As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 indicated 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 appellant's PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and a 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 Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE)-Chicago office.

Introduction

On September 25, 2014, the Chicago Oversight Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), now Agency Compliance and Evaluation-Chicago, accepted a classification appeal from Mr. Keith Pomrenke.  The appellant's position is currently classified as Supervisory Information Technology (IT) Specialist, Operating Systems/Data Management, Branch Manager (OS/DATAMGT) (Branch Manager), GS-2210-14.  However, the appellant believes his position should be classified at the GS-15 level.  The position is assigned to the Mainframe Services Branch (MSB), Division of Platform Services (DPS), Information and Security Services (ISS), Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury), in Parkersburg, West Virginia.  OPM received the agency's complete administrative report on December 22, 2014, and we have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.  To help decide this appeal, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellant on February 9, 2016, and an interview with his supervisor on February 12, 2016.  In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information gained through interviews, as well as documents submitted by the appellant, his attorney, and his agency.

Background

In 2012, several IT positions were moved as part of a planned consolidation of the Fiscal Management Service (FMS) and Bureau of Public Debt into BFS.  As a result, several GS-13 and GS-14 positions were assigned to the MSB.  However, Treasury did not perform a classification review at the time of the merger to confirm the accuracy of the grades assigned to these subordinate positions or the possible impact of these positions on leader and supervisor positions in the newly formed work groups.  Throughout August 2013, the appellant had several informal discussions with his agency concerning the accuracy of his Position Description (PD) and the grade assigned to his position.  Dissatisfied with the responses received from his servicing Human Resources Office and his supervisor, he submitted a classification appeal to OPM that same month.  However, since PD accuracy is not appealable to OPM, and the appellant had not formally petitioned his agency to resolve his PD accuracy issues, OPM declined to accept and docket a classification appeal on his behalf at that time.  See 5 CFR part 511.607(a)(l ).  In November 2013, the appellant formally grieved his PD accuracy and grade with his agency.  The agency responded by creating PD# 14093F (PD of record), classified as Supervisory IT Specialist (OS/MVS Specialist), GS-2210-14, in April 2014 and reassigned him to that position in September 2014.  Although he agreed with the agency's use of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) as the singular means for classifying his work, he disagreed with some of the factor-level determinations and the resulting final grade and submitted an OPM classification appeal in September 2015.

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency's classification of his position, questions the accuracy of his current PD, and compares his grade to similar positions both inside and outside BFS/ISS.  He draws attention to the grade levels of subordinate GS-13 and GS-14 IT Specialists (including Team Leader positions) and asserts his current grade does not match the level of responsibilities required to guide and direct the work of subordinate GS-13 and GS-14 IT Specialists.  He also cites the upgraded status of the Platform Service's Fiscal IT Mainframe (FIT MF) to "Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource (Cl/KR)" and the high volume of work performed by MSB as support for the increase in grade.

By law, we must make our classification decision solely by comparing the appellant's current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Therefore, we cannot compare the appellant's position to others, which may or may not be classified properly, as a basis for deciding the appeal.  Thus, we have considered the appellant's statements only insofar as they are relevant to comparison to OPM standards and guidelines.  In addition, volume of work cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier's Handbook, Chapter 5).  Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant's agency in classifying his position are not germane to OPM's classification appeal process.

The appellant and his supervisor both attested to the accuracy of the appellant's PD.  However, the appellant admits he agreed to the accuracy of his PD in order to facilitate an OPM appeal. However, our review found that the appellant's PD does not accurately describe his duties and responsibilities with regard to statements in the major duties section as well as Factors 3 and 4. For example, under Major Duties, the PD states the appellant "supervises the work of clerical and specialist personnel."  However, the record shows no clerical personnel are assigned to his work group.  The PD also states he is responsible for managing "...the Fiscal IT Mainframe (FIT MF) that is designated as one of Treasury's critical infrastructure/key resource (CI/KR) through Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7."  However, the record shows the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Infrastructure and Operations Services (DAC/IOS) has ownership of, responsibility, and final authority for all Mainframe Operating Systems and processes within IOS, including the FIT MF. The record also shows the BFS/ISS CI/KR system is composed of four general support systems which include the FIT MF, which stores personal and financial information important for accounting for debts owed to, and payments made by, the Government (e.g., federal income tax, social security, veterans benefits, etc.); the enterprise information technology infrastructure (EITI), which supports Federal information processing standards for low and moderate systems within the enterprise; the enterprise security controls (ESC), which supports the high infrastructure within the enterprise; and authentication services (AS), which supports the identity and access management infrastructure responsible for limiting access and providing protection for a variety of secure information (e.g., names, addresses, social security numbers, etc.).

Under Factor 3, the PD states the appellant "... conducts technical software training" and makes "...decisions on non-routine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests related to employees of the unit." However, the record shows the appellant does not conduct training for either Federal or contracted personnel, nor does he have authority to authorize controversial or costly training and/or related travel expenses.  

Under Factor 4, the PD states "the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts."  However, the record shows that the appellant does not typically need to justify, defend, or negotiate to gain compliance with policies, regulations, or contracts during the performance of his duties. Therefore, the appellant's PD of record 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.

Position information

MSB is one of six sub-components of DPS, which is one of six component branches within IOS, an organizational unit of BFS/ISS.  MSB is responsible for maintaining and improving the reliability and accessibility of the two mainframes which compose the FIT MF (i.e., Parkersburg, West Virginia, and Kansas City, Missouri) and are components of an overall IT system used by BFS to collect revenue, store and protect personal and financial information, and process a variety of payments to individuals as well as State and Federal agencies.

As the MSB supervisor, the appellant directs the work of sixteen IT Specialists (i.e., three IT Specialists GS-2210-14, three Lead IT Specialists GS-2210-13, one IT Specialist GS-2210 13, and nine IT Specialists GS-2210-12).

The appellant spends 90 percent of his time performing or directing the following work:  He gathers and analyzes system statistics, establishes and maintains accessibility and operability, and corrects deficiencies for the FIT MF and ensures all automation capabilities are operating properly.  He designs backups and redundancies to keep vital information (e.g., Social Security numbers, legal names, birth dates, physical addresses, driver's license numbers, bank names and account numbers, etc.) secure during service down-time (usually two hours or less per occurrence).  The appellant plans and directs work through his three TLs.  He sets and adjusts short and long-term priorities (e.g., data reporting and milestones, emergency system maintenance and repair, etc.); coordinates with his TLs to develop work schedules for subordinates, often assigning work directly to subject matter experts (SME) in various areas of IT technology (e.g., GS-14 employees with regard to legacy Mainframe Operating System (MOS) experience, etc.); and ensures individual assignments consider aspects such as priorities, degree of difficulty and task requirements, and the capabilities of individual employees.  For example, the appellant was responsible for upgrading the Payments, Claims, and Enhanced Reconciliation's (PACER) program configuration from version four to version sixteen.  After reviewing the technical challenges and the qualifications and experience of his subordinate employees, he assigned the project to an employee with significant knowledge of PACER and experience performing similar upgrades.

He evaluates the work of his subordinates, primarily through information gathered from TLs, and provides advice and/or direction as needed; interviews candidates for vacancies within MSB including TLs and recommends appointments, promotions, and reassignments to his supervisor; and hears and resolves minor employee complaints (e.g., lack of available full-time telework, issues with the annual appraisal process, etc.), referring serious issues and group complaints to his supervisor for consideration and resolution (e.g., employee and labor relations issues, union grievances, etc.).  He takes minor disciplinary actions (e.g., warnings, reprimands, oral admonishments, etc.) while referring serious disciplinary actions to his supervisor; and identifies and recommends developmental training needs for his subordinates (e.g., mainframe boot camp, IBM IMS intern classes, etc.), referring non-routine or expensive training requests to his supervisor.  The appellant uses his understanding of the operational functions of his branch and how it coordinates and supports other divisions, as well as technical issues and concerns of vendors and customers, to improve the accessibility and dependability of the FIT MF (e.g., conducts new product reviews, coordinates production and maintenance cycles, etc.); and makes minor changes to PDs and performance standards and submits them through his supervisor to the appropriate bureau office for consideration.  He recommends subordinates for monetary and non­monetary awards and submits them through his supervisor for review and processing.

The appellant directs, coordinates, and monitors the quality, quantity, and effectiveness of work performed by subordinates.  He works with TLs and subordinate IT specialists to identify goals and objectives needing additional emphasis (e.g., unforeseen hardware and software needs for ongoing projects, etc.) and follows designated processes for requesting needed items and  services, such as Plans of Action and Milestones (POAMS) (i.e., requests for short and long-term projects which outline the goals and objectives for proposed projects and assignments), and the governance approval process (i.e., process for requesting additional funding beyond the authorized annual budget).  The appellant accesses and accounts for funds allocated for specific projects, studies, hardware, software, contracted work, and discretionary funds and makes recommendations, suggestions, and requests for reallocation of funds when appropriate (e.g., using project funds for emergencies, etc.).  He receives information (e.g., progress reports, employee issues and complaints, technical problems and findings, etc.), provides guidance and direction (e.g., suggestions for resolution of technical issues, suggestions for new projects and processes, etc.), and makes decisions on work problems presented by TLs and SMEs during scheduled and unscheduled meetings; reviews a variety of IT products and services and performs acceptance testing  of new IT equipment and software; and makes recommendations to DPS and DAC/ISS based on his knowledge of product reliability, hardware/software compatibility and supportability, and the reputation of the manufacturer and/or the product.  For example, the appellant reviewed proposed contracts for DB 2 Tools to determine system dependability, data volume capacity, sorting/distribution time frame, etc.  Upon completion, the appellant reviewed the work to ensure it met established standards of adequacy and made recommendations for payment to the Contracting Officer, who authorized payment.

The appellant works with a variety of individuals and groups (e.g., MSB subordinates, managers, supervisors, contractors, manufacturers, administrative personnel, private individuals, State government offices, Internal Revenue Services, Federal Reserve Bank, etc.) from inside and outside BFS/ISS to coordinate technical support and services provided by the FIT MF (e.g., money transfers, electronic record, and integration of MSB processes, products, accesses, education for customers, etc.), and works to identify, reduce, and/or eliminate technical and procedural bottlenecks inhibiting the optimal service and performance of the FIT MF.  He also coordinates and consults with contractors and customers to develop and monitor installation plans for acquired mainframe computer equipment (e.g., provisions for space alternatives, timelines for project completion, etc.), and requests proofs-of-concept to determine if the manufacturer's performance and adaptability claims are realistic before recommending specific products.

As the FIT MF Information Systems Security Officer (ISSO), the appellant ensures all IT security measures prescribed by the BFS/ISS IT security program for FIT MF (e.g., completion of risk assessments every three years or prior to implementation of a system change, etc.) are created, reviewed, and reported to the System Owner (SO), program/project manager, or authorizing official (AO), etc.  He ensures security measures are implemented and maintained for all systems and individuals directly associated with FIT MF usage, efficiency, and needs; provides technical and operational advice and recommendations regarding the security of the FIT MF system to the SO, AO, and the bureau Chief Information Security Officer; and coordinates with the SO and AO to update the system security plan, manage and control the system, evaluate security impacts of proposed changes, and report findings to the appropriate responsible party (e.g., SO, AO, etc.).  This responsibility constitutes approximately 10 percent of the appellant's time.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has placed the appellant's position in the GS-2210 Information Technology (IT) Management Series, which covers two-grade interval positions managing, supervising, administering, developing, delivering, and supporting IT systems and services.  The appellant does not disagree and, based on our review, we concur.  The appellant's supervisory responsibilities fully meet the coverage requirements for the title "Supervisor" as addressed in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  Thus, as discussed in the titling instructions in the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Information Technology Group, 2200, the prefix "Supervisory" is appropriately added to the basic title of "IT Specialist" prescribed for GS-2210 IT Specialist positions.  The JFS allows using the basic IT Specialist title without a parenthetical specialty title when a position, like the appellant's, includes more than two of the established specialty or emphasis areas.  Therefore, the correct title for the appellant's position is "Supervisory IT Specialist."

The appellant states his personally performed work occupies up to 20 percent of his time. However, we find he performs supervisory work approximately 90 percent of the time, which is supported by his performance standards that provide no descriptions of nonsupervisory work.

For example, his performance standards include critical elements such as leadership, business results, customer/employee perspective, IT service delivery, CIO comments, security, and compliance and workforce management.

Grade level determination

The GSSG (Guide) is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-5 through GS-15.  The Guide 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 descriptions for that factor and crediting 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.

Because the appellant spends all, or nearly all, of his work time performing supervisory and related managerial responsibilities, we have solely applied the criteria in the GSSG to evaluate the grade of these duties.  In his appeal request, the appellant disagreed with the levels assigned to four of the six factors in his PD (i.e., 1-3, 3-3, 5-7, and 6-5).  Based on his interpretation of the GSSG, he believes he should be credited with 1-4, 3-4, 5-8, and 6-6.  After a careful review of all information and documents provided, we concur with the agency's evaluation of Factor 2, since the appellant's direct supervisor is one level below the first Senior Executive Service position.  However, we disagree with the agency's determination for Factor 4.  We will therefore focus our review on Factors 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage. It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization. To assign a factor level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.

Scope

This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered.  The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work.  The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area's taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city.  Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level.

At Level 1-4, the supervisor directs a segment of a professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program which involves the development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs; or that includes major, highly technical operations at the Government's largest, most complex industrial installations.

Level 1-3 is met. Like this level, the appellant directs administrative services (e.g., personnel, supply management, etc.) which support the operations of BFS/ISS.  Also similar to Level 1-3, the appellant monitors and directs IT work which supports the FIT MF, which is a component of a Cl/KR operating system that enables BFS/ISS to collect revenue, securely store information, and process payments (e.g., income tax refunds, veteran's benefits, social security, etc.).

Level 1-4 is not met.  Unlike Level 1-4, the work directed by the appellant does not involve "...the development of major aspects of key agency scientific ...regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs; or include major, highly technical operations at the Government's largest, most complex industrial installations."  In addition, although the appellant believes the scope of his responsibilities extends to the agency level because he is responsible for directing work in support of a highly complex IT mainframe (i.e., FIT MF), which he asserts has been designated a CI/KR through Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, the record shows the FIT MF is only one of four general support components of a BFS/ISS IT system which, as a whole, was designated as CI/KR (i.e., FIT MF, EITI, ESC, and AS).  Further, although the appellant directs work which maintains the operability and accessibility of the FIT MF, the DAC/IOS is directly responsible for the oversight and coordination of all hosting IT services within the infrastructure and operations department of BFS/ISS, which includes all components of the CI/KR.   Therefore, since the appellant's responsibilities are limited to directing work associated with maintaining the security, operability, and accessibility of the FIT MF alone, the general complexity and scope of his work fall short of this level.

Scope is credited at Level 1-3.

Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or the programs described under "Scope" on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.

At Level 1-3, the activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public.  At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large serviced populations), the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.

At Level 1-4, the position impacts an agency's headquarters operations, several bureau-wide programs, or most of an agency's entire field establishment; or facilitates the agency's accomplishment of its primary mission or programs of national significance; or impacts large segments of the Nation's population or segments of one or a few large industries; or receives frequent or continuing congressional or media attention.

Level 1-3 is met.  Like this level, the activities, functions or services accomplished directly and significantly impact DPS, which is a bureau level operation.  Like Level 1-3, the appellant directs work which maintains the reliability and accessibility of the FIT MF, which is a component of an overall system that directly impacts BFS/ISS's ability to receive payments from, and issue funds to, specific individuals and State and Federal Government agencies (e.g., veteran's benefits, social security checks, FRB, IRS, State child welfare offices, etc.)

Level 1-4 is not met.  Unlike Level 1-4, although the appellant asserts that the FIT MF directly supports the mission of Treasury (i.e., "...maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by combating threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. Government's finances and resources effectively"), the record shows the appellant's work directly, significantly, and substantially affects other branches and services within BFS/ISS and supports the bureau's mission (i.e., to promote the financial integrity and operational efficiency of the U.S. government through exceptional accounting, financing, collections, payments, and shared services).  Contrary to Level 1-4, the appellant does not have program and/or program segment authority.  Instead, this authority resides with the DAC/IOS or one of the six division supervisors (i.e., operations, infrastructure management, platform services, middleware and application engineering, middleware and application administration, and enterprise credentialing and access management).  The appellant also asserts he has overall responsibility for the FIT MF system, which stores the personal and financial information for large segments of the Nation's population.  However, the record shows the DAC/IOS has ownership and responsibility for all IT systems within the infrastructure and operations service.  Also unlike Level 1-4, the record shows the FIT MF is not a major revenue­ producing program or program segment, but rather a component of a larger bureau-level system used to receive, store, and distribute sensitive financial and personal information.

Effect is credited at Level 1-3.

Scope and effect

Both scope and effect are credited at Level 1-3.

This factor is credited at Level 1-3 and 550 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised

This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities which are exercised on a recurring basis. To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.

Level 3-2 requires that the position must meet one of the paragraphs a, b, or c.  Paragraph a discusses production-oriented work, and paragraph b describes situations where work is contracted out.  Neither is appropriate for this position.

At Level 3-2c, the position must have responsibility for carrying out at least three of the first four and a total of six or more of the ten authorities and responsibilities listed in the GSSG.  Our analysis of the ten authorities and responsibilities follows:

Responsibility 1 is credited.  The appellant plans work to be accomplished by subordinates, either through his three TLs or directly, sets and adjusts short-term priorities, and prepares schedules for completion of work (e.g., data reporting and milestones, short-term projects, emergency system maintenance and repair, etc.).  For example, the appellant assigns responsibility for reviewing and updating portions of the 244 individual versions of vendor­ supplied software currently on the FIT MF to individual technicians.

Responsibility 2 is credited.  The appellant assigns work to subordinates based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the capabilities of employees.  For example, after due consideration of the project specifications, technical requirements, and timeline requirements to configure the PACER from version four to version sixteen, the appellant assigned the project to one of his senior employees with experience with a similar conversion.

Responsibility 3 is credited.  The appellant evaluates the work of subordinates, through TLs, customer input, and/or direct review of subordinate work.

Responsibility 4 is credited.  The appellant provides guidance and counseling to all subordinates, either directly or through his three TLs who, as SMEs in various IT fields, are responsible for following up on the work of all subordinates within their groups.

Responsibility 5 is credited.  The appellant interviews candidates for all direct report positions within the branch and recommends appointments, promotions, or reassignments to such positions.

Responsibility 6 is credited.  The appellant hears complaints from individual employees (e.g., availability of telework, etc.), but refers group grievances and serious or difficult complaints to his supervisor for consideration and action.

Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellant effects minor disciplinary actions (e.g., written and oral reprimands, proposals for suspensions, etc.) but refers more serious cases to his supervisor for consideration and action.

Responsibility 8 is credited.  The appellant identifies and recommends developmental training needs for his subordinates (e.g., mainframe boot camp, IBM IMS intern classes, etc.), but refers all requests for non-routine or expensive training requests to his supervisor, who considers the request(s) and forwards them onto the DAC/IOS.

Responsibility 9 is credited.  The appellant uses his understanding of the functions and needs of his branch, division, vendors, and customers to improve the production, quality, and dependability of the FIT MF (e.g., available budget, procurement, new product reviews, production and maintenance cycles, employee training needs, etc.).

Responsibility 10 is credited.  The appellant develops performance standards.

To meet Level 3-3, a position must meet either 3-3a, or 3-3b as described below.

At Level 3-3a, a position exercises delegated managerial authority to set a series of annual, multi-year, or similar types of long-range work plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work.  These positions assure implementation (by lower and subordinate organizational units or others) of the goals and objectives for the program segment (s) or function(s) they oversee.  They determine goals and objectives that need additional emphasis; determine the best approach or solution for resolving budget shortages; and plan for long range staffing needs, including such matters as whether to contract out work.  These positions are closely involved with high level program officials (or comparable agency level staff personnel) in the development of overall goals and objectives for assigned staff function(s), program(s), or program segment(s).  For example, they direct development of data; provision of expertise and insights; securing of legal opinions; preparation of position papers or legislative proposals; and execution of comparable activities which support development of goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation.

The appellant's position does not meet Level 3-3a.  Unlike Level 3-3a, the appellant is not responsible for, nor does he have authority to set, annual, multi-year, or similar long-range work plans for in-service and contracted work.  The appellant and his subordinates develop POAMs (i.e., proposed work requiring funding) based on long and short-term projects and studies generated from a variety of sources (e.g., higher-level bureau officials, customer agencies receiving BFS/ISS services associated with the FIT MF, the appellant and his subordinates, etc.). They outline goals, objectives, and perform cost/benefit analysis prior to submitting their POAMs through DPS to upper-level management for consideration and possible inclusion in the next fiscal year's budget/workload.   Upper-level management's budget and work decisions translate into funded annual projects and studies which the appellant implements through his subordinates.  In addition, the appellant lacks the managerial responsibility and corresponding authority for determining goals, objectives, priorities, and budget for MSB.  Instead, goals, priorities, and objectives for MSB, solutions for resolving budgetary shortages, and long-range staffing needs are decided at the bureau level or higher.  When addressing the aforementioned needs, the appellant must follow established request and authorization processes (i.e., POAMs and/or governance process).

Unlike Level 3-3a, the appellant's position is not closely involved with agency-level program officials in the development of overall program goals and objectives for assigned staff, programs or program segments. Although he does possess and use a high degree of technical knowledge and insight in the field of IT and information security, he does not prepare position papers or legislative proposals on behalf of BFS/ISS, nor does he directly contribute to and/or support the development and formulation of high-level program management goals and objectives.

Therefore, the supervisory and managerial responsibilities and corresponding authority regularly exercised by the appellant do not meet level 3-3a.

Level 3-3b is met.  To meet Level 3-3b, the appellant must exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least eight of the responsibilities listed below.

Responsibility 1 is credited.  The appellant uses three team leaders to direct, coordinate, and oversee studies and projects associated with the FIT MF.

Responsibility 2 is not credited.  Although the appellant frequently responds to requests for general information and assistance associated with the ongoing technical management of the FIT MF from a variety of individuals inside and outside BFS/ISS, his supervisor has primary responsibility for, and corresponding authority to, represent DPS in formal and informal communications with key individuals of other units or organizations and for advising management officials of higher rank with regard to all issues and activities associated with the  six branches composing DPS, including MSB.

Responsibility 3 is not credited.  The appellant's three subordinate TLs do not develop performance standards, as required for this responsibility.

Responsibility 4 is credited.  The appellant directs and coordinates projects and studies associated with maintaining the operability and accessibility of the FIT MF, which has an annual operating budget of approximately $19,000,000 with the majority of the budget earmarked for specific projects, studies, hardware, and software.

Responsibility 5 is credited.  The appellant makes decisions on work problems presented by subordinate TLs.

Responsibility 6 is not credited.  The appellant serves as the rating official for all subordinate employees, including the TLs.  The DPL is the reviewing official for all of the appellant's subordinates.

Responsibility 7 is credited.  The appellant makes selections for subordinate, nonsupervisory positions within MSB.

Responsibility 8 is credited.  The appellant recommends selections for subordinate TLs.

Responsibility 9 is not met.  Group grievances or serious employee complaints are referred to the DPS or higher-level manager for consideration and action.

Responsibility 10 is not credited.  Although the appellant can recommend suspensions to his supervisor, he does not have the authority to approve suspensions or other serious disciplinary actions involving nonsupervisory subordinates.

Responsibility 11 is not credited.  The appellant cannot make decisions on non-routine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests related to employees of MSB.  Such training requests must be submitted through the DPS to higher-level management for consideration.

Responsibility 12 is credited.  The appellant reviews the work of contractors and recommends payment or non-payment, although final authority to determine if work meets the agency's standards of adequacy resides with the Contracting Officer.

Responsibility 13 is not credited. The appellant does not have the authority to approve expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. Requests of this nature must be submitted to the DPS or higher-level management for consideration.

Responsibility 14 is credited.  The appellant recommends awards and bonuses for non­supervisory subordinates and changes to their PDs subject to approval by higher-level management, which are usually approved.

Responsibility 15 is credited.  The appellant finds and implements ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to projects and studies conducted by MSB.

In order to be considered for assignment of Factor Level 3-4, a position must first exercise the delegated managerial and supervisory authorities included at lower levels of Factor 3.  Therefore, because the appellants' position does not meet both Levels 3-3a and 3-3b, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address Factor Level 3-4 further in this decision.

This factor is credited at Level 3-3b and 775 points are assigned.

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.

Sub/actor 4A:  Nature of contacts

This sub-factor covers the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. 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, the position has frequent contacts 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; (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 non-routine or special preparation.

At Level 4A-3, the position has frequent contacts comparable to any of the following:

(1) high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, leaders 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; (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.

Level 4A-2 is met.  Although the appellant's PD states he has frequent contacts with "...officials within the bureau, other government agencies, and private industry," the record shows the appellant's contacts are primarily with MSB subordinates, peers within DPS, and intermittent contacts with higher-ranking managers and supervisors within BFS/ISS.  The appellant also contacts individuals in comparable positions in other Federal agencies and State and local government offices and, although he attends scheduled and unscheduled meetings and conference calls and receives intermittent telephone calls directly from DAC/ISS and CIO/ISS, the aforementioned contacts do not typically require significant preparation.

Level 4A-3 is not met.  Although the appellant has regular contact with supervisors, managers, technical staff, and administrative support staff within BFS/ISS and other Federal and State agencies, his primary contacts are with peers and supervisors within his or other divisions within Infrastructure and Operations Services or with individuals in comparable positions in other Federal agencies and State and local government offices.  The appellant does not typically have contact with high-ranking military or civilian managers or supervisors, nor does he regularly contact agency headquarters administrative support staff or comparable personnel in other Federal agencies.  In addition, the appellant's supervisor is the designated contact point for inquiries and information associated with the six branches within DPS, including MSB. Therefore, the nature, setting, and required preparations for contacts do not meet Level 4A-3.

This factor is credited at Level 4A-2 and 50 points are assigned.

Subfactor 4B: Purpose of Contacts

This sub-factor covers the purpose of the personal contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment making responsibilities related to supervision and management.

At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent; to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization; and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.

At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organization unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts.

Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

Level 4B-2 is met.  The purpose of the appellant's typical contacts is to identify, confirm, and share a variety of information (e.g., technical issues associated with projects and studies, recommendations and requests for funding and training, etc.) or to assign and direct the work of his subordinates.  The record also shows the appellant works in a relatively cooperative environment in which most of the individuals and groups he encounters work together to accomplish common goals.

Level 4B-3 is not met. To meet the criteria for Level 4B-3, the appellant must demonstrate an ongoing need to justify, defend, or negotiate on behalf of the organization with a corresponding level of authority and control to commit resources and gain compliance with established policies, regulations, and/or contracts. All three Level 4B-3 conditions (i.e., need, authority, and control) must be present to credit this level. Although the appellant's PD states the "... purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts," the record shows that the appellant does not typically need to justify, defend, or negotiate while representing projects, program segment(s) or his organizational unit, nor does he struggle to gain compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. In addition, although the appellant is responsible for identifying and submitting requests for a variety of resources associated with ongoing and future projects,  studies, and personnel (e.g., hardware, software, services, training, travel, etc.), he does not have the corresponding authority to obtain or commit resources for his organization. This authority resides with higher-level positions within BFS/ISS or Treasury.

This factor is credited at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.

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.

To evaluate first-level supervisors like the appellant, the GSSG instructs 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: (1) work graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties;

(2) 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 (3) lower-level support work primarily facilitating the basic work of the unit.

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume the agency has appropriately classified all associated GS-12, non-leader GS-13, and GS-14 PDs, and that those PDs accurately represent the manner in which their occupants operate to support the grade levels assigned.

Level 5-8 is not met.  As stated in the "Position Information" section of this appeal, the appellant supervises sixteen subordinates consisting of three GS-14 IT Specialists, three GS-13 TLs, one GS-13 IT Specialist, and nine GS-12 IT Specialists.  The appellant asserts that he spends 25 percent of his time directing the GS-13 and GS-14 subordinates.  However, PD #l 1P727 (i.e., GS-14) states the GS-14 employees are "...subject only to administrative direction, with assignments given in terms of broadly defined missions or functions.  The employees plan, design, and carry out studies or projects, coordinating with experts both within and outside the organization.  Recommendations are usually accepted without change, and are reviewed in terms of program goals and objectives and national priorities." This indicates the appellant's supervisory control of the GS-14 positions is limited to administrative direction.  Therefore, we must conclude the GS-14 positions exercise an extraordinary independence and/or freedom from supervision as defined by the GSSG and thus, must be excluded when calculating the base level of work supervised (BLWS).

The GSSG also excludes TL duties when calculating BLWS.  Therefore, with regard to the three TLs (i.e., PD #05P755 and PD #13075P), we can only consider the grade of the non-leader work performed which, in this particular case, was determined to be GS-12 during a recent OPM classification appeal (see decision C-2210-13-04).  Since the TLs' personally performed work is credited at the GS-12 grade level, the percentage of the workload represented by their non-leader work (i.e., 23 percent) will be added to that of the GS-12 IT Specialists for overall workload calculation purposes.  We also assume the agency's classification of the GS-13 IT Specialist and GS-12 IT Specialist(s) are accurate for the purposes of this appeal.  Therefore the typical workload directed by the appellant is broken down as follows:

GS-13

1.0 IT Specialist

GS-12

3.0 Lead IT Specialists

9.0 IT Specialists

The total non-leader workload is 13 FTEs (excluding the three GS-14 IT Specialists). The percentage of non-leader work supervised at each grade level, rounded up, is as follows:

GS-13: 8%

GS-12: 92%

At 8 percent, the GS-13 grade level work constitutes considerably less than 25 percent of the non-supervisory workload. We find the GS-12 work, at 92 percent, is fully representative of the highest level of non-supervisory work performed by the appellant's team.

This factor is credited at Level 5-7 and 930 points are assigned.

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 agency credited the appellant's position at Level 6-5a, but he seeks to credit his position at Level 6-6a.

At Level 6-5a, supervision and oversight requires 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.

Supervision at this level involves major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed.  For instance, making recommendations in at least three of the areas listed below or in other comparable areas:

• significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Level 6-4a;
• restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding;
• determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed;
• changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected;
• the optimum mix of reduced operating costs and assurance of program effectiveness, including introduction of labor saving devices, automated processes, methods improvements, and similar;
• the resources to devote to particular programs (especially when staff years and a significant portion of an organization's budget are involved); and
• policy formulation and long range planning in connection with prospective changes in functions and programs; or

6-5b. 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; or

6-5c. Managing work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level.  Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-4a above for first line supervisors.

At Level 6-6a, supervision and oversight requires exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs of professional,  scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level.  Supervision and resource management at this level involve major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organizations and programs managed.  For instance, supervisors at this level make recommendations and/or final decisions about many of the management areas listed under Factor Level 6-Sa, or about other comparable areas.

At Level 6-6b, work is managed through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level.  Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-5a above for first line supervisors.

Level 6-5 is met.  In addition to the GS-12 BLWS established in Factor 5, the recommendations made by the appellant match three of the seven areas listed in 6-5a.  He makes recommendations concerning restructuring, reorienting, recasting of immediate and long range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules concerning current and proposed MSB projects and studies to meet substantial changes in program emphasis and/or funding; evaluates costs of IT projects, studies, hardware, software, and contracted work and recommends which should be initiated, dropped, or curtailed; and recommends reassignment of funds from some projects and/or studies to others which he feels are of greater importance.

Level 6-5b is not met.  Although Treasury has identified the FIT MF as one of four general support systems comprising the CI/KR system, which echoes the language of 6-5b "...national security, national economic security, public safety, public health . ..'', the appellant does not provide significant supervision over highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above, nor does the work directed by the appellant typically involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other comparable demands.  In addition, Level 6-5c is not met because the appellant does not manage work through subordinate supervisors.

Level 6-6 is not met.  Unlike Level 6-6a, authority and responsibility for programs and program segments and for making major decisions which directly and substantially affect programs or program segments within BFS/ISS rest with the DPS or higher level management.  Also unlike Level 6-6a, the appellant does not exercise exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level, nor does he make major supervisory or resource management decisions or have authority and responsibility to initiate actions which have a direct and substantial effect on programs and program segments.

Level 6-6b is not met. Although the appellant directs a GS-12 base-level workforce through three team leaders, he does not manage work "... through subordinate supervisors and/or equivalent contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level."

This factor is credited at Level 6-5a and 1,225 points are assigned.