The base level of work for the ASF follows:

GS-13
.45 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
1.6 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
2.05

GS-12
1.0 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-018 [2]
1.4 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DE16999)
2.4

GS-11
.25 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
.40 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.10 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DE16999)
.75

GS-10
4.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DEASF014)
4.0 Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD number DE16966)
8.0

GS-9
8.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD number DEASF015)
3.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD number DE00U23)
1.0 Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-2185 (PD number DEASF028)
12.0

GS-8
.92 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DE11380)
9.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DEASF016)
1.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DE10961)
1.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DE01U05)
1.0 Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019)
2.0 Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438)
1.0 Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DE16441)
1.0 Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD number DEASF021)
2.0 Aircraft Dispatcher, GS-2151 (PD number DEASF030)
18.92

GS-7
1.0 Production Controller (Aircraft), GS-1152 (PD number DEASF022)

GS-6
2.0 Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-08 (PD number DE16442)
2.0 Supply Technician, GS-2005 (PD number DEASF024)
4.0

The total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 49.12 FTEs. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13: 4.17%
GS-12: 4.89%
GS-11: 1.53%
GS-10: 16.29%
GS-9: 24.43%
GS-8: 38.52%
GS-7: 2.04%
GS-6: 8.14%

At 16.29 percent, the GS-10 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, when combined with the 10.59 percent expended on the GS-13, 12, and 11 workload performed by the ASF, we find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed for ASF Conroe, Texas

The appellant states his ASF’s workforce is currently comprised of 90 authorized FTEs, in contrast to the 63 FTEs reported by the agency. Army Regulation 140-1, dated January 20, 2004, requires the ASF’s staffing levels to be maintained at 100 percent of authorizations. In the event staffing levels drop below 85 percent of requirements exceeding 120 days, the ARAC must obtain a waiver in order for the ASF to continue flight operations. The supervisor confirmed the information reported by the appellant is a more accurate reflection of the workforce as it is currently configured. Since the appellant’s information includes positions in the process of being filled, we will consider all FTEs reported by him for workload calculation purposes in order to maintain the relevancy of our analysis by reflecting the organization as it will be in the near future. Regardless, we note that GS-10 would be fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF even if we had only considered the 63 FTEs reported by the agency.

Of the 90 FTEs reported by the appellant, 22 positions are under the GS and 68 jobs are under the FWS. Four positions are excluded as lower-level support work (i.e., one position allocated to the GS-303 series and three positions allocated to the GS-085 Security Guard Series), which facilitate the basic work of the unit, in addition to excluding supervisor or leader work based on information provided by the appellant and agency. Therefore, the total staff for purposes of workload calculation after the supervisor, leader, and lower-level support work is excluded is 75.08 FTEs. The base level of work for the ASF follows.

GS-13
2.4 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.45 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
2.85

GS-12
1.0 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-018
2.0 Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DE271118)
1.4 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
4.4

GS-11
.60 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.25 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
.10 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
.95

GS-10
6.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DEASF014)
6.0 Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD number DE16966)
1.5 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic Leader, WL-2610-12 (PD number DEASF012)
13.5

GS-9
10.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD number DEASF015)
1.0 Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-2185 (PD number DEASF028)
11.0

GS-8
26.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DEASF016)
1.38 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DE11380)
3.0 Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438)
2.0 Aircraft Dispatcher, GS-2151 (PD number DEASF030)
1.0 Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD number DEASF021)
1.0 Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019)
1.0 Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DEASF018)
35.38

GS-7
1.0 Production Controller (Aircraft), GS-1152 (PD number DEASF022)

GS-6
4.0 Supply Technician, GS-2005 (PD number DEASF024)
2.0 Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-08 (PD number DE16442)
6.0

The total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 75.08 FTEs. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13: 3.80%
GS-12: 5.86%
GS-11: 1.27%
GS-10: 17.98%
GS-9: 14.65%
GS-8: 47.12%
GS-7: 1.33%
GS-6: 7.99%

At 17.98 percent, the GS-10 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, when combined with the 10.93 percent expended on the GS-13, 12, and 11 workload performed by the ASF, we find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed for ASF Olathe, Kansas

The appellant states his ASF’s workforce is currently comprised of 53 authorized FTEs, in contrast to the 45 FTEs reported by the agency. Army Regulation 140-1, dated January 20, 2004, requires the ASF’s staffing levels to be maintained at 100 percent of authorizations. In the event staffing levels drop below 85 percent of requirements exceeding 120 days, the ARAC must obtain a waiver in order for the ASF to continue flight operations. The supervisor confirmed the information reported by the appellant is a more accurate reflection of the workforce as it is currently configured. Since the appellant’s information includes positions in the process of being filled, we will consider all FTEs reported by him for workload calculation purposes in order to maintain the relevancy of our analysis by reflecting the organization as it will be in the near future. Regardless, we note that GS-10 would be fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF even if we had only considered the 45 FTEs reported by the agency.

Of the 53 FTEs reported by the appellant, 12 positions are under the GS and 41 jobs are under the FWS. One position is excluded as lower-level support work, i.e., a position allocated to the GS-303 series, which facilitates the basic work of the unit, in addition to excluding supervisor or leader work based on information provided by the appellant and agency. Therefore, the total staff for purposes of workload calculation after the supervisor, leader, and lower-level support work is excluded is 45.88 FTEs. The base level of work for the ASF follows.

GS-13
1.6 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.45 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
2.05

GS-12
1.0 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-018
1.4 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
2.4

GS-11
.10 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
.40 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.25 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
.75

GS-10
4.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DEASF014)
3.0 Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD number DE16966)
7.0

GS-9
10.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD number DEASF015)
1.0 Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-2185 (PD number DEASF028)
11.0

GS-8
11.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DEASF016)
1.0 Aircraft Dispatcher, GS-2151 (PD number DEASF030)
3.0 Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438)
1.0 Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD number DEASF021)
1.0 Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DEASF018)
1.0 Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019)
.23 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DE11380)
.45 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DEZ6027)
18.68

GS-7
1.0 Production Controller (Aircraft), GS-1152 (PD number DEASF022)

GS-6
2.0 Supply Technician, GS-2005 (PD number DEASF024)
1.0 Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-08 (PD number DE16442)
3.0

The total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 45.88 FTEs. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13: 4.47%
GS-12: 5.23%
GS-11: 1.63%
GS-10: 15.26%
GS-9: 23.98%
GS-8: 40.71%
GS-7: 2.18%
GS-6: 6.54%

At 15.26 percent, the GS-10 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, when combined with the 11.33 percent expended on the GS-13, 12, and 11 workload performed by the ASF, we find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed for ASF Fort Lewis, Washington

The appellant states the ASF’s workforce is currently comprised of 53 authorized FTEs, in contrast to the 37 FTEs reported by the agency. Army Regulation 140-1, dated January 20, 2004, requires the ASF’s staffing levels to be maintained at 100 percent of authorizations. In the event staffing levels drop below 85 percent of requirements exceeding 120 days, the ARAC must obtain a waiver in order for the ASF to continue flight operations. The supervisor confirmed the information reported by the appellant is a more accurate reflection of the workforce as it is currently configured. Since the appellant’s information includes positions in the process of being filled, we will consider all FTEs reported by him for workload calculation purposes in order to maintain the relevancy of our analysis by reflecting the organization as it will be in the near future. Regardless, we note that GS-10 would be fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF even if we had only considered the 37 FTEs reported by the agency.

Of the 53 FTEs reported by the appellant, 12 positions are under the GS and 41 jobs are under the FWS. One position is excluded as lower-level support work, i.e., a position allocated to the GS-303 series, which facilitates the basic work of the unit, in addition to excluding supervisor or leader work based on information provided by the appellant and agency. Therefore, the total staff for purposes of workload calculation after the supervisor, leader, and lower-level support work is excluded is 46.12 FTEs. The base level of work for the ASF follows.

GS-13
1.6 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.45 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
2.05

GS-12
1.0 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-018
1.4 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DE16999)
2.4

GS-11
.10 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DE16999)
.40 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.25 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
.75

GS-10
1.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DEASF014)
3.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DE11319)
3.0 Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD number DE16966)
7.0

GS-9
10.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-11 (PD number DEASF015)
1.0 Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-2185 (PD number DEASF028)
11.0

GS-8
9.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DEASF016)
.92 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DE11380)
1.0 Aircraft Dispatcher, GS-2151 (PD number DEASF030)
2.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DE10961)
1.0 Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019)
2.0 Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438)
1.0 Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DE16441)
1.0 Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD number DE10899)
17.92

GS-7
1.0 Production Controller (Aircraft), GS-1152 (PD number DEASF022)

GS-6
2.0 Supply Technician, GS-2005 (PD number DEASF024)
2.0 Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-08 (PD number DE16442)
4.0

The total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 46.12 FTEs. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13: 4.44%
GS-12: 5.20%
GS-11: 1.63%
GS-10: 15.18%
GS-9: 23.85%
GS-8: 38.86%
GS-7: 2.17%
GS-6: 8.67%

At 15.18 percent, the GS-10 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, when combined with the 11.27 percent expended on the GS-13, 12, and 11 workload performed by the ASF, we find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed for ASF Clearwater, Florida

The appellant states the ASF’s workforce is currently comprised of 63 authorized FTEs, in contrast to the 42 FTEs reported by the agency. Army Regulation 140-1, dated January 20, 2004, requires the ASF’s staffing levels to be maintained at 100 percent of authorizations. In the event staffing levels drop below 85 percent of requirements exceeding 120 days, the ARAC must obtain a waiver in order for the ASF to continue flight operations. The supervisor confirmed the information reported by the appellant is a more accurate reflection of the workforce as it is currently configured. Since the appellant’s information includes positions in the process of being filled, we will consider all FTEs reported by him for workload calculation purposes in order to maintain the relevancy of our analysis by reflecting the organization as it will be in the near future. Regardless, we note that GS-10 would be fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF even if we had only considered the 42 FTEs reported by the agency.

Of the 63 FTEs reported by the appellant, 15 positions are under the GS and 48 jobs are under the FWS. One position is excluded as lower-level support work, i.e., a position allocated to the GS-303 series, which facilitates the basic work of the unit, in addition to excluding supervisor or leader work based on information provided by the appellant and agency. Therefore, the total staff for purposes of workload calculation after the supervisor, leader, and lower-level support work is excluded is 54.35 FTEs. The base level of work for the ASF follows.

GS-13
1.6 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.45 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
2.05

GS-12
1.0 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, GS-018
1.4 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
1.0 Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181-13 (PD number DE271118)
3.4

GS-11
.10 Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF007)
.40 Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF025)
.25 Supervisory Helicopter Flight Instructor, GS-2181 (PD number DEASF006)
.75

GS-10
5.0 Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanic, WG-2610-12 (PD number DEASF014)
5.0 Aircraft Repair Inspector, WG-8852-12 (PD number DE16966)
10.0

GS-9
1.0 Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-2185 (PD number DEASF028)

GS-8
1.15 Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10 (PD number DE11380)
22.0 Aircraft Mechanic, WG-8852-10 (PD number DEASF016)
2.0 Aircraft Engine Mechanic, WG-8602-10 (PD number DEASF019)
1.0 Powered Support Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-10 (PD number DEASF021)
2.0 Sheet Metal Mechanic, WG-3806-10 (PD number DE16438)
2.0 Aircraft Dispatcher, GS-2151 (PD number DEASF030)
1.0 Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic, WG-8268-10 (PD number DE16441)
31.15

GS-7
1.0 Production Controller (Aircraft), GS-1152 (PD number DEASF022)

GS-6
2.0 Aircraft Survival and Flight Equipment Repairer, WG-4818-08 (PD number DE16442)
3.0 Supply Technician, GS-2005 (PD number DEASF024)
5.0

The total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 54.35 FTEs. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13: 3.77%
GS-12: 6.26%
GS-11: 1.38%
GS-10: 18.40%
GS-9: 1.84%
GS-8: 57.31%
GS-7: 1.84%
GS-6: 9.20%

At 18.40 percent, the GS-10 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, when combined with the 11.41 percent expended on the GS-13, 12, and 11 workload performed by the ASF, we find the GS-10 work fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed by the ASF.

Level 5-5 is credited for 650 points.

On a final note, even though the GSSG states the method applied above for evaluating first-level supervisors will be the correct one for many second-level supervisors, it provides an alternative method for evaluating second (and higher) level supervisors under this factor in those cases where a heavy supervisory or managerial workload related to work above the base level (as identified by application of the first method) is present. It involves determining the highest grade of nonsupervisory work directed which requires at least 50 percent of the duty time of the supervisory position under evaluation.

The appellants serve as third-level supervisors, i.e., in the Maintenance Work Center, mechanics report to the WS-11 aircraft mechanic supervisor, who reports to the GS-13 supervisory maintenance test pilot, who reports to the appellants’ position. The appellants believe this alternative method is applicable to their situation, but this method is not applicable for most second- and higher-level supervisors and is particularly inapplicable to their position. Aside from there being no practical means of determining how much time they devote to supervising these specific workloads, the appellants supervise minimal staff of nonsupervisory/non-leader positions above the GS-10 base level identified using the first method. For example, the number of FTEs at the GS-11, 12, and 13 grade levels are 8.2 at ASF Conroe, 6.2 at ASF Clearwater, and 5.2 at ASFs Fort Eustis, Olathe, and Fort Lewis. Additionally, many of those positions do not report directly to the appellants’ position (e.g., the GS-13 helicopter flight instructor reports to the GS-13 supervisory helicopter flight instructor). The presence of one or more intervening level supervisors between the appellants’ position and those positions, combined with the minimal number of FTEs above the GS-10 base level, render it unlikely they would devote 50 percent or more of their time overseeing the work performed by these particular positions. Therefore, this work is not considered a “heavy supervisory or managerial workload” within the meaning of the GSSG. As such, the alternative method is not applicable to the appellants’ position and the base grade level derived through use of the first method is appropriate.

Furthermore, the adjustment provision provided for by the GSSG, which the appellants had originally asserted to in their initial request to OPM, is not relevant to this situation as it applies to positions only when the supervisory work does not fall at least one grade above the base level of work supervised as determined under Factor 5. Because we found the ASFs’ base level of work is the GS-10 level, the adjustment provision is inapplicable to their position because the supervisory work is classified more than one grade above the base level of work supervised.

 

Back to Top