U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness

Classification Appeals and FLSA Programs

Dallas Oversight Division

1100 Commerce Street, Room 4C22

Dallas, TX 75242

/s/ Bonnie J. Brandon

Bonnie J. Brandon

Classification Appeals Officer

8/19/99

Date

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, appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Since this decision lowers the grade of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the sixth pay period after the date of this decision, as permitted by 5 CFR 511.702. The servicing personnel office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected position description 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.

The personnel office must also determine if the appellant is entitled to grade or pay retention, or both, under 5 U.S.C. 5362 and 5363 and 5 CFR 536. If the appellant is entitled to grade retention, the two-year retention period begins on the date this decision is implemented.

Decision sent to:

[appellant's name and address]

[servicing personnel office]

Director of Civilian Personnel

U. S. Department of the Army

Room 23681, Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0300

Director

U. S. Army Civilian Personnel Evaluation Agency

U. S. Department of the Army

Crystal Mall 4, Suite 918

1941 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-4508

Chief, Classification Branch

Field Advisory Services Division

Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service

1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B-200

Arlington, VA 22209-5144

Chief, Position Management and Classification Branch

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Manpower and Reserve Affairs

Attn: SAMR-CPP-MP

Hoffman Building II

200 Stovall Street, Suite 5N35

Alexandria, VA 22332-0340

Introduction

On May 12, 1999, the Dallas Oversight Division of the U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received a classification appeal from [the appellant]. [The appellant's] position is currently classified as Supervisory Supply Management Specialist, GS-2003-11. The appellant believes the position should be classified as Supervisory Supply Management Specialist, GS-2003-12. [The appellant] initially appealed the position to the Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS). CPMS found the position to be classified as Supervisory General Supply Specialist, GS-2001-9. The appealed position is located in the [activity] Department of the Army, [location]. We have accepted and decided her appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.

To help decide the appeal, an Oversight Division representative conducted an onsite audit of the appellant's position on July 20, 1999. The audit included interviews with the appellant and [the appellant's] immediate supervisor. In reaching our classification decision, we have reviewed the audit findings and all information of record furnished by the appellant and [the appellat's] agency, including [the appellant's] official position description (PD) [number]. Although both the appellant and [the] supervisor certify that the official PD is current and accurate, they included an addendum with the appeal submission that elaborates on the scope and effect of the appellant's work. We find that the description of major duties and responsibilities in the official PD accurately reflects the appellant's assignments.

Position information

The [activity] is a combat training center for the Army; other military services, to include reserve and national guard units; foreign nations; and civilian operations. The [activity] conducts training exercises, referred to as rotations, in a simulated combat setting. There are 10 scheduled rotations each year, each of which lasts more than two weeks, as well as special exercises that occur at various times throughout the year. As the [activity] Troop Issue Subsistence Officer, the appellant is responsible for the requisition, receipt, storage, issuance, inventorying, and disposition of subsistence items for troops participating in field training exercises, the rotational dining facility, medical treatment facility, and other authorized activities. Subsistence items include operational and "A" rations that consist of perishable, semiperishable, and nonperishable food products.

The appellant spends the majority of [the] time supervising nine employees and directing the subsistence program. The appellant is responsible for proposing and maintaining an annual subsistence budget of approximately $20 million and an annual operating budget of almost $500,000. The appellant serves as the installation point of contact for the prime vendor contract and as contracting officer's representative for direct vendor contracts covering such items as ice, beverages, milk, and bread. The appellant is also responsible for maintaining the Army Food Management Information System (AFMIS) and Subsistence Total Ordering and Receipting Electronic System (STORES), both of which are automated systems used for ordering, tracking, and reporting on the subsistence inventory. The appellant's PD and other material of record furnish much more information about [the] duties and responsibilities and how they are performed.

Series and title determination

The CPMS, following its review of the appealed position, determined the appellant's work to be properly placed in the GS-2001 General Supply Series. The CPMS based its decision on the limited breadth and scope of the troop issue subsistence program and the fact that the appellant supervises subordinate positions that are classified in one-grade interval series that are not all directly related to supply activities. The appellant believes the GS-2003 Supply Program Management Series to be more appropriate.

Positions in the GS-2001 series involve a combination of two or more specialized supply activities in the GS-2000 Supply Group when no other series is predominant or appropriate. The specialized supply activities include inventory management, distribution facilities and storage management, packaging, and cataloging. Some positions in this series involve a combination of technical supply functions and other related activities, such as supply program management, procurement, and data processing in support of supply operations.

The GS-2003 series covers positions concerned with the overall management, or staff work related to overall management, of a supply program that cuts across two or more supply specializations. The primary difference between the GS-2001 and GS-2003 series is that the GS-2003 series requires supply program management knowledge. Supply program management knowledge is described in the classification standard for the GS-2003 series as a broad understanding of an interrelated chain of activities involving the process of supply, extending from the acquisition of an item through storage, distribution, utilization, consumption, or disposal. Employees in this series are also concerned with related management activities, such as budget, data processing, procurement, property utilization, and financial management. Some positions in the GS-2003 series supervise clerical or technician work performed in connection with supply program activities.

We find the GS-2003 series to appropriately address the knowledge required of the appealed position. The appellant performs staff work related to the overall management of a supply program that includes both inventory management and distribution facilities/storage management activities. The appellant is responsible for planning and directing troop issue subsistence activities, including the requisition, receipt, storage, issuance, inventorying, and disposition of subsistence items. The appellant coordinates with customers and procurement activities to determine their requirements and obtain subsistence items so that an adequate supply is available when needed. [The appellant] provides technical advice, guidance, and assistance on the subsistence program to agency personnel. The appellant maintains the subsistence and operational budgets for the subsistence program. [The appellant] maintains and advises on inventory, accounting, and financial systems that track supply costs, orders, and subsistence supplies. [The appellant] supervises clerical and technician employees who perform supply, accounting, automation, and warehousing work in support of the subsistence program. These duties and the knowledge required to perform them are comparable to those described in the classification standard for the GS-2003 series. The breadth and scope of a supply program are factors more appropriately addressed by comparison with grading criteria in the relevant classification standards for the type of work performed.

The standard for the GS-2003 series prescribes the title of Supervisory Supply Management Specialist for supervisory positions that provide technical assistance on supply operations. Therefore, the appropriate title for the appellant's position is Supervisory Supply Management Specialist.

Grade determination

The appellant performs both supervisory and nonsupervisory duties. The latter constitutes approximately 25 percent of the appellant's workload. Both sets of duties and responsibilities are evaluated in the grade assessments that follow.

Evaluation of supervisory duties

The appellant's program management and supervisory duties and responsibilities are evaluated using the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG), dated April 1998. The GSSG uses a point-factor evaluation approach where the points assigned under each factor must be fully equivalent to the factor level described in the guide. If a factor is not equivalent in all respects to the overall intent of a factor level, a lower level point value must be assigned, unless the deficiency is balanced by an equally important aspect which meets a higher level.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

This is a two-part factor that assesses the complexity, breadth, and impact of the program area and work directed. To assign a factor level, both parts of the factor must be met. The CPMS assigned Level 1-2 to this factor. The appellant believes Level 1-3 is more appropriate and provides examples to substantiate how the subsistence program meets the intent of Level 1-3.

Scope

Level 1-2 of the GSSG covers the direction of administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable work that has limited geographic coverage and supports most of the activities of a typical agency field office, a small to medium-sized military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments. Directing budget, supply, or payroll services that support a small military base is typical of this level.

Level 1-3 covers the direction of a program segment performing administrative, technical, or professional work where the program segment and work directed encompass 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 professional services directly affecting a large or complex multimission military installation, or of an organization of similar magnitude, is also characteristic of this level.

The appellant believes Level 1-3 is warranted inasmuch as [the appellant] directs a program that supports a total population exceeding 4,000 customers covering a regional area of six states, thus meeting the GSSG definition of a large military installation in terms of coverage. We find the scope of the subsistence program to be more comparable to Level 1-2 because the functions supervised by the appellant do not meet the definition of "program" or "program segment," as defined by the GSSG. The GSSG defines program segment as any subdivision of a program or major military function. A program is defined as the mission, functions, projects, activities, laws, rules, and regulations that an agency is authorized and funded by statute to administer and enforce. The program constitutes the essential purpose for the establishment and continuing existence of an agency.

Combat training is the [activity] primary mission, and the provision of supplies is one of the program segments needed to support that mission. While the work the appellant directs is an important and essential part of the supply program, it comprises but one part of the full range of services furnished by the Supply and Services Division. The appellant is responsible for supervising and directing one distinct support function within a program segment, as envisioned at Level 1-2. Despite the extent of services provided by the appellant's organizational unit to more than 4,000 customers in six states, the subsistence program does not meet the threshold for Level 1-3 because of the restricted nature of functions directed.

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-2.

Effect

At Level 1-2, services or support significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or are delivered to a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county. Directing budget, supply, protective, or similar services for a small base without extensive research, testing, or similar missions meets this level.

At Level 1-3, activities, functions, or services directly and significantly affect a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, the operations of outside interests, or the general public. At the field activity level, the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support services or products to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, or administrative functions, such as those involving research, development, or testing.

The work supervised and directed by the appellant directly supports and impacts the various units participating in training rotations, as well as the other activities utilizing subsistence supplies. This is comparable to Level 1-2 in that the services and support provided by the [appellant's activity] significantly impact functions and activities throughout the organizations supported. Level 1-3 envisions credit for mission-supporting services that directly impact a group of activities that includes complex technical, professional, and administrative functions. The functions supported by the [appellant's activity] are administrative and technical in nature and are not as varied and complex as would typically exist at a large or complex military installation.

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-2. With both Scope and Effect evaluated at Level 1-2, Factor 1 is assessed at Level 1-2, and 350 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Organizational setting

This factor considers the organizational position of the supervisor in relation to higher levels of management. The appellant is accountable to the Chief of the Supply and Services Division, who is at least two levels below the first Senior Executive Service, flag officer, general officer, or equivalent in the direct supervisory chain. This matches Level 2-1, and 100 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Supervisory and managerial authority exercised

This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities that are exercised on a recurring basis.

Level 3-2 provides three alternative sets of criteria. The third of these options (cited in paragraph 3-2c of the GSSG) specifies 10 authorities and responsibilities characteristic of supervisors functioning at this level. The appellant exercises all ten of these authorities and clearly meets Level 3-2.

Level 3-3 specifies two alternative sets of criteria. The first of these essentially concerns managerial positions closely involved with high-level program officials in the development of overall goals and objectives. Managers at this level typically direct the development of data to track program goals, secure legal opinions, prepare position papers or legislative proposals, and execute comparable activities. The appellant does not have significant responsibility in these areas. Such responsibilities are vested in higher-level positions than her own.

The second method (cited in paragraph 3-3b of the GSSG) describes 15 supervisory authorities that exceed in complexity and responsibility the 10 depicted under paragraph 3-2c. Under this second method, a position can be credited at Level 3-3 if, in addition to exercising all or nearly all the Level 3-2c authorities, it also exercises at least 8 of the 15 authorities specified at Level 3-3b. The CPMS credited the appellant with authorities 2, 4, and 14. The appellant believes [the appellant] should receive credit for authorities 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15.

Authority 1 deals with the use of subordinate supervisors or leaders to direct or oversee the work. The appellant uses a Materials Handler Leader to oversee warehouse operations and a senior supply technician and senior accounting technician to oversee administrative and accounting operations. Level 3-3b, however, is intended to credit only supervisors who direct at least two or three persons who are officially recognized as subordinate supervisors or leaders in an organization so large and complex that it requires using two or more subordinates in a supervisory or leader capacity. There is only one position in the [appellant's activity] that is officially recognized in a leader capacity. The two senior technicians are used internally within the [appellant's activity] to coordinate and review the work of other employees, but they are not officially recognized as supervisors or leaders. In addition, the staff performing administrative and accounting work is not so large or the functions so complex as to require the use of additional supervisors or leaders. This authority is not credited.

Authority 2 is credited if the supervisor has significant responsibilities in dealing with officials of other units or organizations, or in advising management officials of higher rank. The appellant is credited with this authority in that she is responsible for directing the [appellant's activity], resolving all but precedent-setting conflicts and problems and coordinating the work with major commands and other organizations. The appellant serves as the commander's representative in field exercise planning sessions and participates as a voting member of the Installation Menu Board.

To receive credit for authority 3, a supervisor must assure reasonable equity among subordinate units of both performance standards and rating techniques developed by subordinates. Similar to authority 1, authority 3 envisions that these performance standards and rating techniques are developed by at least two or three subordinate supervisors or leaders. The appellant's subordinates do not develop performance standards or rating techniques. This authority is not credited.

Authority 4 requires direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources, for example, one at a multimillion dollar level of annual resources. The appellant exercises direct control over an annual fenced subsistence account of approximately $20 million and an annual operating budget of almost $500,000. This authority is credited.

Like authority 1, authorities 5, 6, and 8 are credited only to supervisors who direct at least two or three subordinate supervisors or leaders. Because the appellant has only one employee who is officially recognized as a leader, these three authorities are not credited.

Authority 7 is credited to supervisors who make or approve selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions. Because the entire base is undergoing a commercial activity review, selection approval is now restricted to the base commander. Prior to the commercial activity review, the appellant's supervisor had final approval authority for selections. This authority is not credited.

Authorities 9 and 10 are credited to supervisors who hear and resolve group grievances or serious employee complaints and review and approve serious disciplinary actions. These responsibilities are assigned to the appellant's supervisor. These two authorities are not credited.

Authority 11 is credited to supervisors who make decisions on nonroutine, costly, or controversial training needs and requests. Although the appellant determines training needs and initiates training requests, final approval authority rests with higher-level management officials.

To receive credit for authority 12, a supervisor must determine whether contractor-performed work meets standards of adequacy needed to authorize payment. The appellant's responsibility as the installation point of contact for the prime vendor contract and as contracting officer's representative for direct vendor contracts is to certify that the supplies received from the sources were delivered timely, in the quantities ordered, and in good condition. Authority 12, however, is intended to credit supervisors who regularly oversee the work of contract employees in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which other supervisors direct the work of subordinate employees. Since the appellant does not oversee the work of contract employees in this manner, this authority is not credited.

Authority 13 is credited to supervisors who approve within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. The appellant recommends such expenses, but final authority for overtime is assigned to [the appellant's] supervisor and authority of travel and within-grade increases to [a higher level management official]. This authority is not credited.

Authority 14 involves recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher-level officials. The appellant performs this responsibility, and authority 14 is credited.

Authority 15 is assigned to supervisors responsible for finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices. The appellant is responsible for directing the day-to-day operations of the TISB, resolving any problems that arise, and identifying ways to improve operations whether on a short-term or long-term basis. The appellant is responsible for initiating, accomplishing, and maintaining vulnerability assessments and internal control reviews, resolving identified or potential problems and ensuring that adequate internal controls are implemented. This authority is credited.

Since the appellant is credited with only 4 of the 15 responsibilities listed under Level 3-3b, this factor is evaluated at Level 3-2, the highest level met, and 450 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Personal contacts

This is a two-part factor that assesses the nature and purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities.

Subfactor 4A, Nature of contacts

The nature of the appellant's contacts is best evaluated at Level 4A-2. Similar to supervisors at Level 4-A2, the appellant has frequent contacts with higher-ranking managers, supervisors, and counterparts at the major command level, other state and Federal organizations, commercial vendors, and transportation and supply activities. Contacts are usually informal and typically occur in conferences, meetings, or by telephone. This subfactor is assigned 50 points.

Subfactor 4B, Purpose of contacts

The purpose of the appellant's contacts is assessed at Level 4B-2. As with a supervisor's contacts at that level, the purpose of the appellant's contacts is to determine subsistence needs, coordinate the daily activities of the [appellant's activity], and resolve problems that arise. This subfactor is assigned 75 points.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor covers the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed. To assign a level for first-level supervisors, it is necessary to determine the highest grade of the mission-oriented nonsupervisory or nonleader work performed that constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload of the organization. The appellant serves as first-line supervisor over eight employees that meet these criteria: one GS-301-9; one GS-525-6; one GS-525-4; one GS-2005-5; and four WG-6907-6. In addition, there is one WL-6907-6 that performs the work of the unit for approximately 50 percent of the time. By using the classification standard for the GS-2005 Supply Clerical and Technician Series, the work of the WG and WL subordinates converts to a General Schedule equivalent of GS-5. As a result, we find that GS-5 is the highest qualifying level of basic nonsupervisory work that constitutes at least 25 percent of the TISB workload. This factor is evaluated at Level 5-3 and assigned 340 points.

Factor 6, Other conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions add to the difficulty of supervision. The work supervised by the appellant involves clerical, technician, or other work comparable in difficulty to GS-6 or below. This matches Level 6-1 in the GSSG. Positions at Level 6-3 or below are boosted one level if they also meet at least three of the eight special situations described in the GSSG. Of the eight work conditions, the appellant believes situations 1, 3, 7, and 8 are warranted. The CPMS credited situations 1, 3, and 4.

We find that situation 1, variety of work, and situation 3, fluctuating workforce or constantly changing deadlines, are properly credited for the work supervised by the appellant. Since the appellant does not disgree with CPMS's assignments on these two situations, we will not address each one in detail. Likewise, conditions 2 (shift operations), 5 (special staffing situations), and 6 (impact of specialized programs) are not addressed since we find they are not relevant to the appellant's position. We will, instead, discuss the remaining situations: 4, 7, and 8.

4. Physical dispersion

This situation is credited when a substantial portion of a supervisor's workload is regularly carried out at one or more locations that are physically removed from the main unit. At the time of the CPMS decision, the [warehouse operations] was physically located apart from the appellant's office. Since then, however, the warehouse operations have been colocated in the same building with the remaining functions [in the appellant's activity]. This situation is not credited.

7. Changing technology

This situation is credited when processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of the subordinate staff. The appellant believes this situation should be credited because the automated systems maintained by the [appellant's activity] are continually being replaced or updated. According to the appellant, when training is required on an automated system, one person from the [appellant's activity] usually attends a one-week train-the-trainer session who then passes the information learned on to other staff members in a similar training session or on an as-needed basis. One subordinate employee under the appellant's supervision is the systems administrator for the AFMIS and is responsible for training AFMIS users. The appellant has to be knowledgeable of AFMIS [] in order to answer questions or provide assistance during the system administrator's absence. The appellant must also ensure that staff is trained in the proper use of both AFMIS and STORES. We do not find that [the appellant's activity] processes and procedures vary constantly as the result of changing technology. We find the level of training and guidance provided by the appellant is adequately covered and credited under Factor 3-2. This situation is not credited.

8. Special hazard and safety conditions

This situation is credited when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provision for significant unsafe or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization. The appellant believes this situation is warranted due to the fact that subordinate staff in the warehouse operations must, by law, wear cold-weather clothing when they enter the freezer. The appellant must also ensure forklift operations are adhered to in confined areas. We agree and credit this situation. The appellant ensures that required equipment and clothing are budgeted for and purchased. The appellant monitors the warehouse operations daily to ensure proper procedures are followed which is of particular significance due to stringent safety, storage, and sanitation requirements.

Situations 1, 3, and 8 are credited under this factor. Consequently, an additional level is warranted. This factor is evaluated at Level 6-2, and 575 points are assigned.

The following table summarizes our evaluation of the appellant's supervisory duties and responsibilities.

Factor

Level

Points

1

1-2

350

2

2-1

100

3

3-2

450

4A

4A-2

50

4B

4B-2

75

5

5-3

340

6

6-2

575

Total

1940

As shown in the point-to-grade conversion chart of the GSSG, a total of 1940 points converts to grade GS-9 (1855 - 2100).

Evaluation of nonsupervisory duties

The Grade-Evaluation Guide for Supply Positions (GEGSP), dated July 1992, is used to determine the grade of the appellant's nonsupervisory duties. The CPMS evaluated the appellant's nonsupervisory duties at the GS-9 grade level. The appellant did not disagree with any aspect of the CPMS evaluation of her nonsupervisory duties. We have carefully reviewed all information and evaluated the nonsupervisory duties as shown in the following chart.

Factor

Level

Points

1

1-6

950

2

2-4

450

3

3-3

275

4

4-3

150

5

5-3

150

6

2

75

7

b

8

8-1

5

9

9-1

5

Total

2060

A total of 2060 points falls within the GS-9 range of 1855 - 2100 points in the GEGSP Grade Conversion Table.

Grade Summary

Both the appellant's supervisory and nonsupervisory duties and responsibilities are evaluated at the GS-9 grade level. The proper grade of the appellant's position is GS-9.

Decision

The proper classification of the appellant's position is Supervisory Supply Management Specialist, GS-2003-9.