OPM.gov Home | Subject Index | Important Links | Contact Us | Help

U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Performance Management

Summary Levels FAQs

Federal employee performance appraisal regulations require that employees annually be assigned a summarizing rating that describes their performance throughout the entire year compared to the elements and standards established in their performance plans. This summarizing rating is called a rating of record and is described using summary levels, which can be one of five levels (Levels 1 through 5, with 1 being Unacceptable, 3 being Fully Successful or equivalent, and 5 being Outstanding or equivalent.) A few of the most frequently asked questions about summary levels include:

List of Questions

Are the performance rating, the rating of record, and the summary level the same thing?

Must an agency assign a summary level?

When can a summary level be assigned?

Can one agency subcomponent use two summary levels and others use three or more (up to five)?

When designing a method to assign the summary level, do critical elements have to weigh more than non-critical elements?

Does an employee have to have a performance rating or a rating of record of Unacceptable before a performance-based action can be taken?

Must the rating of record be derived and the summary level assigned only on the basis of appraisal of elements and standards in the employee's performance plan?

Can an agency assign a summary level below Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) if all an employee's critical elements are appraised as Fully Successful or better?

Why does the Office of Personnel Management require programs to include the Level 1 ("Unacceptable") summary?

Why does the Office of Personnel Management require higher-level management review of a Level 1 (Unacceptable) rating of record?

Is higher-level review required for ratings of record above Level 1?

Why doesn't the Office of Personnel Management allow an agency to use Level 2 as the "pass" level in a program with two summary levels?

Who can determine the rating of record? Who can sign ratings of record?

Can a rating of record ever be given at a time other than the end of the appraisal period?

Why don't the regulations use the labels "Pass" and "Fail" more explicitly?

May an agency use assessments and measures other than ratings of record to make personnel decisions?

Are the performance rating, the rating of record, and the summary level the same thing?

No, but they are very similar. A performance rating is the appraisal of the employee's performance compared to the elements and standards established in the performance plan. The rating of record is a specific performance rating done at the end of the appraisal period that includes the appraisal of the elements and standards and also must include the assignment of a summary level (Levels 1-5). Performance ratings done at times other than the end of the appraisal period (such as at the mid-year review, for promotion panels, or similar situations) do not require a summary level to be assigned, although one is permitted. So, while the rating of record is often associated only with the summary level that is assigned as part of the process, it actually goes beyond that and provides a written, or otherwise recorded, record of the employee's performance on all elements in the performance plan during the applicable appraisal period.

Must an agency assign a summary level?

Yes. When the rating of record is completed at the end of the appraisal period, a summary level must be assigned. The principal reason for this requirement is that several other personnel systems and actions rely on the rating of record as a trigger or threshold (e.g., granting within-grade increases, noncompetitive promotions) or as an otherwise necessary input (e.g., for granting additional service credit in a reduction in force (RIF)). Agencies may use between two (Levels 1 and 3) and five (Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) summary levels, or a specified combination in between, as permitted by the agency's performance appraisal system and specified in the applicable appraisal program.

When can a summary level be assigned?

A summary level must be assigned when the rating of record is prepared at the end of the appraisal period. A summary level can be determined at any time agencies deem appropriate and specify in their appraisal programs (e.g., performance rating, progress review). However, the ways in which summary levels are applied (e.g., granting within-grade increases and additional service credit in a reduction in force) are always in the context of the rating of record.

Can one agency subcomponent use two summary levels and others use three or more (up to five)?

Yes. So long as the applicable agency performance appraisal system provides for it, subcomponent programs may use any pattern of summary levels permitted by regulation. The Office of Personnel Management cautions agencies and their subcomponents to ensure that their applicable performance appraisal programs explicitly state the pattern used, including their numeric rating-level designators and equivalent terms.

The summary level patterns allowed by regulation are:

Pattern	Summary Level
	1	2	3	4	5
A	X		X
B	X		X		X
C	X		X	X
D	X	X	X
E	X		X	X	X
F	X	X	X		X
G	X	X	X	X
H	X	X	X	X	X

When designing a method to assign the summary level, do critical elements have to weigh more than non-critical elements?

Only when determining Unacceptable performance. The appraisal regulations permit non-critical elements to have a greater weight in determining the final summary level for an employee when assigning levels above Level 1. However, if performance on any critical element is appraised as Unacceptable, a Level 1 summary must be assigned and performance on a non-critical element can not be used to raise that summary above Level 1, no matter the weight it might receive in other circumstances. Also, any performance-based adverse action may be based only on a determination that performance is at the Unacceptable level on a critical element.

Does an employee have to have a performance rating or a rating of record of Unacceptable before a performance-based action can be taken?

No, not at all. Both a performance rating and a rating of record involve the evaluation of an employee's performance against all the elements and standards in the performance plan. At any time during the appraisal period, an agency can make the determination that an employee's performance is unacceptable on one or more critical elements. This determination is sufficient to begin the process that could lead to a performance-based action if the employee's performance fails to improve to an acceptable level.

?	Must the rating of record be derived and the summary level assigned only on the basis of appraisal of elements and standards in the employee's performance plan?
Yes. The statute at section 4302(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, requires that employees be evaluated against their performance standards.

Can an agency assign a summary level below Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) if all an employee's critical elements are appraised as Fully Successful or better?

Yes, as long as it does not result in assigning a Level 1 (Unacceptable) summary. However, the Office of Personnel Management advises agencies that use non-critical elements to measure group or organizational performance to stipulate that if all of a non-supervisory General Schedule employee's critical elements and individual-level non-critical elements are appraised at least Fully Successful, the summary rating of record must be at least Level 3. This would prevent a within-grade increase being withheld on the basis of performance on a non-critical element measured at the group or organizational level, where the denial might not be upheld if appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Why does the Office of Personnel Management require programs to include the Level 1 ("Unacceptable") summary?

The law at chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code, clearly intends that through their appraisal systems and programs, agencies will be able to identify and deal with employees whose performance is unacceptable. Permitting agency programs to eliminate the use of the designation Unacceptable would violate the intent of this law. Statute defines unacceptable performance as failure to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements. Regulation defines a critical element as having such importance that unacceptable performance on a critical element results in a determination that overall performance is unacceptable. Therefore, Level 1 is reserved to designate unacceptable overall performance.

Why does the Office of Personnel Management require higher-level management review of a Level 1 (Unacceptable) rating of record?

An Unacceptable rating of record bars granting step increases, may result in a performance-based adverse action, and removes retention rights in a reduction in force. For these reasons, there must be an extra measure of assurance that a Level 1 rating of record has been properly assigned. The requirement for higher-level review of a rating of record that could have significant consequences for the employee is a prudent measure of protection for employees.

Is higher-level review required for ratings of record above Level 1?

Higher-level review of ratings of record above Level 1 is not a Governmentwide requirement. However, many agencies may decide that higher-level review is a good practice and provides a measure of fairness. In establishing how ratings of record will be derived, agencies must ensure that equity or fairness issues are addressed so that the results of the process are credible and accepted. Here again, employee involvement in developing program procedures can help promote such acceptance.

Why doesn't the Office of Personnel Management allow an agency to use Level 2 as the "pass" level in a program with two summary levels?

The Level 2 summary rating was never contemplated to signify anything but marginal performance. There has always been a presumption that a "pass" would merit the employees their within-grade increases and full retention rights in a reduction in force. Regulations require a Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) rating of record to reach the acceptable level of competence determination needed for a within-grade increase and to receive all retention rights in a reduction in force. There have been no compelling arguments for lowering the threshold for those personnel actions and those rights to marginal, rather than fully successful, performance.

?	Who can determine the rating of record? Who can sign ratings of record?
The regulations are silent on these issues. Generally, ratings of record should be based on the input from an individual or individuals who are in the best position to assess performance. Agency programs will identify who prepares the rating of record and whose signature may appear on official documentation.

Can a rating of record ever be given at a time other than the end of the appraisal period?

Yes. The regulations define a rating of record as the performance rating completed at the end of the appraisal period that reflects performance over the entire period, or an off-cycle rating of record given when a within-grade increase (WGI) decision is not consistent with the employee's most recent rating of record and a more current rating of record must be prepared. These are the only times that a rating of record can be issued.

Why don't the regulations use the labels "Pass" and "Fail" more explicitly?

Because the term "unacceptable performance" is defined in statute and has specific statutory authorizations associated with it (i.e., to take performance-based actions), the regulations implementing those statutes use Unacceptable, rather than Fail:

to describe performance that fails to meet the established performance standard for a critical element, and
for a Level 1 rating of record.

Likewise, because of these statutory and regulatory references, agencies are expected to use Unacceptable. However, programs that insist on using the term "Fail" may do so provided the following conditions are met:

The program description includes a clear statement of equivalency to establish that its use of the term "Fail" has the meaning and effect of Unacceptable as used in law and regulation.
All employees covered by the program receive clear information concerning the performance standard(s) that must be met, that failure to meet would lead to appraisal and/or rating as "Fail", and the possible consequences of that determination.

Technically, there's no reason why the term "Pass" cannot be used to describe performance that is not unacceptable.

May an agency use assessments and measures other than ratings of record to make personnel decisions?

Yes. Agencies may use any procedures they deem appropriate for considering performance when granting awards and taking other personnel actions, with the following exceptions:

assigning additional service credit in a reduction in force, which requires that ratings of record be used to assign additional service credit, and
within-grade increases for General Schedule employees and prevailing rate system employees, which are tied to ratings of record and performance ratings respectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532