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

A. No, under current law, performance ratings must be a factor in the reduction in force process. Only under a demonstration project that waives pertinent law or regulation could an agency drop the use of performance in a reduction in force.

A. Additional years of service credit are added to an employee's length of service based on the employee's three most recent ratings of record during the four years prior to the reduction in force. In a competitive area where all the ratings of record being credited were done under a single pattern of summary levels, the additional service credit is computed by averaging the three most recent ratings of record given in the previous four years using the following values:

• 20 years of service for each Level 5 (Outstanding or equivalent rating);
• 16 years of service for each Level 4; and
• 12 years of service for each Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent rating).

In an agency where employees in a competitive area have ratings of record being credited for reduction in force that were done under more than one pattern of summary levels, the agency can establish the values for the summary levels (within 12 to 20 years) so that performance crediting will be as fair and equitable as possible. Within a competitive area, the agency must use the same number of years additional retention service credit for all ratings of record with the same summary level in the same pattern of summary levels.

A. If an employee has fewer than three ratings of record during the last four years, the actual rating(s) of record available would serve as the sole basis of the employee's credit (no assumed ratings would be used). Consequently, if an employee has received only two actual ratings of record during this period, the value assigned to each rating would be added together and divided by two to determine the amount of additional retention service credit. If an employee has only one actual rating of record, the value assigned to that rating would be used. If, however, the employee has no ratings of record during the last four years, the modal rating for the appraisal program that covers the employee's position of record at the time of the reduction in force is used to grant performance credit.

A. The modal rating is the summary level within a single pattern given most often as the latest rating of record to the employees in a specified group that is no smaller than the competitive area and no larger than the agency undergoing a reduction in force. It is important that the employees undergoing a reduction in force understand the basis used to determine the modal rating, but there is no requirement to notify the Office of Personnel Management of this information.

A. The agency will have to determine the modal rating based on the rating of record information it has available. If ratings of record are aggregated only at the agency level, that is what the agency will have to use. It might be possible for them to adapt their systems to do smaller aggregations. The Office of Personnel Management recommends that the modal rating which is based on the most recent ratings of record, be tabulated for the specific competitive area undergoing a reduction in force whenever possible, and that larger aggregations of agency population be used only when the rating of record information is not available for the specific competitive area itself.

A. The possible effect of performance-based additional service credit is most likely to appear in the second round of the reduction in force process, when employees exercise their bump (into positions held by employees in lower tenure groups for which they meet the basic qualification standard) and retreat (to previously held positions) rights. Even at this stage, experience suggests that the performance-based additional service credit often has no impact on the actual final result of the reduction in force.

A. No. A rating of record does not change when an employee moves to another agency or organization, whether or not they use a different summary pattern. However, there is no predetermined value associated with a specific rating of record for reduction in force purposes if there is a mix of rating patterns within the competitive area. Therefore, an employee will not know how many years of additional service credit will be given for a specific rating of record until an agency is getting ready to run a reduction in force, determines whether a mix of patterns exists, and, if one does, decides how service credit will be assigned. To help employees understand the crediting for performance within a particular competitive area, agencies should communicate this information as soon as practicable after they make the necessary decisions.

A. Yes. Each competitive area must be looked at individually to analyze what the situation is regarding the ratings of record being credited. For example, an agency needs to determine whether a mix of rating patterns exists, what the combination of rating patterns used looks like, and the relative numbers of employees rated under each pattern. Only then can the agency make an appropriate determination of how to assign years of additional service credit, based on the specific situation found.

A. No, the agency may only vary credit if the competitive area includes employees with ratings of record being credited for this reduction in force that were received under more than one summary level pattern. If all ratings being credited were given under a single pattern, the agency must use the 12/16/20 system regardless of the pattern used.

A. No, there is no comparison across competitive areas to determine if a mix of patterns exists. Only if there is a mix of patterns within a single competitive area can an agency vary credit.

A. Yes. Even if an agency uses a single summary level pattern, if there is any employee with one or more ratings of record being credited in the reduction in force that were given under a different summary level pattern, the agency has a mix of patterns.

A. The regulations require that agencies look at the situation and make a determination on what, if anything, should be done regarding the credit assigned for ratings of record when there is a mix of rating patterns among the ratings of record being credited for reduction in force. If the agency decides that the best course of action is to still use the 12/16/20 assignment of credit, they may do so.

A. Once an agency determines how it will assign the amounts of additional service credit based on performance, everyone who has ratings of record with the same summary level within the same pattern in the same competitive area will get the same amount of additional service credit. This is a uniform and consistent application of service credit for everyone who meets the specified criteria (i.e., level, pattern, and competitive area).

A. Yes. Based on its analysis of the competitive area(s) and its determination of what would minimize severely advantaging or disadvantaging employees, an agency can assign different values to the same summary level (Level 3) in different patterns (A and H) in the same reduction in force, and even within the same competitive area.

A. No. Crediting provisions are not tied to performance cycle dates. They can be applied only to ratings of record put on record (i.e., given to the employee with all appropriate reviews and signatures and available to the office responsible for establishing retention registers). Many agencies establish a cut-off date after which no new ratings of record will be put on record for use in a specific reduction in force. Using a cut-off date could be particularly helpful when an agency uses anniversary-date cycles, since there is no other single, clear-cut date available to signify when the last creditable appraisal period ended.

A. No. The only basis for granting additional service credit for reduction in force is a rating of record as specified at section 351.504(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

A. No. Only ratings of record can be used as the basis for assigning additional service credit during a reduction in force. Performance ratings are used to capture performance information for many different kinds of situations, including mid-year or quarterly reviews, details, employee transfers, etc., and are factored into the employee's rating of record at the end of the appraisal period, but they do not constitute ratings of record themselves. The reduction in force regulations were written specifically to minimize confusion over which ratings can be used for reduction in force purposes by limiting the crediting of years of additional service to ratings of record only.

A. No. Only ratings given by Federal Government entities can be used and only when they meet the requirements for equivalent ratings of record as specified in the performance management regulations.

A. There are agencies and organizations within the Federal Government that are not covered by the performance appraisal provisions in the law and regulations. However, many of them have adopted these procedures or developed their own procedures to evaluate the performance of their employees. The previous regulations on reduction in force restricted the application of additional service credit based on performance to those ratings of record given under the provisions of the appraisal law and regulations. When employees moved between agencies and organizations that are and are not subject to the appraisal law and regulations, they lost credit for Federal performance. To help alleviate this problem, the regulations have been changed to give agencies the basic guidelines by which they can review the performance evaluations employees bring with them from other Federal organizations and determine whether they qualify as equivalent ratings of record that can then be used as the basis for assigning additional service credit in a reduction in force.

A. No. Under the new regulatory definition, the rating of record is: the performance rating done at the end of the appraisal period that reflects performance over the entire period; or the more current rating of record required by regulation at section 531.404(a)(1) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, to support a within-grade pay decision. The regulations do not provide for agencies to specify other circumstances for giving a rating of record.