Proposed Laboratory Personnel Management Demonstration Project; Department of the Air Force
Federal RegisterMay 15, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: Title VI of the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 4703,
authorizes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to conduct
demonstration projects that experiment with new and different personnel
management concepts to determine whether such changes in personnel
policy or procedures would result in improved Federal personnel
management.
Public Law 103-337, October 5, 1994, permits the Department of
Defense (DoD), with the approval of the OPM, to carry out personnel
demonstration projects generally similar to the China Lake
demonstration project at DoD Science and Technology (S&T) reinvention
laboratories. The Air Force is proposing one demonstration project to
cover its four S&T reinvention laboratories: Armstrong, Phillips, Rome,
and Wright.
DATES: To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or
before July 15, 1996; public hearings will be scheduled as follows:
1. Tuesday, June 18, 1996, 10:00 a.m. in Rome, New York,
2. Friday, June 21, 1996, 10:00 a.m. in Dayton, Ohio,
3. Wednesday, June 26, 1996, 10:00 a.m. in San Antonio, Texas, and
4. Thursday, June 27, 1996, 10:00 a.m. in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
At the time of the hearings, interested persons or organizations may
present their written or oral comments on the proposed demonstration
project. The hearings will be informal. However, anyone wishing to
testify should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, and state the hearing location, so that OPM can plan the
hearings and provide sufficient time for all interested persons and
organizations to be heard. Priority will be given to those on the
schedule, with others speaking in any remaining available time. Each
speaker's presentation will be limited to ten minutes. Written comments
may be submitted to supplement oral testimony during the public comment
period.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Fidelma A. Donahue, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7460, Washington, DC
20415; public hearings will be held at the following locations:
1. Rome--Griffiss Business and Technology Park Theater, Building
439, Kirtland Drive, Rome, New York,
2. Dayton--Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Theater, 1239 Chestnut
Street, Kittyhawk Area, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
3. San Antonio--Building 578, Room 218-221, 7909 Lindbergh Drive,
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas,
4. Albuquerque--Phillips Laboratory Conference Center, Building
201, Conference Room 7a, 1750 Kirtland Drive, SE, Kirtland Air Force
Base, New Mexico.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) On proposed demonstration project:
Wendy B. Campbell, HQ AFMC/ST, 4375 Chidlaw Road, Suite 6, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-5006, 513-257-1910; (2) On proposed
demonstration project and public hearings: Fidelma A. Donahue, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 7460,
Washington, DC 20415, 202-606-1138.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since 1966, at least 19 studies of
Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories have been conducted on
laboratory quality and personnel. Almost all of these studies have
recommended improvements in civilian personnel policy, organization,
and management. The proposed project involves simplified job
classifications, pay banding, a contribution-based compensation system,
streamlined hiring processes, and modified Reduction-in-Force (RIF)
procedures.
Dated: May 7, 1996.
Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Problems with the Present System
C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits
D. Participating Organizations
E. Participating Employees
F. Project Design
III. Personnel System Changes
A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities
B. Broadbanding
C. Classification
D. Contribution-based Compensation System
E. Contribution-based Reduction in Pay or Removal Actions
F. Voluntary Emeritus Corps
G. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF) Procedures
IV. Training
V. Conversion
VI. Project Duration
VII. Evaluation Plan
VIII. Demonstration Project Costs
IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation
I. Executive Summary
The project was designed by the Department of the Air Force, with
participation of and review by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The purpose of the project is to
achieve the best workforce for the laboratory mission, adjust the
workforce for change, and improve workforce quality. The project
framework addresses all aspects of the human resources life cycle
model. There are three major areas of change: (a) laboratory-controlled
rapid hiring; (b) a contribution- based compensation system; and (c) a
streamlined removal process.
Initially, the project will cover only Scientists and Engineers
(S&Es) assigned to the laboratories. A decision point has been
programmed for the end of the second year of the demonstration to
determine whether or not to expand coverage to other occupational
groups within the laboratory. In the event of expansion to non-S&E
employees, full approval of the expansion plan will be obtained by AF,
DoD, and OPM.
Cost neutrality is a basic requirement of the project. Extensive
evaluation of the project will be performed by both the OPM and Air
Force. The Air Force has programmed a decision point 5 years into the
project for continuance, modification, or rejection of the
demonstration initiatives.
II. Introduction
A. Purpose
The purpose of the project is to demonstrate that the effectiveness
of Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories can be enhanced by allowing
greater managerial control over personnel functions and, at the same
time, expanding the opportunities available to employees through a more
responsive and flexible personnel system. The quality of DoD
laboratories, their people, and products has been under intense
scrutiny in recent years. The perceived deterioration of quality is
believed to be due, in substantial part, to the erosion of control
which line managers have over their human resources. This
demonstration, in its entirety, attempts to provide managers, at the
lowest practical level, the authority, control, and flexibility needed
to achieve quality laboratories and quality products.
B. Problems With the Present System
Air Force laboratory products contribute to the readiness of U.S.
forces. To do this, laboratories must
[[Page 24623]]
acquire enthusiastic, innovative, highly educated scientists and
engineers to meet their mission. They must be able to compete with the
private sector for the best talent and be able to make job offers in a
timely manner with the attendant bonuses and incentives to attract
topnotch researchers. Today, industry laboratories can make an offer of
employment and two counteroffers to a promising new hire before the
government can get the first offer on the table. When filling vacancies
internally, managers are forced into employee choices based not on
research expertise, but on career program membership or special
placement programs. Currently, jobs are described using a cumbersome
classification system that is overly complex and specialized. This
hampers a manager's ability to shape the workforce and match the
positions while making best use of the employees. Managers must be
given local control of positions and their classification to move both
their employees and vacancies freely within their organization to other
lines of research when business or technology demands. These issues
work together to hamper supervisors in all areas of human resource
management. Hiring restrictions and overly complex job classifications,
coupled with poor tools for rewarding and motivating employees and a
system that does not assist managers in removing poor performers builds
stagnation in the workforce and wastes valuable time.
C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits
This project is expected to demonstrate that a human resource
system tailored to the mission and need of the laboratory will result
in: (a) increased quality in the science and engineering workforce and
the laboratory products they produce; (b) increased timeliness of key
personnel processes; (c) trended workforce data that reveals increased
retention of ``excellent contributors'' and separation rates of ``poor
contributors''; and (d) increased customer satisfaction with the
laboratory and its products by those Air Force and DoD customers they
service.
The Air Force demonstration program builds on the successful
features of demonstration projects at China Lake and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These demonstration
projects have produced impressive statistics on the job satisfaction
for their employees versus that for the federal workforce in general.
Therefore, in addition to the expected benefits mentioned above, the AF
demonstration expects to find more satisfied employees on many aspects
of the demonstration including pay equity, classification accuracy, and
fairness of performance management A full range of measures will be
collected during project evaluation (section VII).
D. Participating Organizations
The four Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) laboratory directors/
commanders are located as follows:
Armstrong Laboratory--Brooks AFB, Texas
Phillips Laboratory--Kirtland AFB, New Mexico
Rome Laboratory--Rome, New York
Wright Laboratory--Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Scientists and Engineers (S&Es) assigned to the laboratories work
at the locations shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--S&E Duty Locations by Laboratory (as of 31 Dec. 95)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Duty location S&Es
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong...................... Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.... 3
Brooks AFB, TX................. 167
San Diego, CA.................. 1
Tyndall AFB, FL................ 27
Williams AFB, AZ............... 14
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH....... 97
Phillips....................... Edwards AFB, CA................ 120
Hanscom AFB, MA................ 188
Kirtland AFB, NM............... 246
Malabar, FL.................... 1
Maui Island, HI................ 1
Sunspot, NM.................... 5
Rome........................... Rome, NY....................... 424
Hanscom AFB, MA................ 82
Wright......................... Eglin AFB, FL.................. 177
Kelly AFB, TX.................. 5
McClellan AFB, CA.............. 10
Robins AFB, GA................. 4
Tyndall AFB, FL................ 12
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH....... 1207
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Participating Employees
In determining the scope of the demonstration project, primary
considerations were given to the number and diversity of occupations
within the laboratories and the need for adequate development and
testing of the Contribution-based Compensation System (CCS).
Additionally, current DoD human resource management design goals and
priorities for the entire civilian workforce were considered. While the
intent of this project is to provide the laboratory directors/
commanders with increased control and accountability for their total
workforce, the decision was made to initially restrict development
efforts to General Schedule (GS/GM) positions within the scientific and
engineering specialties. Research Medical Officers (GS-0602) have been
excluded from the project because of special pay provisions for their
occupation which exceed the upper limits of the proposed broadbanding.
The series to be included in the project are identified in Table 2.
Table 2.--Series Included in the Air Force Demonstration Proposal (as of
31 Dec. 95)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0180 Psychology
0190 General Anthropology
0401 General Biological Science
0403 Microbiology
0413 Physiology
0414 Entomology
0415 Toxicology
0665 Speech Pathology & Audiology
0701 Veterinary Medical Science
0801 General Engineering
0803 Safety Engineering
0804 Fire Protection Engineering
0806 Materials Engineering
0807 Landscape Architecture
0808 Architecture
0810 Civil Engineering
0819 Environmental Engineering
0830 Mechanical Engineering
0840 Nuclear Engineering
0850 Electrical Engineering
0854 Computer Engineering
0855 Electronics Engineering
0858 Biomedical Engineering
0861 Aerospace Engineering
0892 Ceramic Engineering
0893 Chemical Engineering
0896 Industrial Engineering
1301 General Physical Science
1306 Health Physics
1310 Physics
1313 Geophysics
1320 Chemistry
1321 Metallurgy
1330 Astronomy & Space Science
1340 Meteorology
1370 Cartography
1515 Operations Research
1520 Mathematics
1529 Mathematical Statistician
1530 Statistician
1550 Computer Science
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other non-S&E positions may be phased in during the course of the
project. A decision point for expanded employee coverage has been
programmed for the end of the second year of the demonstration project.
In the event of expansion to non-S&E employees, full approval of the
expansion plan will be obtained by AF, DoD, and OPM.
Current demographics and union representation for the S&E positions
are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.--S&E Demographics and Union Representation (as of 31 Dec. 95)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS/GM 13 and Above............................................. 1965
[[Page 24624]]
GS-12 and below................................................ 826
--------
Total...................................................... 2791
Occupational series............................................ 41
Duty location.................................................. 17
Veterans....................................................... \1\ 19.
78
Union Representation:
NFFE:
Eglin AFB, Florida......................................... 145
Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts................................. 233
Tyndall AFB, Florida....................................... 33
IFPTE:
McClellan AFB, California.................................. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percent.
Of the 2,791 scientists and engineers assigned to the laboratories,
420 are represented by labor unions. Employees at Hanscom AFB,
Massachusetts, are represented by the National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE) Local 1384. Employees at Eglin AFB, Florida, are
represented by NFFE Local 1940. Employees at Tyndall AFB, Florida, are
represented by NFFE Local 1113. Employees at McClellan AFB, California,
are represented by the International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 330. Union representatives have been
separately notified about the project. The Air Force is proceeding to
fulfill its obligation to consult or negotiate with the unions, as
appropriate, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4703(f).
F. Project Design
In August 1994, a special action ``tiger team'' was formed by the
Director of Science and Technology for Air Force Materiel Command in
response to the proposed DoD legislation allowing reinvention
laboratories to conduct personnel demonstrations. The team was
chartered to take full opportunity of this legislation and try to
develop solutions that would solve many of the laboratory personnel
issues that have been so prevalent and well documented. The team
composition included current managers from the four Air Force
laboratories, retired and current laboratory directors, and subject
matter experts from civilian personnel and manpower. This team
developed 27 initiatives which together represented sweeping changes in
the entire spectrum of human resource management for the laboratories.
Several initiatives were designed to assist the laboratories in hiring
and placing the best people to fulfill mission requirements. Others
focused on developing, motivating, and equitably compensating employees
based on their contribution to the mission. Initiatives to effectively
manage workforce turnover and maintain organizational excellence were
also developed. These 27 initiatives were endorsed and accepted in
total by the laboratory directors/commanders.
After the authorizing legislation passed, a project office with
four employees was established in September 1994. Under the guidance of
the Director of Science and Technology, the office was charged with
further developing the demonstration concept and bringing it to
implementation. As a first task, the project office asked the four
laboratories and the civilian personnel offices that service them for
volunteers to staff six Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). Sixty civilian
managers and employees from all laboratories in most geographic
locations and from appropriate base level personnel offices came
together and have worked for 9 months to develop the detailed concept
and implementation for each initiative.
After thorough study, the original 27 initiatives were reduced to
20. Seven of the original initiatives appear herein. The remainder are
under either DoD or Air Force regulation, and waivers are being sought
at those levels.
III. Personnel System Changes
A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities
1. Hiring Authority
A candidate's basic eligibility will be determined using OPM's
``Qualification Standards Handbook For General Schedule Positions.''
Broadband level I minimum eligibility requirements will be the GS-07
qualifications. Broadband level II minimum eligibility requirements
will be the GS-12 qualifications. Broadband levels III and IV are
single-grade broadband levels and will mirror the minimum
qualifications for the respective General Schedule grades of 14 and 15.
Selective placement factors may be established in accordance with the
OPM Qualification Handbook when judged to be critical to successful job
performance. These factors will be communicated to all candidates for
particular position vacancies and must be met for basic eligibility.
The demonstration project will include an Advanced Degree
Employment Program which provides a vehicle for rapid employment of
individuals with master's and/or doctoral degrees in science and
engineering fields into positions for which there is a positive
education requirement in those fields. The Air Force will identify some
measure of academic excellence that candidates with advanced degrees
must have attained to be eligible for this employment program. The
project will also include an Outstanding Scholar in Science and
Engineering employment program which will allow noncompetitive
appointment at the equivalent of the GS-7 level. This will allow rapid
hiring of those who receive an undergraduate degree in a qualifying
scientific or engineering curriculum with an overall grade point
average of 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale, or who are in the top 10% of
their graduating class. This program is patterned after the Outstanding
Scholar authority for appointing to non-S&E entry-level professional
and administrative occupations. The Outstanding Scholar authority was
provided by a court- approved consent decree in Luevano v. Newman.
These hiring authorities are necessary because S&E positions in Air
Force laboratories will continue to be shortage occupations as they are
involved in highly specialized areas of technology that require job-
specific skills in short supply. The Advanced Degree Employment Program
applies to both initial appointment and in-service placement actions.
The program is used to determine eligibility for applicable broadband
level I and II positions of persons who have completed (or expect to
complete within 9 months) all the requirements for a master's or
doctoral degree from an accredited college or university in a
curriculum that is qualifying for the position to be filled. The use of
the Superior Academic Achievement and Advanced Degree Employment
Programs will allow the selecting supervisor to accomplish Equal
Employment Opportunity objectives while ensuring a high quality
workforce.
In the proposed system, as with the current system, the individual
manager will decide whether to fill a position from among internal
candidates or to recruit from outside the Air Force. If the decision is
made to recruit new appointments from outside the Federal government,
candidates will be evaluated using the following method.
The selecting supervisor will develop written job-related ranking
criteria. Candidates who meet the basic eligibility will be separated
into two groups based on the appropriateness of their experience or
education relating to the position being filled. Candidates with
superior qualifications will be placed in Group A, all others will be
placed in Group B. Within each group, veterans preference will be
applied by placing all preference eligibles ahead of non-preference
eligibles. Numerical scores will not be assigned. Selection
[[Page 24625]]
will be made from among candidates in Group A. Candidates in Group B
may only be selected when there are no candidates in Group A.
Preference in employment will be given to qualified applicants who
meet one of the veterans preference eligibility criteria in 5 U.S.C.
2108, provided they are equally qualified for the vacant position.
2. Appointment Authority
Under the demonstration project, there will be two appointment
options: regular career and contingent. The career-conditional
appointment authority will not be used under the demonstration project.
Regular career appointments will continue to use existing authorities
and entitlements, and employees will serve a probationary period.
Contingent appointments will use the existing term appointment
authority which includes a limit of 4 years and most benefits. This
contingent appointment is designed to attract high quality new
scientists and post-doctoral students who may wish to choose an Air
Force laboratory experience for a few years, accruing some portable
retirement and receiving benefits during this tenure.
3. Extended Probationary Period
A new employee needs to demonstrate adequate contribution during
all cycles of a research effort for a laboratory manager to render a
thorough evaluation. The current 1 year probationary period will be
extended to 3 years for all newly hired regular career employees. The
purpose of extending the probationary period is to allow supervisors an
adequate period of time to fully evaluate an employee's contribution
and conduct.
Aside from extending the time period, all other features of the
current probationary period are retained including the potential to
remove an employee without providing the full substantive and
procedural rights afforded a non-probationary employee. Any employee
appointed prior to the implementation date will not be affected. The 3
year probation will apply to non-status hires. That is, it will apply
only to new hires or those who do not have reemployment or
reinstatement rights. Air Force Palace Knight and Senior Knight
appointments must complete 3 years of directly supervised employment in
the laboratory to complete the probationary period (i.e., time spent at
school does not count towards fulfilling the probationary period
requirement).
Probationary employees will be terminated when the employee fails
to demonstrate proper conduct, technical competency, and/or adequate
contribution for continued employment. When a laboratory decides to
terminate an employee serving a probationary period because their work
contribution or conduct during this period fails to demonstrate their
fitness or qualifications for continued employment, it shall terminate
their services by written notification of the reasons for separation
and the effective date of the action. The information in the notice as
to why the employee is being terminated shall, as a minimum, consist of
the laboratory's conclusions as to the inadequacies of their
contribution or conduct.
B. Broadbanding
The proposed broadbanding system will replace the current General
Schedule (GS) structure. Currently, the 15 grades of the General
Schedule are used to classify positions and, therefore, to set pay. The
General Schedule covers all white collar work--administrative,
technical, clerical, and professional. This system will initially cover
only scientific and engineering (S&E) positions in the Air Force
laboratories. Scientific and Professional (ST) and Senior Executive
Service (SES) employees are not covered.
The broadband levels are designed to enhance pay progression and to
allow for more competitive recruitment of quality candidates at
differing rates within the appropriate broadband level(s). Competitive
promotions will be less frequent and movement through the broadband
levels will be a more seamless process than today's procedure. Like the
previous broadband systems used at China Lake and the National
Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), advancement within the
system is contingent on merit.
There will be four broadband levels in the proposed system, labeled
I, II, III, and IV. They will include the current grades of GS-7
through GS/GM-15. These are the grades in which the S&E employees in
the Air Force laboratories are found. Broadband level I includes the
current GS-7 through GS-11; level II, GS-12 and GS/GM-13; level III,
GS/GM-14; and level IV, GS/GM-15. Comparison to the GS grades was
useful in setting the upper and lower dollar limits of the broadband
levels; however, once the employees are moved into the demonstration
project, General Schedule grades will no longer apply.
The titles associated with each broadband level are as follows:
Level/Title(s)
I Associate--(Electronics Engineer, Chemist, etc.)
II Title of Appropriate Series (Physicist, Biologist, etc.) or
Supervisory--(Nuclear Engineer, etc.)
III Senior--(Mathematician, Computer Scientist, etc.) or Supervisory
Senior--(Physical Scientist, etc.)
IV Principal--(Microbiologist, Psychologist, etc.) or Supervisory
Principal--(Aerospace Engineer, etc.)
Generally, employees will be converted into the broadband level
which includes their current GS/GM grade. Each employee is assured an
initial place in the system without loss of pay. As the rates of the
General Schedule are increased due to general pay increases, the
minimum and maximum rates of the four broadband levels will also move
up. Individual employees receive pay increases based on their
assessments under the Contribution-based Compensation System. Since pay
progression through the levels depends on merit, there will be no
scheduled Within-Grade Increases (WGIs) for employees once the
broadbanding system is in place. Special Salary Rates will no longer be
applicable to demonstration project employees. All employees will be
eligible for the future locality pay increases of their geographical
area.
Newly hired personnel entering the system will be employed at a
level consistent with the expected contribution of the position and
individual basic qualifications for the level, as determined by rating
against qualification standards. Salaries of individual candidates will
be based on academic qualifications and experience. In addition to the
flexibilities available under the broadbanding system, the authorities
for retention, recruitment, and relocation payments granted under the
Federal Employees' Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) can also be
used.
Employees who leave the Air Force broadbanding system to accept
federal employment in the traditional Civil Service system will have
their pay set by the gaining activity. Where a broadband level includes
a single GS grade, the employees are considered to have attained the
grade commensurate with the broadband level they are leaving. Where
broadband levels include multiple grades, employees are considered to
have progressed to the next higher grade within that broadband level
when they have been in the level for 1 year and their salary equals or
exceeds the minimum salary of the higher grade. For employees who are
[[Page 24626]]
entitled to a special rate upon return to the General Schedule, the
demonstration project locality rate must equal or exceed the minimum
special rate of the higher grade. Refer to section V for information
concerning conversion to and from the demonstration project.
The use of broadbanding provides a stronger link between pay and
contribution to the mission of the laboratory. It is simpler, less time
consuming, and less costly to maintain. In addition, such a system is
more easily understood by managers and employees, is easily delegated
to managers, coincides with recognized career paths, and complements
the other personnel management aspects of the demonstration project.
C. Classification
1. Occupational Series
The present General Schedule classification system has 434
occupational series which are divided into 22 groups. The Air Force
laboratories currently have scientific and engineering (S&E) positions
in 41 series which fall into 7 groups. The occupational series, which
frequently provide well-recognized disciplines with which employees
wish to be identified, will be maintained. This will facilitate
movement of personnel into and out of the proposed demonstration. Other
scientific and engineering series may be added to the project as the
need for new professional skills emerges within the laboratory
environment.
2. Classification Standards
The present system of OPM classification standards will be used for
the identification of proper series and occupational titles of
positions within the demonstration project. References in the position
classification standards to grade criteria will not be used as part of
the demonstration project. Rather, the CCS broadband level descriptors
will be used for the purpose of broadband level determination. Under
the proposed system, each broadband level is represented by a set of
level descriptors. Based on a yearly assessment of the employee's level
of contribution to the organization in relation to these descriptors,
the broadband level and salary are reviewed and appropriately adjusted.
This eliminates the need for the use of grading criteria in the OPM
classification standards.
The broadband level descriptors are:
Level I Descriptors
Technical Problem Solving: Conducts in-house technical
activities and/or may provide contract technical direction with
guidance from supervisor or higher level scientist or engineer.
Works closely with peers in collectively solving problems of
moderate complexity, involving limited variables, precedents
established in related projects, and minor adaptations to well-
established methods and techniques. Recognized within own
organization for technical ability in assigned areas.
Communications/Reporting: Provides data and written analysis for
input to scientific papers, journal articles, and reports and/or
assists in preparing contractual documents and/or reviews technical
reports; work is acknowledged in team publications. Effectively
presents technical results of own studies, tasks, or contract
results. Material is presented either orally or in writing, within
own organization or to limited external contacts. Conducts these
activities under guidance of supervisor and/or team leader.
Corporate Resource Management: May coordinate elements of in-
house work units or assist in managing a scientific or support
contract. Uses personal and assigned resources efficiently under
guidance of supervisor or team leader. As an understanding of
organizational activities, policies, and objectives is gained,
participates in team planning.
Technology Transition/Technology Transfer: Participates as a
team member in demonstrating technology and in interacting with
internal/external customers. With guidance, contributes to technical
content of partnerships for technology transition and/or transfer
(Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding,
Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles). Seeks out and
uses relevant outside technologies in assigned projects.
R&D Business Development: As a team member communicates with
customers to understand customer requirements. By maintaining
currency in area of expertise, contributes as a team member to new
program development. May technically participate in writing
proposals to establish new business opportunities.
Cooperation and Supervision: Contributes to all aspects of
teams' responsibilities. May technically guide or mentor less
experienced personnel on limited aspects of scientific or
engineering efforts. Receives close guidance from supervisor and/or
higher level scientist or engineer. Performs duties in a
professional, responsive, and cooperative manner in accordance with
established policies and procedures.
Level II Descriptors
Technical Problem Solving: Conducts in-house technical
activities and/or provides contract technical direction to programs
of moderate size and complexity with minimal oversight. Contributes
technical ideas and conceives and defines solutions to technical
problems of moderate size or complexity. Recognized internally and
externally by peers, both in governmental and industrial activities,
for technical expertise.
Communications/Reporting: Writes or is major contributing author
on scientific papers, journal articles, or reports and/or prepares
contract documents and reviews reports pertaining to area of
technical expertise. May assist in filing innovation disclosures,
inventions, and patents. Effectively prepares and presents own and/
or team technical results. Communicates work to varied laboratory,
scientific, industry, and other government audiences. May prepare
and present presentations on critical program for use at higher
levels with some guidance.
Corporate Resource Management: Manages all aspects of
technically complex in-house work units or one or more contractual
efforts in assigned program area. Effectively plans and controls all
assigned resources. Makes and meets time and budget estimates on
assigned projects or takes appropriate corrective action.
Participates in organizational or strategic planning at team level,
taking cognizance of complementary projects elsewhere to ensure
optimal use of resources.
Technology Transition/Technology Transfer: Develops
demonstrations and interacts independently with internal/external
customers. As a team member, implements partnerships for transition
and/or transfer of technology (Advanced Technology Demonstrations,
Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project
Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and other
dual-use vehicles). Evaluates and incorporates appropriate outside
technology in individual or team activities.
R&D Business Development: Initiates meetings and interactions
with customers to understand customer needs. Generates key ideas for
program development based on understanding of technology and
customer needs. Demonstrates expertise to internal/external
customers. Contributes technically to proposal preparation and
marketing to establish new business opportunities.
Cooperation and Supervision: Contributes as a technical task or
team leader; is sought out for expertise by peers; and participates
in mentoring of team members. May guide on a daily basis, technical,
programmatic, and administrative efforts of individuals or team
members. May recommend selection or may select staff and/or team
members. Assists in the development and training of individuals or
team members. May participate in position and performance
management. Receives general guidance in terms of policies, program
objectives, and/or funding issues from supervisor and/or higher
level scientist or engineer. Discusses novel concepts and
significant departures from previous practices with supervisor or
team leader.
Level III Descriptors
Technical Problem Solving: Conducts and/or directs technical
activities and/or assists higher levels on challenging and
innovative projects or technical program development with only broad
guidance. Develops solutions to diverse, complex problems involving
various functional areas and disciplines. Conducts and/or directs
large programs in technically complex areas. Recognized within the
laboratory, service, DoD, industry, and academia for technical
expertise and has established professional reputation in national
technical community.
[[Page 24627]]
Communications/Reporting: Lead author on major scientific
papers, refereed journal articles, and reports and/or prepares and
reviews contract documents and reviews reports of others pertaining
to overall program. May document or file inventions, patents, and
innovation disclosures relevant to subject area. Prepares and
presents technical and/or financial and programmatic briefings and
documentation for team, organization, or technical area. Prepares
and delivers presentations for major projects and technology areas
to scientific and/or government audiences. Reviews oral presentation
of others. Communication and reporting functions conducted with
minimal higher level oversight.
Corporate Resource Management: Defines program strategy and
resource allocations for in- house and/or contractual programs. For
assigned technical areas, conducts program planning, coordination,
and/or documentation (master plans, roadmaps, Joint Director of Lab/
Reliance, etc.). Advocates to laboratory and/or higher headquarters
on budgetary and programmatic issues for resources. Based on
knowledge of analytical and evaluative methods and techniques,
participates in strategic planning at branch and/or division level.
Considers and consults on technical programs of other organizations
working in the field to ensure optimal use of resources.
Technology Transition/Technology Transfer: Develops customer
base and expands opportunities for technology transition and
transfer. Leads or serves as key technical member of teams
implementing partnerships for transition or transfer of technology
(Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding,
Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles). Ensures
incorporation of outside technology within laboratory programs.
R&D Business Development: Works to establish customer alliances
and translates customer needs to programs in a particular technical
area. Develops feasible research strategies and/or business
strategies for new technical activities. Seeks joint program
coalitions with other agencies and funding opportunities from
outside organizations. Pursues near-term business opportunities
through proposals.
Cooperation and Supervision: Is sought out for consultation and
mentors team members. Guides the research, technical and/or
programmatic, and administrative efforts of individuals or teams
with accountability for focus and quality. Recommends selection or
selects staff and/or team members. Supports development and training
of subordinates and/or team members. Participates in position and
performance management. Receives only broad policy and
administrative guidance from supervisor, such as initiation and
curtailment of programs.
Level IV Descriptors
Technical Problem Solving: Independently defines, leads, and
manages the most challenging and innovative complex technical
activities/programs consistent with general guidance or
independently directs overall R&D program. Conceives and develops
creative solutions to the most complex problems requiring highly
specialized areas of technical expertise. Recognized within the
laboratory, service, DoD, and other agencies for broad technical
area expertise and has established professional reputation in the
national and international technical community.
Communications/Reporting: Lead or sole author on scientific
papers, refereed journal articles, reports, or review articles which
are recognized as major advances or resolutions in the technical
area and/or reviews and approves reporting of all technical products
of mission area. May exploit innovations which normally lead to
inventions, disclosures, and patents. Prepares and presents
technical and/or financial and programmatic briefings and
documentation for breadth of programs at or above own level. As
subject matter expert, prepares and delivers invited or contributed
presentations, papers at national or international conferences on
technical area, or gives policy level briefings. Singularly
responsible for overall quality and timeliness of technical/
scientific/ programmatic reports and presentations of group and
self.
Corporate Resource Management: Defines technology area strategy
and resource allocations for in-house and contractual programs. For
multiple technical areas, conducts overall program planning and
coordination, and/or program documentation (master plans, roadmaps,
Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, etc.). Advocates to
command, service, and agency levels on budgetary and programmatic
issues for resources. Utilizing advanced analytical and evaluative
methods and techniques, leads strategic planning and prioritization
processes. Develops strategy to leverage resources from other
agencies and ensures equitable distribution and appropriate use of
internal resources.
Technology Transition/Technology Transfer: Organizes, leads, and
markets overall technology transition and transfer activities for
organization at senior management levels. Leads in formulation and
oversight of Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of
Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles.
Creates an environment that encourages widespread exploitation of
both national and international technologies.
R&D Business Development: Works with the senior management level
to stimulate development of customer alliances for several technical
areas. Generates strategic research and/or business objectives for
core technical areas. Recognizes warfighting trends, relates
business opportunities, and convinces laboratory management to
develop and/or acquire expertise and commit funds. Secures business
opportunities supporting long-term mission relevancy through
targeted proposals and processes.
Cooperation and Supervision: Establishes team charters and
develops future team leaders and supervisors. Leads and manages all
aspects of subordinates' or team members' efforts with complete
accountability for mission and programmatic success. Recommends
selection or selects staff, team leaders, and team members; fosters
development and training of supervisory and non-supervisory
individuals. Directs or recommends position and performance
management. Works within the framework of agency policies, mission
objectives, and time and funding limitations.
3. Classification Authority
Laboratory directors/commanders will have delegated classification
authority and may, in turn, redelegate this authority no lower than two
management levels below the director/commander. Classification
approval, however, must be exercised at least one management level
above the first level supervisor of the employee or position under
review. Supervisors at the lower levels will provide classification
recommendations. Personnel specialists will provide on-going
consultation and guidance to managers and supervisors throughout the
classification process.
4. Statement of Duties and Experience (SDE)
Under the proposed classification system, the automated Statement
of Duties and Experience (SDE) will replace the current AF Form 1378,
Civilian Personnel Position Description. The SDE will include a
description of job-specific information, reference the CCS broadband
level descriptors for the assigned broadband level, and provide data
element information pertinent to the job. Laboratory supervisors will
follow a computer assisted process to produce the SDE. The objectives
in developing the new SDE are to: (a) simplify the descriptions and the
preparation process through automation, (b) make the SDE specific to
the employee, and (c) make the SDE a more useful tool for other
functions of personnel management, e.g., recruiting, reduction-in-
force, assessment of contribution, and employee development.
5. Skill Codes
The Air Force uses skill code sets within the Defense Civilian
Personnel Data System (DCPDS) as a means to reflect duties of current
positions and employees' previous experiences. Each code represents a
specialization within the occupation. Specializations are those
described in classification or qualification standards and those agreed
upon by functional managers and personnel specialists to be important
to staffing patterns and career paths. These codes are used to refer
candidates for employment with the Air Force, placement of current
employees into
[[Page 24628]]
other positions, and selection for training under competitive
procedures. To facilitate the movement of personnel into and out of the
demonstration project, the current Air Force system of skills coding
will continue to be used. Laboratory supervisors will select
appropriate skill code sets to describe the work of each employee
through the automated SDE process.
6. Classification Process
The SDE is accomplished by completion of the following steps
utilizing an automated system:
(a) The supervisor enters, by typing free-form, the organizational
location, SDE number, and the employee's name. From the menu, the
supervisor selects the appropriate occupational series and title, the
level descriptors corresponding to the broadband level that is most
commensurate with an employee's anticipated level of contribution, the
CCS job category, the functional classification code, and the
supervisory level. The supervisor then fills in the blanks in a
standard statement relating to the level of certification and
functional area for the Acquisition Professional Development Program
(APDP).
(b) The supervisor creates a brief description of job-specific
information by typing free-form at the appropriate point. From a menu,
the supervisor will choose statements pertaining to physical
requirements; knowledges, skills, and abilities required to perform the
work; and special licenses or certifications needed (other than APDP).
Based on the supervisory level code selected above, the system will
produce mandatory statements pertaining to affirmative employment,
safety, and security programs. The system will also produce a statement
pertaining to positive education requirements, or their equivalencies,
based on the occupational series selected.
(c) The supervisor selects up to three skill code sets from the
listing provided which are appropriate to the job. From the menu, the
supervisor also selects the position sensitivity; Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) status; drug testing requirements; emergency essential and
key position information; the career program to which the position
belongs; the bargaining unit status code; and the contribution factor
weights which apply to the job category previously selected. This
information, along with the supervisory level and the competitive level
code, constitutes the SDE addendum. These data elements will be
maintained as a separate page of the SDE (i.e., an addendum) as this
information can change frequently. By maintaining this information as
an addendum, the need to create and classify a new SDE each time one of
these elements must be updated is alleviated.
(d) The supervisor accomplishes the SDE with a recommended
classification, then signs and dates the document. The SDE is sent to
the individual in the organization with delegated classification
authority for approval and classification, which is indicated by that
person signing and dating the SDE.
The computer assisted system will incorporate definitions for the
CCS job categories, supervisory levels, all S&E occupational series, as
well as their corresponding skill code sets and the functional
classification codes. The functional classification codes are those
currently found in the OPM ``Introduction to the Classification
Standards'' which define certain kinds of activities, e.g., research,
development, test and evaluation, etc. The FLSA status selection must
be in accordance with OPM guidance. Throughout the above process,
manpower analysts and personnel specialists will be available to advise
laboratory management.
D. Contribution-based Compensation System
1. Overview
The purpose of the Contribution-based Compensation System (CCS) is
to provide an effective, efficient, and flexible method for assessing,
compensating, and managing the laboratory S&E workforce. It is
essential for the development of a highly productive workforce and to
provide management, at the lowest practical level, the authority,
control, and flexibility needed to achieve quality laboratories and
quality products. CCS allows for more employee involvement in the
assessment process, increases communication between supervisor and
employee, promotes a clear accountability of contribution, facilitates
employee career progression, provides an understandable basis for
salary changes, and delinks awards from the annual assessment process.
Funds previously allocated for performance-based awards will be
reserved for distribution under a separate laboratory awards program.
CCS is a contribution-based assessment system that goes beyond a
performance-based rating system. That is, it measures the employee's
contribution to the organization rather than how well the employee
performed a job as defined by a performance plan; one which may
represent a lower level of responsibility and expectation based on the
employee's previous performance. CCS promotes proactive salary
adjustment decisions to be made on the basis of an individual's overall
contribution to the organization.
Contribution is measured by factors, each of which is relevant to
the success of an Research and Development (R&D) laboratory. Six
factors have been developed for evaluating the yearly contribution of
S&E personnel covered by this initiative: Technical Problem Solving,
Communications/Reporting, Corporate Resource Management, Technology
Transition/Technology Transfer, R&D Business Development, and
Cooperation and Supervision.
Each factor has four levels of increasing contribution
corresponding to the four broadband levels. These factors use the same
descriptors as those presented under classification (section III C).
Under classification, for example, only level I descriptors are applied
for each of the six factors for a level I employee. For the CCS
assessment process, the six factors are presented with all four levels
of contribution to better assist supervisor assessment. Therefore, for
classification, the factors are sorted first by level and then by
factor as shown in section III C 2. For the CCS assessment process, the
level descriptors are sorted first by factor and then by level as shown
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Descriptor Key elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... Conducts in-house technical activities and/or may Scope of Project/Level of
provide contract technical direction with guidance Impact.
from supervisor or higher level scientist or
engineer.
Works closely with peers in collectively solving Technical Complexity/Creativity.
problems of moderate complexity, involving limited
variables, precedents established in related
projects, and minor adaptations to well-established
methods and techniques.
Recognized within own organization for technical Recognition
ability in assigned areas.
[[Page 24629]]
II..................... Conducts in-house technical activities and/or Scope of Project/Level of
provides contract technical direction to programs of Impact.
moderate size and complexity with minimal oversight.
Contributes technical ideas and conceives and defines Technical Complexity/Creativity.
solutions to technical problems of moderate size or
complexity.
Recognized internally and externally by peers, both Recognition
in governmental and industrial activities, for
technical expertise.
III.................... Conducts and/or directs technical activities and/or Scope of Project/Level of
assists higher levels on challenging and innovative Impact.
projects or technical program development with only
broad guidance.
Develops solutions to diverse, complex problems Technical Complexity/Creativity.
involving various functional areas and disciplines.
Conducts and/or directs large programs in
technically complex areas.
Recognized within the laboratory, service, DoD, Recognition
industry, and academia for technical expertise and
has established professional reputation in national
technical community.
IV..................... Independently defines, leads, and manages the most Scope of Project/Level of
challenging and innovative complex technical Impact.
activities/programs consistent with general guidance
or independently directs overall R&D program.
Conceives and develops creative solutions to the most Technical Complexity/Creativity.
complex problems requiring highly specialized areas
of technical expertise.
Recognized within the laboratory, service, DoD, and Recognition
other agencies for broad technical area expertise
and has established professional reputation in the
national and international technical community.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 2: COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... Provides data and written analysis for input to Written and Oral.
scientific papers, journal articles, and reports and/
or assists in preparing contractural documents and/
or reviews technical reports; work is acknowledged
in team publications.
Effectively presents technical results of own Breadth of Responsibility.
studies, tasks, or contract results.
Material is presented either orally or in writing, Level/Diversity of Audiences.
within own organization or to limited external
contacts.
Conducts these activities under guidance of Oversight Required.
supervisor and/or team leader.
II..................... Writes or is major contributing author on scientific Written and Oral.
papers, journal articles, or reports and/or prepares
contract documents and reviews reports pertaining to
area of technical expertise. May assist in filing
innovation disclosures, inventions, and patents.
Effectively prepares and presents own and/or team Breadth of Responsibility.
technical results.
Communicates work to varied laboratory, scientific, Level/Diversity of Audiences.
industry, and other government audiences.
May prepare and present presentations on critical Oversight Required.
program for use at higher levels with some guidance.
III.................... Lead author on major scientific papers, refereed Written and Oral.
journal articles, and reports and/or prepares and
reviews contract documents and reviews reports of
others pertaining to overall program. May document
or file inventions, patents, and innovation
disclosures relevant to subject area.
Prepares and presents technical and/or financial and Breadth of Responsibility.
programmatic briefings and documentation for team,
organization, or technical area.
Prepares and delivers presentations for major Level/Diversity of Audiences.
projects and technology areas to scientific and/or
government audiences.
Reviews oral presentation of others. Communication Oversight Required.
and reporting functions conducted with minimal
higher level oversight.
IV..................... Lead or sole author on scientific papers, refereed Written and Oral.
journal articles, or review articles which are
recognized as major advances or resolutions in the
technical area and/or reviews and approves reporting
of all technical products of mission area. May
exploit innovations which normally lead to
inventions, disclosures, and patents.
Prepares and presents technical and/or financial and Breadth of Responsibility.
programmatic briefings and documentation for breadth
of programs at or above own level.
As subject matter expert, prepares and delivers Level/Diversity of Audiences.
invited or contributed presentations, papers at
national or international conferences on technical
area, or gives policy level briefings.
Singularly responsible for overall quality and Oversight Required.
timeliness of technical/scientific/programmatic
reports and presentations of group and self.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 3: CORPORATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... May coordinate elements of in-house work units or In-House/Contract Managing.
assist in managing a scientific or support contract.
Uses personal and assigned resources efficiently Size & Complexity.
under guidance of supervisor or team leader.
As an understanding of organizational activities, Make/Buy/Rely.
policies, and objectives is gained, participates in
team planning.
II..................... Manages all aspects of technically complex in-house In-House/Contract Managing.
work units or one or more contractual efforts in
assigned program area.
Effectively plans and controls all assigned Size & Complexity.
resources. Makes and meets time and budget estimates
on assigned projects or takes appropriate corrective
action.
Participates in organizational or strategic planning Make/Buy/Rely.
at team level, taking cognizance of complementary
projects elsewhere to ensure optimal use of
resources.
[[Page 24630]]
III.................... Defines program strategy and resource allocations for In-House/Contract Managing.
in-house and/or contractual programs.
For assigned technical areas, conducts program Size & Complexity.
planning, coordination, and/or documentation (master
plans, roadmaps, Joint Director of Lab/Reliance,
etc.). Advocates to laboratory and/or higher
headquarters on budgetary and programmatic issues
for resources.
Based on knowledge of analytical and evaluative Make/Buy/Rely.
methods and techniques, participates in strategic
planning at branch and/or division level. Considers
and consults on technical programs of other
organizations working in the field to ensure optimal
use of resources.
IV..................... Defines technology area strategy and resource In-House/Contract Managing.
allocations for in-house and contractual programs.
For multiple technical areas, conducts overall Size & Complexity.
program planning and coordination, and/or program
documentation (master plans, roadmaps, Joint
Director of Labs/Project Reliance, etc.). Advocates
to command, service, and agency levels on budgetary
and programmatic issues for resources.
Utilizing advanced analytical and evaluative methods Make/Buy/Rely.
and techniques, leads strategic planning and
prioritization processes. Develops strategy to
leverage resources from other agencies and ensures
equitable distribution and appropriate use of
internal resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 4: TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... Participates as a team member in demonstrating Customer Interaction Level.
technology and in interacting with internal/external
customers.
With guidance, contributes to technical content of Partnership/Level of
partnerships for technology transition and/or Independence.
transfer (Advanced Technology Demonstrations,
Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/
Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).
Seeks out and uses relevant outside technologies in Leveraging Outside Technology.
assigned projects.
II..................... Develops demonstrations and interacts independently Customer Interaction Level.
with internal/external customers.
As a team member, implements partnerships for Partnership/Level of
transition and/or transfer of technology (Advanced Independence.
Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of
Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project
Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).
Evaluates and incorporates appropriate outside Leveraging Outside Technology.
technology in individual or team activities..
III.................... Develops customer base and expands opportunities for Customer Interaction Level.
technology transition and transfer.
Leads or serves as key technical member of teams Partnership/Level of
implementing partnerships for transition or transfer Independence.
of technology (Advanced Technology Demonstrations,
Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/
Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).
Ensures incorporation of outside technology within Leveraging Outside Technology.
laboratory programs.
IV... Organizes, leads, and markets overall technology Customer Interaction Level.
transition and transfer activities for organization
at senior management levels.
Leads in formulation and oversight of Advanced Partnership/Level of
Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Independence.
Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project
Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles.
Creates an environment that encourages widespread Leveraging Outside Technology.
exploitation of both national and international
technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 5: R&D BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... As a team member communicates with customers to Customer Interaction level.
understand customer requirements.
By maintaining currency in area of expertise, Knowledge and Level of Planning.
contributes as a team member to new program
development.
May technically participate in writing proposals to Knowledge of Market & Success in
establish new business opportunities. Getting Funds.
II..................... Initiates meetings and interactions with customers to Customer Interaction Level.
understand customer needs.
Generates key ideas for program development based on Knowledge and Level of Planning.
understanding of technology and customer needs.
Demonstrates expertise to internal/external
customers.
Contributes technically to proposal preparation and Knowledge of Market & Success in
marketing to establish new business opportunities. Getting Funds.
III.................... Works to establish customer alliances and translates Customer Interaction Level.
customer needs to programs in a particular technical
area.
Develops feasible research strategies and/or business Knowledge and Level of Planning.
strategies for new technical activities.
Seeks joint program coalitions with other agencies Knowledge of Market & Success in
and funding opportunities from outside Getting Funds.
organizations. Pursues near-term business
opportunities through proposals.
IV..................... Works with the senior management level to stimulate Customer Interaction Level.
development of customer alliances for several
technical areas.
[[Page 24631]]
Generates strategic research and/or business Knowledge and Level of Planning.
objectives for core technical areas. Recognizes war-
fighting trends, relates business opportunities, and
convinces laboratory management to develop and/or
acquire expertise and commit funds.
Secures business opportunities supporting long-term Knowledge of Market & Success in
mission relevancy through targeted proposals and Getting Funds.
processes..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR 6: COOPERATION AND SUPERVISION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................... Contributes to all aspects of teams' responsibilities Team Role.
May technically guide or mentor less experienced Breadth of Influence.
personnel on limited aspects of scientific or
engineering efforts.
Receives close guidance from supervisor and/or higher Supervision & Guidance Received.
level scientist or engineer. Performs duties in a
professional, responsive, and cooperative manner in
accordance with established policies and procedures.
II..................... Contributes as a technical task or team leader; is Team Role.
sought out for expertise by peers; and participates
in mentoring of team members.
May guide on a daily basis, technical, programmatic, Breadth of Influence.
and administrative efforts of individuals or team
members.
May recommend selection or may select staff and/or Supervision & Subordinate
team members. Assists in the development and Development.
training of individuals or team members. May
participate in position and performance management.
Receives general guidance in terms of policies, Supervision & Guidance Received.
program objectives, and/or funding issues from
supervisor and/or higher level scientist or
engineer. Discusses novel concepts and significant
departures from previous practices with supervisor
or team leader.
III.................... Is sought out for consultation and mentors team Team Role.
members.
Guides the research, technical and/or programmatic, Breadth of Influence.
and administrative efforts of individuals or teams
with accountability for focus and quality.
Recommends selection or selects staff and/or team Supervision & Subordinate
members. Supports development and training of Development.
subordinates and/or team members. Participates in
position and performance management.
Receives only broad policy and administrative Supervision & Guidance Received.
guidance from supervisor, such as initiation and
curtailment of programs.
IV..................... Establishes team charters and develops future team Team Role.
leaders and supervisors.
Leads and manages all aspects of subordinates' or Breadth of Influence.
team members' efforts with complete accountability
for mission and programmatic success.
Recommdends selection or selects staff, team leaders, Supervision & Subordinate
and team members; fosters development and training Development.
of supervisory and non-supervisory individuals.
Directs or recommends position and performance
management.
Works within the framework of agency policies, Supervision & Guidance Received.
mission objectives, and time and funding limitations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment process (section III D 3) begins with employee input
which provides an opportunity to state the accomplishments and level of
contribution perceived. To determine the employee's yearly
contribution, the six factors will then be assessed by the immediate
supervisor. For each factor, the supervisor places the employee's
contribution at a particular level. If the contribution level for a
factor is at the lowest level of level I, a score of 1.0 is assigned.
Higher levels of contribution are assigned scores increasing in 0.1
increments up to 4.9. A factor score of 0.0 can be assigned if the
employee's contribution does not demonstrate a minimum level I
contribution. Under CCS, immediate supervisors will work with other
supervisors in a group setting to render final scores. Weights may be
applied to the six factors for different job categories of S&Es
(section III D 7). CCS will also incorporate a midyear feedback
session.
Employees within organizations are placed into pay pools (section
III D 4). Salary adjustments, i.e., decisions to give or withhold
salary increases, (section III D 5) are based on the relationship
between contribution scores and present salaries. The maximum available
pay rate under this demonstration will be the rate for GS-15/Step-10.
Decisions for broadband movement (section III D 6) are also based on
this relationship.
Cost neutrality is assured within each pay pool by limiting the
total of salary increases to the funds available to the pay pool, based
on what would have been available in the General Schedule system from
general pay increases, step increases, and promotions. No changes will
be made to locality pay under the demonstration project.
2. The ``Standard Pay Line'' (SPL)
The relationship between each CCS score and the appropriate salary
rate is expressed mathematically as a line. All S&Es entering the
system will initially have their salary lie close to this ``standard
pay line'' (SPL). Because employees enter the demonstration from a
grade and step system, an initial correlation generally exists between
their former GS/GM grade and step and the CCS scores appropriate for
that broadband level. For example, level II consists of GS-12s and GS/
GM-13s; GS-12/Step- 1 closely aligns to a CCS score of 2.0, GS-12/Step-
2 correlates with a CCS score of 2.05,..., GS/GM-13/Step-1 relates to a
CCS score of 2.5,..., and GS/GM-13/Step-10 to a CCS score of 2.95. This
is shown in Figure 1 for the four-level broadband system where the
salary of each GS grade/step is plotted on the Y-axis. Although the
data are not continuous, there is a linear trend. Each of these data
points was weighted by the actual calendar year 1995 (CY95) population
data for the demonstration laboratories. Using a least squares error
[[Page 24632]]
analysis, the best straight line fit to this weighted data was
determined and is shown in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 1--CCS RELATIONSHIP
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY96.033
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
Equation of the Standard Pay Line (without locality) for CY95
COMPENSATION = $13,572+$15,415 x CCS SCORE
The SPL defined in Figure 1 is tied to the basic GS pay scale for
CY95. The SPL for CY96 was calculated from the SPL for CY95 and the
general increase (G) given to GS employees in January 1996. The
equation for the CY96 SPL is: COMPENSATION = $13,843 + $15,723 x CCS
SCORE. The CY97 SPL will be the CY96 SPL increased by the ``G'' for
CY97. Continuing this calculation of SPL will maintain the same
relationships between the basic GS pay-scale and the SPL in the
demonstration project. Locality salary adjustments are not included in
the SPL.
Rails were constructed at + and - 0.3 CCS around the SPL. These
rails create an area in which nearly 100% of employees initially
entering the demonstration will be included. A few may fall below the
lower rail, but no employee will enter the demonstration above the
upper rail. The area encompassed by the rails denotes the acceptable
contribution and compensation relationship. Future CCS assessments will
likely alter an employee's position relative to these rails.
3. The CCS Assessment Process
The annual assessment cycle begins on 1 October and ends on 30
September of the following year. At the beginning of the annual
assessment period, the broadband level descriptors and weights (section
III D 7) will be provided to employees so that they know the basis on
which their contribution will be assessed. A midyear review, in the
March to April time frame, will discuss the employee's contributions
to-date and the employee's professional development. At the end of the
assessment period, employees will summarize their contributions in each
factor for their immediate supervisor.
[[Page 24633]]
The supervisor will determine initial CCS scores using the employee
input and the supervisor's assessment of the overall contribution to
the laboratory mission. For each factor, the supervisor places the
employee's contribution at a particular level (I, II, III, or IV). If
the contribution for a factor is at the lowest end of a level, a score
of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 is assigned. Greater contributions in each
level are assigned scores increasing in 0.1 increments up to 1.9, 2.9,
3.9, or 4.9. A factor score of 0.0 can be assigned if the employee does
not demonstrate a minimum level I contribution. Factor scores are then
averaged to give a total CCS score.
The immediate supervisors (for instance, branch chiefs) and the
next level supervisors (for instance, division chiefs) for a pay pool
then meet as a group to review and discuss all proposed employee
assessments and adjust individual CCS scores, if necessary. Giving
authority to the group of managers to make minor score adjustments
ensures contributions will have been assessed and measured similarly
for all employees. Once the scores have been finalized, the results and
any training and/or career development needs will be discussed with the
individual employees. Pay adjustments will be made on the basis of this
CCS assessment and the employee's current salary. Pay adjustments are
subject to a few payout rules discussed in section III D 5. Final pay
determinations will be made at a management level above the group of
supervisors who rendered final CCS assessments. CCS scores, however,
cannot be changed by managerial levels above the original group of
supervisors. Decisions for any broadband level changes (section III D
6) will be submitted to at least one level of management higher than
the group of supervisors (for instance, directorate chief) for
approval. Pay adjustments and broadband level changes will then be
documented by SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action.
4. Pay Pools
Pay pool structure is under the authority of the laboratory
directors/commanders. The following minimal guidelines, however, will
apply: (a) a pay pool is based on the organizational structure and
should include a range of S&E salaries and contribution levels; (b) a
pay pool must be large enough to constitute a reasonable statistical
sample, i.e., 35 or more; (c) a pay pool must be large enough to
encompass a second level of supervision since the CCS process uses a
group of supervisors in the pay pool to determine assessments and
recommend salary adjustments; and (d) the pay pool manager (for
instance, a division chief or directorate chief) holds yearly pay
adjustment authority. Pay pool managers' pay determinations, however,
may still be subject to higher management review.
The amount of money available for salary increases within a pay
pool is determined by the general increase (G) and money that would
have been available for step increases and promotions (I). The latter
will be set at 2.4% upon implementing the demonstration and is
considered adjustable to ensure cost neutrality over the life of the
demonstration. The amount of ``I'' to be included in the pay pool will
be computed based on the salaries of employees in the pay pool as of 30
September each year.
5. Salary Adjustment Guidelines
After the initial assignment into the CCS system, employees' yearly
contributions will be determined by the CCS process described above,
and their CCS scores versus their current salaries will be plotted on a
graph along with the SPL (see Figure 2). The position of those points
relative to the SPL gives a relative measure (Y/Y) of the
degree of over- or under-compensation for the employees. This permits
all employees within a pay pool to be rank-ordered by Y/Y,
from the most under-compensated employee to most over-compensated.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
[[Page 24634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY96.034
BILLING CODE 6525-01-C
In general, those employees who fall below the SPL (indicating
under- compensation, for example, employee X in Figure 2) should expect
to receive greater salary increases than those who fall above the line
(indicating over-compensation, for example, employee Z). Over time,
people will migrate closer to the standard pay line and receive a
salary appropriate to their level of contribution. The following are
more specific guidelines: (a) Those who fall above the upper rail (for
example, employee Z) will be given an increase ranging from zero to a
maximum of ``G''; (b) Those who fall within the rails (for example,
employee Y) will be given a minimum of ``G''; and (c) Those who fall
below the lower rail (for example, employee X) will be given at least
their base pay times ``G'' plus the percentage of funds set aside for
step increases and promotions which will no longer take place (I).
Should an employee's CCS assessment fall on either rail, it will be
considered to be within the rails.
Initially, the value of ``I'' will be 2.4%; the percentage,
however, may be changed to ensure cost neutrality. Each pay pool
manager will set the necessary guidelines for the gradation of pay
adjustments in the pay pool within these general rules. Decisions made
will be standard and consistent within the pay pool, be fair and
equitable to all stakeholders, maintain cost neutrality, and be subject
to review. The maximum available pay rate under this demonstration will
be the rate for GS-15/Step-10.
6. Movement Between Broadband Levels
It is the intent of the demonstration project to have S&E career
growth be accomplished through unrestricted movement through the
broadband levels based on contribution and salary. Movement through the
broadband levels will be determined by contribution and salary
following the CCS payout calculation. Resulting changes in broadband
levels are not accompanied by tradition promotion dollars, but rather,
they will be documented as a change in title, change in broadband
level, and reaccomplishment of a Statement of Duties and Experiences
(SDE) (section III C 6). The terms Promotion and Demotion will not be
used in connection with the CCS process. Rather, these terms will be
reserved for competitive placement and adverse actions.
Broadband levels are derived from an initial grouping of one or
more GS grades. Salary overlap between adjacent levels is desirable for
broadband level
[[Page 24635]]
movement. It is more convenient, however, to redefine these overlaps
(that is, the top and bottom salary ranges of the broadband levels
which produce the overlaps) in terms of the SPL. Specifically, the
salary overlap between two levels is defined by the salaries at - to +
0.2 CCS around the whole number score defining the boundary between the
contribution levels. For example, the maximum salary for level II would
be that salary from the SPL corresponding to a CCS score of 3.2.
Likewise, the minimum salary for level III would be the salary from the
SPL corresponding to a CCS score of 2.8. This definition provides a
salary overlap between broadband levels that is consistent and similar
to salary overlaps in the GS schedule.
Figure 3 shows the salary overlap areas between broadband
contribution levels. These salary overlap areas are divided into three
zones designated as CL (consideration for change to lower level), CH
(consideration for change to higher level), and E (eligible for change
to higher or lower level). All the E zones have the same width, 0.4
CCS, and height. The E zone is described as the box formed by the
intersection of the integer + and - 0.2 CCS lines and the SPL.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY96.035
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
The E zones serve to stabilize the movement between adjacent
broadband levels. This allows for annual fluctuations in contribution
scores for people near the top or bottom of a level, without creating
the need for repeated changes of their titles. An employee whose
contribution score falls within an E zone is eligible for a change in
broadband level (with the associated title change), but one should not
be given unless the supervisor has a compelling reason to advance or
reduce the employee's level. Under normal circumstances, pay
adjustments under CCS will follow contribution scores. Those who
consistently achieve increased contribution assessments will progress
through their broadband level and will find their salary climbing into
the corresponding CH zone. Once the employee's CCS score is
demonstrated to be consistently within the CH zone, the employee should
be moved to the higher broadband level unless the supervisor has a
compelling reason not to request the change. Conversely, regression
through the broadband levels works the same way in the opposite
direction. Those who consistently receive decreasing contribution
assessments will regress through their broadband level and would not
have been receiving any salary adjustments greater than ``G.'' They
will find that the CL zone at the bottom of their current broadband
level will catch up with their current salary. Once the employee's CCS
score is demonstrated to be consistently within the CL zone, the
employee should be moved to the lower
[[Page 24636]]
broadband level unless the supervisor has a compelling reason not to
request the change. Compelling reasons for retaining broadband levels
in the presence of a consistent assessment in the CH or CL range must
be documented in writing and provided to the employee. If an employee
moves totally above the CH zone or below the CL zone, the employee will
be changed in broadband level without supervisory action.
At the present time, high-grade controls within the agency restrict
movement between broadband level II and broadband level III. A separate
tri-service initiative to replace these controls with other management
measures is currently under review by the Department of Defense. Until
the high-grade controls are lifted, demonstration project employees
will not be able to advance from broadband level II to broadband level
III unless a high-grade authorization is available. To accommodate
this, level II employees whose salary adjustment would place them above
the CH zone for level II in organizations where high-grade
authorizations are unavailable will receive permanent adjustments to
basic salary up to an amount equivalent to the top of broadband level
II. Any additional amount granted under CCS will be paid as a one-time
bonus payment from pay pool funds. This pattern of payout will continue
until high-grade authorizations become available.
Movement under CCS happens once a year. Under the demonstration
project, managers are provided greater flexibility in assigning duties
by moving employees between positions within their broadband level. If,
throughout the year, there are vacancies at higher levels (typically
supervisory positions), employees may be considered for promotion to
those positions according to the demonstration project competitive
promotion procedures approved by the Air Force. Demonstration employees
selected for positions at a higher broadband level will receive the
minimum of the new broadband level or their existing salary, whichever
is greater. Under the approved competitive promotion procedures, the
selecting official may consider candidates from any source based on
viable and supportable job related merit-based methodology. Similarly,
if there is sufficient cause, an employee may be demoted to a lower
level position according to the contribution-based reduction in pay or
removal procedures discussed in section III E or the existing
procedures related to disciplinary actions.
7. Weights
Employees under the demonstration will be assigned to one of five
job categories:
(a) Supervisor, primary function is to supervise other employees;
(b) Plans & Programs S&E, primary function is to formulate plans
and policies to further the organizational mission;
(c) Program Manager, primary function is to run/direct research and
development (R&D) programs;
(d) Support S&E, primary function is to support the research
efforts of the laboratory; and
(e) Bench-Level S&E, primary function is to perform R&D within the
mission focus of the laboratory. Laboratory directors/commanders will
have the authority to determine if varying weights should be applied to
the six CCS factors based on these job categories. As an example,
Technical Problem Solving may be more heavily weighted for Bench-Level
S&Es than the factor of Technology Transition/Technology Transfer.
The authority to use weights and the authority to set weights may
be delegated below the laboratory director/commander. But, weights must
be the same for all employees in a particular job category in a pay
pool. This ensures that a fair comparison of employees is made, without
having the weights tailored to specific individuals. The overall CCS
score is determined by multiplying the score for each factor by the
weight, adding the results, and then dividing by the sum of the
weights.
This demonstration project, in part, is predicated on the belief
that the continued success and viability of the laboratories depends on
all employees seeking to contribute in each of the areas defined by the
six factors. Making all employees accountable for all factors shifts
organizational values in new directions. For this reason, no factor can
be given a weight of zero. Laboratory directors/commanders should
annually review the weightings for the various job categories to see if
they can be increased toward a weighting of 1.0 to encourage and allow
employees to raise their CCS contribution assessment by contributing in
a broader range of activities. Contribution in all six factors is
important to ensure both the overall success of DoD laboratories and
individual S&E career growth. Hence, the weights should be reviewed
frequently, and an effort made to move away from them in later years of
the demonstration.
Other guidelines for setting weights for the six factors are: (a)
Weights may be assigned any value, in increments of 0.1, from 0.1 to
1.0; (b) At least three factors must have a weight of 1.0; and (c) No
more than one factor can have a weight of less than 0.5. For all six
factors, therefore, the weights must sum from 4.1 to 6.0.
8. Voluntary Pay Reduction and Pay Raise Declination
A provision exists today for an employee to request a change to
lower grade. If that request is totally the employee's choice, then the
employee's salary is lowered accordingly. Although the rationale behind
such a voluntary request varies, under CCS a voluntary request for a
pay reduction or a voluntary declination of a pay raise would
effectively put an over-compensated employee's pay closer to or below
the standard pay line. Since an objective of CCS is to properly
compensate employees for their contribution, the granting of such
requests is consistent with this goal. Under normal circumstances, all
employees should be encouraged to advance their careers through
increasing contribution rather than trying to be under-compensated at a
fixed level of contribution.
To handle these special circumstances, employees must submit a
request for voluntary pay reduction or pay raise declination during the
30-day period immediately following the annual payout, and show reasons
for the request. All actions will be appropriately documented.
9. Implementation Schedule
The 1996 employee annual appraisal will be done according to Air
Force performance plan rules in effect at the time of the 1996 close-
out. The 1997 appraisal cycle will also begin but is not anticipated to
be completed due to the implementation schedule of this demonstration
project. The first assessment cycle under CCS will commence the day the
demonstration is implemented and run through 30 September 1997. The
first CCS payout will be given in the traditional first full pay period
in calendar year 1998.
10. CCS Grievance Procedures
An employee may grieve the assessment received under CCS.
Nonbargaining unit employees, and bargaining unit employees covered by
a negotiated grievance procedure which does not permit grievances over
performance ratings, must file assessment grievances under
administrative grievance procedures. Bargaining unit employees, whose
negotiated grievance procedures cover
[[Page 24637]]
performance rating grievances, must file assessment grievances under
those negotiated procedures.
E. Contribution-based Reduction in Pay or Removal Actions
This section applies to reduction in pay or removal of
demonstration project employees based solely on inadequate
contribution. Adverse actions procedures under 5 CFR 752 remain
unchanged.
When an employee's contribution plots in the area above the upper
rail of the SPL (section III D 3) the employee is considered to be in
the Automatic Attention Zone (AAZ). In this case, the supervisor has
two options. The first is to take no action but to document this
decision in a memorandum for record. A copy of this memorandum will be
provided to the employee and to higher levels of management. The second
option is to inform the employee, in writing, that unless the
contribution increases to, and is sustained at, a higher level, the
employee may be reduced in pay or removed.
These provisions also apply to an employee whose contribution
deteriorates during the year. In such instances, the group of
supervisors who meet during the CCS assessment process may reconvene
any time during the year to review the circumstances warranting the
recommendation to take further action on the employee.
The supervisor will afford the employee a reasonable opportunity (a
minimum of 60 days) to demonstrate increased contribution commensurate
with the duties and responsibilities of the employee's position. As
part of the employee's opportunity to demonstrate increased
contribution, the laboratory will offer assistance to the employee.
Once an employee has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate increased contribution, the laboratory may propose a
reduction in pay or removal action. If the employee's contribution
increases to a higher level and is again determined to deteriorate in
any area within 2 years from the beginning of the opportunity period,
the laboratory may initiate reduction in pay or removal with no
additional opportunity to improve. If an employee has contributed
appropriately for 2 years from the beginning of an opportunity period
and the employee's overall contribution once again declines, the
laboratory will afford the employee an additional opportunity to
demonstrate increased contribution before determining whether or not to
propose a reduction in pay or removal.
An employee whose reduction in pay or removal is proposed is
entitled to a 30 day advance notice of the proposed action that
identifies specific instances of inadequate contribution by the
employee on which the action is based. The laboratory may extend this
advance notice for a period not to exceed an additional 30 days. The
laboratory will afford the employee a reasonable time to answer the
laboratory's notice of proposed action orally and/or in writing.
A decision to reduce in pay or remove an employee for inadequate
contribution may be based only on those instances of inadequate
contribution that occurred during the 2 year period ending on the date
of issuance of the advance notice of proposed action. The laboratory
will issue written notice of its decision to the employee at or before
the time the action will be effective. Such notice will specify the
instances of inadequate contribution by the employee on which the
action is based and will inform the employee of any applicable appeal
or grievance rights.
The laboratory will preserve all relevant documentation concerning
a reduction in pay or removal which is based on inadequate contribution
and make it available for review by the affected employee or designated
representative. At a minimum, the laboratory's records will consist of
a copy of the notice of proposed action; the written answer of the
employee or a summary thereof when the employee makes an oral reply;
and the written notice of decision and the reasons therefore, along
with any supporting material including documentation regarding the
opportunity afforded the employee to demonstrate increased
contribution.
When the action is not taken because of contribution improvement by
the employee during the notice period, the employee is not reduced in
pay or removed, and the employee's contribution continues to be deemed
adequate for 2 years from the date of the advanced written notice, any
entry or other notation of the proposed action will be removed from all
laboratory records relating to the employee.
F. Voluntary Emeritus Corps
Under the demonstration project, laboratory directors/commanders
will have the authority to offer retired or separated employees
voluntary assignments in the laboratories. This authority will include
employees who have retired or separated from Federal service, including
those who have accepted a buy-out. The voluntary emeritus corps will
ensure continued quality research while reducing the overall salary
line by allowing higher paid employees to accept retirement incentives
with the opportunity to retain a presence in the scientific community.
The program will be of most benefit during manpower reductions as
senior S&Es could accept retirement and return to provide valuable on-
the-job training or mentoring to less experienced employees.
To be accepted into the emeritus corps, a volunteer must be
recommended by laboratory managers to the laboratory director/
commander. Everyone who applies is not entitled to a volunatry
assignment. The laboratory director/commander must clearly document the
decision process for each applicant (whether accepted or rejected) and
retain the documentation throughout the assignment. Documentation of
rejections will be maintained for 2 years.
To encourage participation, the volunteer's federal retirement pay
(whether military or civilian) will not be affected while serving in a
voluntary capacity.
Volunteers will not be permitted to monitor contracts on behalf of
the government or to participate on any contracts where a conflict of
interest exists.
An agreement will be established between the volunteer, the
laboratory director/commander, and the Civilian Personnel Flight. The
agreement must be finalized in advance and shall include as a minimum:
(a) a statement that the voluntary assignment does not constitute
an appointment in the civil service and is without compensation,
(b) the volunteer waives any and all claims against the Government
because of the voluntary assignment except for purposes of on-the-job
injury compensation as provided in 5 U.S.C. 8101(1)(B),
(c) volunteer's work schedule,
(d) length of agreement (defined by length of project or time
defined by weeks, months, or years),
(e) support provided by the laboratory (travel, administrative,
office space, supplies),
(f) a one page SDE,
(g) a provision that states no additional time will be added to a
volunteer's retirement credit as a result of being a member of the
voluntary emeritus corps,
(h) a provision allowing either party to void the agreement with 10
working days written notice, and
(i) the level of security access required (any security clearance
required by the assignment will be managed by the
[[Page 24638]]
laboratory while the volunteer is a member of the emeritus corps).
G. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF) Procedures
Reduction-in-force is not the vehicle for addressing contribution/
disciplinary problems properly addressed under section III E or 5
U.S.C. 75, Adverse Actions. When there is a requirement to reduce the
size of the laboratory workforce due to a lack of funds, lack of work,
or other reason specified in 5 CFR 351.201, demonstration project
employees will be identified for reduction using the following
procedures.
A separate competitive area will be established by geographic
location for all laboratory personnel included in the demonstration
project. The revised RIF procedures apply to all regular career S&Es
(including those who have not completed their probationary period).
Each laboratory shall establish competitive levels consisting of
all positions in a competitive area which are in the same broadband
level and occupational family and which are similar enough that the
incumbent of one position could succeed in the new position without any
loss of productivity beyond that normally expected in the orientation
of any new, but fully qualified, employee. The laboratory directors/
commanders, or their designee, will observe and participate with the
appropriate Civilian Personnel representative in all placement actions.
Competing employees shall be ranked on a retention register on the
basis of their annual CCS assessment (X), veterans preference,
and length of service. The X is determined by plotting an
individual's annual CCS score and present salary as a point on a graph
and computing the difference between the position of that point and the
contribution point on the SPL for the employee's salary rate. This is
computed by actual CCS score minus expected SPL point for that salary
rate and may result in positive, zero, or negative X. This
X replaces the annual performance rating in the RIF definition
and is the primary factor in determining an employee's retention
standing.
The retention order will be as follows:
(a) All regular career employees, including those employees who
have not completed a probationary period, will be listed on the
retention register based on an individual's X consisting of an
average of the three most recent CCS assessments of record. The
employees will then be divided into three categories: (1) above the
upper rail (a X less than -0.30), (2) within the two rails (a
X equal to or greater than -0.30 and less than or equal to
+0.30), and (3) below the lower rail (a X greater than +0.30).
(b) All employees within each of these three categories will tie
for the purposes of RIF. Ties will be broken by using an employee's
veterans preference for RIF (i.e., 30 percent disabled veterans will be
listed first, followed by other veterans, and all non-veterans will be
listed last).
(c) Ties within this latter category will be broken based on
Service Computation Date (SCD). No additional credit will be added to
the SCD based on the CCS annual assessments.
Until the first CCS assessment is given under the demonstration
project, traditional RIF rules will be followed. Should a RIF occur
between the first and second CCS assessment dates, employees will have
their SCD adjusted based on the employee's two most recent annual
performance ratings of record received during the 3-year period prior
to implementation of the demonstration project. Effective with the
second CCS assessment date, no credit will be given for ratings
received outside the demonstration project.
One objective of the demonstration project is to ensure lower
ranked contributors are the first to be RIFed while continuing to
preserve Veterans Preference. After 3 years of evaluating CCS and the
revised RIF process, a decision will be made whether or not to continue
the RIF process described above or to consider alternatives.
Employees serving under a contingent appointment will not have a
right to compete for retention in RIF. Accordingly, these employees
will be listed at the bottom of the appropriate retention register and
must be separated before any regular career employees can be released
from the competitive level.
To provide adequate time to determine employee retention standing,
the laboratory will establish a cutoff date--a minimum of 30 calendar
days prior to the issuance of RIF notices--after which no new CCS
assessments will be put on record and used for purposes of RIF. When a
cutoff date is used, employees will receive their X for the
three most recent CCS assessments received during the 4 year period
prior to the cutoff date.
To be creditable for purposes of RIF, an assessment must have been
issued to the employee, with all appropriate reviews and signatures,
and must be on record (e.g., the assessment is available for use by the
office responsible for establishing retention registers).
An employee who has received fewer than three annual CCS
assessments of record shall be ranked based on any actual assessment(s)
received and the required number of assumed assessment(s) of 0.0
X (the contribution factor for their current salary as defined
by the SPL).
An employee who has received a written decision under the
contribution-based actions provision of the demonstration described in
section III E competes under RIF from the position to which the
employee will be or has been demoted.
Assignment rights for employees identified for release from a
competitive level will be determined in the following order: (a) Vacant
positions--assignment may be made to any available vacant position in
the competitive area; then (b) Trumping--an employee with a higher
retention standing displaces another employee in another competitive
level in the same broadband level. Trumping replaces the bumping and
retreat action under the traditional RIF system.
Each competing employee is entitled to a specific written notice at
least 60 full calendar days before the effective date of release when a
significant number of employees will be separated. An employee is
entitled to a second written notice, as appropriate, at least 60 full
calendar days if the agency decides to take an action more severe than
first specified.
IV. Training
An extensive training program is planned for support personnel and
every employee in the demonstration project including managers,
supervisors, and S&Es. Training will be tailored to fit the
requirements of every employee included and will fully address employee
concerns to ensure everyone has a comprehensive understanding of the
program and to emphasize the benefits to employees. In addition,
leadership training will be provided to all managers and supervisors as
the new system places more responsibility and decision making authority
on their shoulders.
Using an existing task order contract through Armstrong Laboratory,
the training packages will be developed to encompass all aspects of the
project and validated prior to training the workforce. Specifically,
training is being developed for the following groups of employees:
(a) lab S&Es included in the demonstration,
(b) civilian and military supervisors and managers, and
(c) administrative support personnel, civilian personnel offices,
civilian pay offices, and HQ AFMC and center
[[Page 24639]]
personnel who must understand laboratory operations under the
demonstration.
Training requirements will vary from an overview of the new system;
to a more detailed package for laboratory S&Es; to very specific
instructions for both civilian and military supervisors, managers, and
others who provide personnel and payroll support.
Base level training personnel will provide local training
management, facilities, and support to laboratory directors/commanders.
Contract training personnel will be utilized where organic capabilities
are not available or not economically feasible. The training will
begin, and be completed, within the 90 days prior to implementation.
V. Conversion
A. Conversion to the Demonstration Project
Initial entry into the demonstration project for covered employees
will be accomplished through a full employee protection approach that
ensures each employee an initial place in the appropriate broadband
level without loss of pay. An automatic conversion from current GS/GM
grade and step into the new broadband system will be accomplished.
Special Salary Rates will no longer be applicable to demonstration
project employees. All employees will be eligible for the future
locality pay increases of their geographical area. Employees on Special
Salary Rates at the time of conversion will receive a new basic pay
rate computed by dividing their highest adjusted basic pay (i.e.,
special pay rate or, if higher, the locality rate) by the locality pay
factor for their area. A full locality adjustment will then be added to
the new basic pay rate. Adverse action and pay retention provisions
will not apply to the conversion process as there will be no change in
total salary. Employees who enter the demonstration project later by
lateral reassignment or transfer will be subject to parallel pay
conversion rules.
B. Conversion Back to the Former System
In the event the project ends, a conversion back to the former
(regular) Federal civil service system will be required. All employees
in a broadband level corresponding to a single General Schedule (GS)
grade will be converted to that grade. Employees in a multiple grade
broadband level will be considered to have attained the next higher
grade when they have been in the level at least 1 year and their salary
equals or exceeds the minimum salary of the higher grade. For employees
who are entitled to a special rate upon return to the General Schedule,
the demonstration project locality rate must equal or exceed the
minimum special rate of the higher grade. To set GS pay upon
conversion, an employee's demonstration project locality rate would be
converted (prior to leaving the project) to the highest General
Schedule rate range (i.e., locality rate range or special rate range)
applicable to the employee. If the employee's rate falls between the
fixed rates for the applicable range, it will be raised to the next
higher rate. The employee's GS basic rate (excluding special rates or
locality payments) would then be derived based on the grade and step
associated with this converted rate. Employees who leave the
demonstration project and return to the General Schedule pay system via
reassignment, promotion, demotion, or transfer are subject to parallel
pay conversion rules to determine the converted GS rates under the
demonstration project to be used in applying GS pay administration
rules (e.g., promotion rule or maximum payable rate rule) in setting
pay at the gaining agency.
VI. Project Duration
Public Law 103-337 removed any mandatory expiration date for this
demonstration. The project evaluation plan adequately addresses how
each intervention will be comprehensively evaluated for at least the
first 5 years of the demonstration. Major changes and modifications to
the interventions can be made through announcement in the Federal
Register and would be made if formative evaluation data warranted. At
the 5 year point, the entire demonstration will be reexamined for
either: (a) permanent implementation, (b) change and another 3-5 year
test period, or (c) expiration.
VII. Evaluation Plan
Authorizing legislation mandates evaluation of the demonstration
project to assess the merits of project outcomes and to evaluate the
feasibility of applications to other federal organizations. A
comprehensive and methodologically rigorous evaluation of the personnel
system changes will be carried out. The overall evaluation consists of
two components--external and internal evaluation. Both components will
be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to benefit from
their extensive experience evaluating demonstration projects. Further,
OPM will serve in the role of external evaluator to ensure the
integrity of the evaluation process, outcomes, and interpretation of
results. Their external evaluation will be supplemented by an internal
evaluation to be accomplished by the staff of the USAF laboratories.
Selected parts of the evaluation will be completed using contractor
support; the contractor(s) will be well qualified and experienced with
demonstrated expertise in performing relevant support functions.
Essential elements of the evaluation plan are set forth below. The
demonstration project is a complex experiment to be conducted in a
dynamic environment over several years. Modifications and refinements
to the evaluation plan will be made as required by mid-course project
changes. All additions, deletions, and refinements to the current plan
will be fully documented and explained as part of the evaluation
reporting process.
The main purpose of the evaluation is to determine the
effectiveness of the personnel system changes described by the
individual interventions. Every effort will be made to establish direct
cause-and-effect relationships between the interventions and
effectiveness criteria. An ancillary objective is to assess the effects
of the interventions on improved organizational performance. An
indirect causal link is hypothesized between the personnel system
changes and improved organizational effectiveness, e.g., improved
laboratory performance, mission accomplishment, and customer
satisfaction. The current personnel management system with its many
rigid rules and regulations often is perceived as a barrier to mission
accomplishment. Together, the demonstration project initiatives are
intended to remove some of those barriers, and, therefore, are expected
to contribute to improved laboratory performance.
The evaluation effort will be accomplished in four distinct phases:
(a) Design phase--includes development of the evaluation model,
selection of experimental and comparison sites, and collection of
baseline data prior to implementation;
(b) Implementation phase--includes actual project implementation
and monitoring of the degree and support of implementation to assure
that each of the project interventions has been operationalized as
originally conceived;
(c) Formative evaluation phase--includes data collection and
analysis for 5 years for purposes of evaluating the effects of the
interventions. Periodic reports and annual summaries will be prepared
to document the findings; and
(d) Summative evaluation phase--focuses on summary evaluation and
overall assessment of the project's
[[Page 24640]]
impact, including presentation of conclusions and final recommendations
upon completion of the project.
A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-implementation
comparisons will be employed. Baseline measures will be taken prior to
project implementation. Then, repeated measurements will be taken post-
implementation, throughout the formative evaluation phase, to allow
longitudinal comparisons.
Scientific and engineering personnel at all USAF laboratory sites
constitute the experimental group, leaving no laboratory site that can
be used to form a permanent, equivalent ``no treatment'' control group.
A control group is defined as consisting of employees managed under the
traditional Civil Service system.
Provisions are being made to address the lack of a control group by
collecting data from other non-equivalent sites for comparison
purposes. Options being explored are:
(a) Use Army and Navy laboratories as temporary control groups.
These laboratories are eligible to conduct personnel demonstration
projects under the authorizing legislation, and most, if not all, are
planning their own projects. Until their projects are approved, the
employees could serve as short-term controls.
(b) Construct a composite comparison group from laboratories in
civilian federal agencies, with occupational and other workforce
demographics comparable to those of the USAF laboratories.
An additional feature of the design calls for comparisons of trends
relative to those for prior demonstration projects now operating under
non-traditional personnel systems, including the National Institutes
for Standards and Technology (NIST) and Naval laboratories (Naval
Warfare Center and Naval Ocean Systems Center). A retrospective
analysis will be conducted to compare historic data from prior projects
with that obtained from the USAF laboratories on common measures
collected at equivalent points during the implementation and formative
evaluation phases.
As shown in Figure 4, a general evaluation model has been developed
which postulates: (a) specific intermediate effects of each individual
intervention, and (b) ultimate effects of the combined interventions on
organizational performance. Intermediate, intended outcomes are those
changes, as a result of the experimental interventions, which
contribute to achieving the ultimate goals. Further, efforts will be
made to assess unintended effects, that is, unanticipated impacts that
may be positive or negative in nature. Any changes can have unintended
outcomes, and those proposed for the demonstration project are no
exception. The evaluation methods and measures will be comprehensive in
design in order to capture unintended results. Moreover, as the results
of the intervention evaluation are being interpreted and conclusions
are being drawn, consideration will be given to the context in which
the demonstration project is occurring. Much of the context cannot be
controlled, but contextual events will be identified and considered in
the evaluation as potential intervening variables.
The effectiveness of each intervention and the project as a whole
in meeting stated objectives will be addressed using a multi-method
approach. Some methods will be unobtrusive in that they do not require
reactions or inputs from employees or managers. These methods include
analysis of archival workforce data and personnel office data, review
of logs maintained by site historians documenting contextual events,
and organizational records of scientific and engineering products and
research study progress reports. Other methods such as structured
interviews, focus groups, and attitude surveys will be used to collect
the perceptions of laboratory managers and supervisors, as well as
customers.
The specific measures to be collected using the different methods
will be deduced from the goals and objectives stated for each
intervention. Both quantitative and qualitative measures will be
obtained. Most of the potential measures can be grouped around three
major effectiveness criteria: speed, cost, and quality. Collectively,
the intermediate outcomes of the interventions are hypothesized to lead
to human resource management improvements, as reflected by timeliness,
cost-effectiveness, and quality. The same three criteria apply to
ultimate outcomes indicating organizational performance.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
[[Page 24641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY96.036
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
VIII. Demonstration Project Costs
A. Step Buy-Ins
Under the current pay structure, employees progress through their
assigned grade in step increments. Since this system is being replaced
under the demonstration project, employees will be awarded that portion
of the next higher step they have completed up until the effective date
of implementation. As under the current system, supervisors will be
able to withhold these partial step increases if the employee's
performance falls below fully successful.
The 1996 annual appraisal will be closed on the normal close-out
date of June 30, 1996. The first formal CCS assessment cycle will begin
on the effective date of implementation of the demonstration and will
end on September 30, 1997. The general increase to employee's base pay
in January 1997 will be handled under existing procedures. The first
CCS pay adjustments will be made during the first full pay period of
CY98. Future CCS pay adjustments will be effective the beginning of the
first full pay period of subsequent calendar years.
Rules governing Within-Grade Increases (WGI) under the current Air
Force performance plan will continue in effect until the implementation
date. Adjustments to the employees base salary for WGI equity will be
computed effective the date of implementation to coincide with the
beginning of the first formal CCS assessment cycle. WGI equity will be
acknowledged by increasing base salaries by a prorated share based upon
the number of days an employee has completed towards the next higher
step. Employees at step 10 on the date of implementation will not be
eligible for WGI equity adjustments since they are already at the top
of the step scale.
B. Cost Neutrality
The demonstration project is required to be cost neutral. A
baseline will be established at the start of the project and salary
expenditures will be tracked yearly. Implementation costs, including
the step buy-in costs detailed above, will not be included in the cost
neutrality evaluations.
Special Salary Rates will no longer be applicable to demonstration
project employees. The only factor in the pay equation which varies
from the current system is the allowance for step increases and
promotions, denoted by ``I.'' The 15 year demonstration project at
China Lake has demonstrated this number to average 2.4% per year. This
figure has been further validated by OPM. By limiting annual CCS based
pay increases to the general increases (G) plus 2.4% should, by
definition, maintain cost neutrality under CCS. If through the project
evaluation process it is determined that cost neutrality is not being
maintained, the ``I'' rate will be adjusted to a rate which will
provide for cost neutrality within 3 years.
C. Personnel Policy Boards
It is being recommended that each laboratory establish a Personnel
Policy Board that would consist of the senior civilian in each
directorate within the laboratory and be chaired by the laboratory
executive director. The board would be tasked with the following:
(a) Overseeing the civilian pay budget,
(b) Addressing issues associated with two separate pay systems (CCS
and GS) during the first phase of the demonstration project,
(c) Determining the composition of the CCS pay pools in accordance
with the established guidelines,
(d) Reviewing operation of the laboratory CCS pay pools,
(e) Providing guidance to pay pool managers,
(f) Administering funds to CCS pay pool managers,
(g) Integrating CCS with the free-market model,
(h) Reviewing hiring and promotion salaries,
(i) Addressing Manage to Budget (MTB) issues to include the
tracking of average salaries, and
[[Page 24642]]
(j) Monitoring award pool distribution by organization and by S&E
versus non-S&E.
Should the laboratory elect not to establish a Personnel Policy
Board, the charter of an existing group within each laboratory must be
modified to include the duties detailed above.
D. Developmental Costs
Costs associated with the development of the demonstration system
include software automation, training, and project evaluation. All
funding will be provided through the Air Force Science and Technology
budget. The projected annual expenses for each area is summarized in
Table 4. Project evaluation costs will continue for at least the first
5 years and may continue beyond.
Table 4.--Projected Developmental Costs
[Then year dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training........................ $170 $100 $50
Project Eval.................... 20 200 150 $150 $150
Automation...................... ...... 150 100 ...... ......
Data Systems.................... ...... 260 ...... ...... ......
---------------------------------------
Totals...................... 190 710 300 150 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation \10\
A. Waivers to Title 5, United States Code
Chapter 31, Section 3111: Acceptance of volunteer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Waiver required only to the extent that the project
conflicts with pertinent provision of law and regulation.
Chapter 33: Examination; selection; placement.
Chapter 35, Sections 3501-3502: Related to retention preference.
Chapter 43, Sections 4301-4305: Related to performance appraisal.
Chapter 51, Sections 5101-5102 and Sections 5104-5107: Related to
classification standards and grading.
Chapter 53, Sections 5301; 5302 (8) and (9); 5303; 5304 (only to the
extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees to be treated
as General Schedule employees and to allow basic rates of pay under the
demonstration to be treated as scheduled rates of basic pay); 5305;
5331-5336; and 5361-5366: Related to special pay; pay rates and
systems; grade and pay retention.
Chapter 55, Section 5545 (d): Related to hazardous duty premium pay
(only to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees
to be treated as General Schedule employees).
Chapter 57, Sections 5753, 5754, and 5755: Related to recruitment,
relocation, and retention payments; supervisory differential (only to
the extent necessary to allow employees and positions under the
demonstration project to be treated as employees and positions under
the General Schedule).
Chapter 75, Sections 7512 (3): Related to adverse action (but only to
the extent necessary to exclude reductions in broadband level not
accompanied by a reduction in pay) and 7512 (4): Related to adverse
action (but only to the extent necessary to exclude conversions from a
General Schedule special rate to demonstration project pay that do not
result in a reduction in the employee's total rate of pay).
B. Waivers to Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations
Part 300, Sections 300.601 through 300.605: Time-in-grade restrictions.
Part 308, Sections 308.101 through 308.103: Volunteer service.
Part 315, Sections 315.801 and 315.802: Probationary period.
Part 334, Section 334.102 : Temporary assignment of employees outside
agency.
Part 340: Other than full-time career employment.
Part 351, Sections 351.203; 351.403; 351.501; 351.504; 351.701;
351.801; and 351.805: Related to retention preference.
Part 430, Subpart A and Subpart B: Performance management; performance
appraisal.
Part 432, Sections 432.103 through 432.105: Performance-based
reduction-in-grade and removal actions.
Part 511, Subpart A, Subpart B, and Subpart F, sections 511.601 through
511.612: Classification within the General Schedule.
Part 530, Subpart C: Special salary rates.
Part 531, Subpart B, Subpart D, Subpart E, and Subpart F: Determining
rate of pay; within-grade increases; quality step increases; locality
payments (only to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project
employees to be treated as General Schedule employees and to allow
basic rates of pay under the demonstration project to be treated as
scheduled rates of basic pay).
Part 536, Subpart A, Subpart B, and Subpart C: Grade and pay retention.
Part 550, Sections 550.902: Hazard Pay, definition of ``employee''
(only to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees
to be treated as General Schedule employees).
Part 575, Sections 575.102 (a)(1), 575.202 (a)(1), 575.302 (a)(1), and
Subpart D: Recruitment and relocation bonuses; retention allowances;
supervisory differentials (only to the extent necessary to allow
employees and positions under the demonstration project to be treated
as employees and positions under the General Schedule positions).
Part 752, Sections 752.401 (a)(3): Reduction in grade and pay (but only
to the extent necessary to exclude reductions in broadband level not
accompanied by a reduction in pay) and 752.401 (a)(4) (but only to the
extent necessary to exclude conversions from a General Schedule special
rate to demonstration project pay that do not result in a reduction in
the employee's total rate of pay).
[FR Doc. 96-12131 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.