[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64050-64071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31625]
[[Page 64049]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Office of Personnel Management
_______________________________________________________________________
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel Demonstration
Project at the Naval Sea Systems Command Warfare Centers; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 /
Notices
[[Page 64050]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel
Demonstration Project at the Naval Sea Systems Command Warfare Centers
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice of approval of Demonstration Project final plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 1995
(P.L. 103-337) authorizes the Secretary of Defense, with Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) approval, to conduct a Personnel
Demonstration Project at Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories
designated as Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories. The
legislation requires that most requirements of Section 4703 of Title 5
shall apply to the Demonstration Project. Section 4703 requires OPM to
publish the project plan in the Federal Register.
DATES: This Demonstration Project may be implemented by the Warfare
Centers beginning on March 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Warfare Centers: Shirley Scott, Deputy Demonstration Project Manager,
NSWCDD, HR Department, 17320 Dahlgren Road, Dahlgren, VA 22448, 540-
653-4623.
OPM: Fidelma A. Donahue, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E.
Street, NW, Room 7460, Washington, DC 20415, 202-606-1138.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
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 Warfare Centers'
Personnel Demonstration Project involves a simplified classification
system for GS employees, performance development and incentive pay
systems, a streamlined reduction-in-force system, and a simplified
examining and appointment process.
2. Overview
Twenty-three letters were received and one individual commented on
the Federal Register notice at the Public Hearing. These comments
brought several new perspectives to the attention of those responsible
for implementing, overseeing, and evaluating the project. The comments
highlighted instances of miscommunication and misunderstanding with the
present system as well as the project interventions. Further, they
underscored the importance of providing training to employees and
supervisors on the Demonstration Project. The substance of all comments
received has been conveyed to the Warfare Centers' Executive Group and
the Commanding Officers and Executive Directors of the seven Warfare
Center Divisions in the event that local policies, processes and
training sessions may benefit from such perspectives. A summary of all
comments received, along with accompanied responses, is provided below.
(A). General Management Issues
Comments: Several comments expressed concern over a Demonstration
Project which provides additional flexibility to supervisors and
suggested that these flexibilities will allow for or promote abuses and
compromises of the merit system. With the feeling that many supervisors
currently do not properly execute supervisory responsibilities or
utilize the authority and tools provided under the current system,
these employees fear a new system that gives supervisors additional
flexibility over their career and pay. Several comments mentioned that
no checks or oversight seem apparent and that management accountability
is lacking under the Project.
Response: The Warfare Centers acknowledge that the Personnel
Demonstration Project provides increased authority and responsibility
to supervisors, particularly in those areas impacting employees' pay.
The Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) experience with other
Personnel Demonstration Projects, including the ``China Lake'' Project,
does not support the assumption that increased supervisory discretion
and authority leads to merit system abuses. However, the Warfare
Centers are sensitive to the concerns expressed by many of the comments
and are committed to holding supervisors accountable for the proper use
of increased authorities and flexibilities. To assist supervisors in
carrying out their new responsibilities, the Demonstration Project
currently requires that supervisors be trained on the new system and
receive feedback from a number of sources, including employees, on
their supervisory skills and leadership behaviors. Aggregate data from
the feedback process will be made available to the top management of
the Warfare Center Divisions and will be used to monitor and identify
further supervisory development and training needs. Additionally,
extensive independent evaluations of the Personnel Demonstration
Project will be conducted by OPM's Personnel Resources and Development
Center (PRDC) over the first five years of the project. The results of
these evaluations will provide the Warfare Centers with information as
to whether specific provisions of the project need to be modified,
continued as is, or curtailed.
(B). Career Path and Broad Bands
Comments received on this aspect of the Personnel Demonstration
Project were related to several subtopics.
(1) Assignment of Occupations to Career Paths
Comments: Several comments were submitted raising concern about the
identification of occupations to career paths. These comments expressed
a belief that such segmentation of the workforce is counterproductive
to a teaming environment and may lead to a form of career path or
series-based discriminatory actions. For the most part, these comments
were specifically related to the assignment of GS-346, Logistician
positions, to the Administrative/Technical (NT) Career Path.
Response: The Career Paths selected for the Warfare Centers'
Personnel Demonstration Project are substantially similar to those used
in the ``China Lake'' Personnel Demonstration Project with a few
modifications made to further streamline the classification and
compensation processes. The Warfare Centers' Personnel Demonstration
Project groups positions by occupations under one of three Career
Paths--Scientific/Engineering (ND); Administrative/Technical (NT); and
General Support (NG). Each career path covers occupations similarly
treated in regard to type of work, typical career progression, and
qualification requirements. Using these criteria, positions designated
as Logistician, GS-346 series, are assigned to the Administrative/
Technical (NT) Career Path.
(2) Band Levels and Salary Ranges
Comments: Two individuals expressed concern that the proposed broad
banding structure reduces the number of formal promotion events,
removes the social distinctions between project leaders and workers,
and results in a loss of status currently associated with the General
Schedule grade level. Another individual offered an opinion that a
system which includes seventeen
[[Page 64051]]
broad bands is contrary to the stated objective of making ``the
distinctions between levels easier to discern and more meaningful.''
Others perceive that the proposed broad banding system serves to
unfairly discriminate against women and minorities in that these groups
of employees are predominately assigned to the Administrative and
Technical (NT) and General Support (NG) Career Paths whose full
performance levels are lower than that assigned to the Scientific and
Engineering (ND) Career Path. Comments also questioned the use of a
salary overlap between the broad bands and raised concern over the
reallocation of pay upon conversion for special salary rate employees.
Response: The Warfare Centers recognize there may be a concern over
the perceived loss of status and frequency of promotions that result
from a broad banding system. Broad banding systems, by their very
nature, serve to reduce the number of formal promotion events and to
remove some of the distinctions among positions common to the General
Schedule classification system. Results of the ``China Lake'' project
did not indicate that this was a continuing concern of the workforce
during the life of the project. The key objectives of the Warfare
Centers' Broad Banded Classification System are to simplify the current
classification system, reduce distinctions between levels of work, and
provide managers greater flexibility to make assignments as work needs
warrant.
The grouping of General Schedule grades into broad bands under each
of the three career paths was based on the typical career progressions
and full performance level of positions under the current General
Schedule system. In addition, the salary progression of each career
path is reflective of typical salary progression present in the non-
Federal sector. It was not based on non-merit factors such as race,
sex, gender, age, or national origin. Experience of the ``China Lake''
Project, used as a model for the Warfare Centers' Personnel
Demonstration Project, did not support the concerns. To assist the
Warfare Centers in monitoring this important issue, data on band level,
salary, and workforce demographics, supplemented by perceptual data,
are included in the planned evaluation strategy. Evaluation results
will alert the Warfare Centers of any unintended outcomes of the broad
banded classification system and will serve as the basis for decisions
to modify, continue as currently stated, or to curtail the
Demonstration Project.
The salary range of each broad band, with the exception of Band I
of each career path and ND VI, has been extended to cover the salary
range of the next lower General Schedule grade. The extended salary
range serves to replicate the overlap found in the current General
Schedule system and was included to facilitate assignment and pay
setting flexibilities and to control costs that would otherwise occur
upon promotions. The pay special salary rate employees receive under
the current system is in many cases encompassed within the salary range
of the broad banding system. The special provisions for reallocating
the pay of special salary rate employees were included in the project
to avoid payment of an unintended windfall.
(3) Lack of Salary Progression for GS-13 Scientists and Engineers
Comment: Several comments were received on the lack of salary
progression for those individuals who will convert into the Personnel
Demonstration Project at the top end of the recognized full performance
level, in particular Scientists and Engineers at the GS-13 level. One
individual suggested a modification to the Project to have a salary
range extending beyond step 10 of the GS-13 grade level.
Response: This issue results from high grade controls that impact
on all of the Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel
Demonstration Projects. Any negative impact under the Demonstration
Project will be no greater than that under the current General Schedule
system.
(C). Performance Appraisal and Performance Development System
Comment: Concern was expressed over the proposed change to a two
level (pass/fail) rating system stating that such a system would de-
motivate employees. Others expressed concern about the lack of
specificity in the requirements for setting and communicating
performance expectations, i.e., timing, format, documentation
requirements. Additionally, comments were made that the non-adverse
reduction to a lower band level would be perceived by employees as an
adverse action.
Response: Since the initial development of the Personnel
Demonstration Project, the Office of Personnel Management has modified
its regulations governing Performance Appraisal Systems granting
agencies the option of adopting a two level rating system. The planned
evaluation of this Demonstration Project will assist in providing data
on the merits of a pass/fail system.
The current performance appraisal system prescribes documentation
of performance standards and elements, includes a requirement for
periodic (mid-year) performance discussions, and establishes the format
for specified documentation requirements. Yet, as acknowledged by the
comments, many perceive the current system as not working despite these
requirements. The Warfare Centers believe it is essential that
employees fully understand performance expectations and will focus
significant training for supervisors to that end. This training will
cover setting and communicating performance expectations, providing
feedback, and communicating the linkage between performance
expectations and the incentive pay process. Furthermore, the Divisions
will determine documentation requirements which meet their specific
organizational needs, values, and cultures.
The reduction in band level may be taken only after an employee has
been placed on and failed a Performance Plan. Safeguards have been
provided in the Demonstration Project to ensure the decision to use the
non-adverse assignment to a lower band is well documented, used
appropriately, and allow employees avenues of redress.
(D). Incentive Pay System
Comment: A number of comments raised concern over the subjective
nature of the incentive pay criteria leaving the employee's salary
progression largely at the discretion of the supervisor. Additionally,
several viewed the criteria as being outside the control of the
employee and bearing little relationship to the employee's actual
performance. Several raised concern on management's ability to adjust
the size of the incentive pay fund in an attempt to maintain or lower
labor rates or delay the need for a reduction-in-force. Also one
comment expressed concern that the incentive payout would be limited to
granting bonus pay in lieu of salary increases, thus negatively
impacting the employee's retirement pay.
Response: The Warfare Centers recognize that employee perceptions
of the success of the overall Personnel Demonstration Project will
largely be governed by their perceptions of the how well the Warfare
Centers manage the incentive pay system. A key flexibility to the
Demonstration Project is to provide the Divisions the authority to
manage an incentive pay system which best meets their needs in terms of
culture, values, and financial situations. The specific criteria and
process for incentive pay decisions as
[[Page 64052]]
well as the size of the incentive pay fund are some of the many aspects
of the Project which have been delegated to the Warfare Centers
Division and will not be defined at the Warfare Center level. The
project provides for supervisory training which will stress the
importance of establishing, interpreting, and communicating incentive
pay criteria to help employees understand what is expected in order to
receive incentive pay. Additionally, in exercising these authorities,
each Warfare Center Division will be prepared to communicate the
criteria, process, and decisions on the use of the incentive pay fund
to its workforce.
(E). Reduction-in-Force
Comment: Two comments included a concern that the revised
Reduction-In-Force system would provide management the ability to
target individuals and stated a belief that this targeting would be in
violation of veterans' preference rights or laws precluding
discrimination based on age. Additional comments raised concern about
the impact of the revised competitive area definition. This is seen as
limiting placement considerations and as a major threat to job
security.
Response: In developing the Personnel Demonstration Project, the
Warfare Centers adopted as one of the guiding principles the
preservation of veterans' preference laws. Extensive review of the
project interventions was conducted to ensure that no aspect of
veterans' preference entitlement has been adversely impacted.
Additionally, simulated reduction-in-force scenarios were conducted to
ensure that at a minimum the proposed changes did not adversely impact
on veterans, women, minorities and other protected groups when compared
with the current reduction-in-force system. The Personnel Demonstration
Project, including the revised reduction-in-force changes, may be
implemented within local bargaining units only through the collective
bargaining process. In the event that full agreement is not reached
prior to the need to conduct a reduction-in-force, the competitive area
was redefined to ensure that Demonstration Project participants and
non-Demonstration Project participants do not compete unfairly for
placement considerations.
(F). Miscellaneous Comments
Additional comments received on the Project Proposal requested that
the project remove the ceiling on overtime rates. One comment perceived
an inconsistency in the assignment of ``non-professional technicians''
to the Administrative/Technical (NT) career path and the exemption from
overtime provisions based on professional criteria. Another comment
communicated refusal to waive any portion of rights conveyed to
citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
Response: The Personnel Demonstration Project covers those
interventions which the Warfare Centers believe to be fundamentally
critical to successful mission execution and organizational excellence
and was not intended to address all problems associated with the
current General Schedule system. Together the interventions proposed
provide the Warfare Centers with the ability to obtain, develop,
incentivize, and retain high performers while being responsive to
business considerations and overall workforce costs. The project does
not modify the overtime provisions and the definitions of exemption
criteria under the Fair Labor Standards Act covered by Title 5, CFR
Part 551. This Demonstration Project has been developed under the
authority granted to agencies in Section 4703 of Title 5. Individual
permission is not needed to implement the Project. There is no
authority nor intent to waive individual constitutional rights.
3. Demonstration Project Clarifications
To clarify how classification appeals are to be processed under the
personnel demonstration project, additional language was incorporated
into section III.B.1. In addition, minor editorial and technical
clarifications were made to improve the final version of the personnel
demonstration project.
Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Problems With Present System
C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits
D. Participating Organizations/Mission
E. Participating Employees
F. Employee/Labor Participation
III. Methodology
A. Project Design
B. Personnel System Changes
1. Classification/Pay
2. Performance Development System
3. Incentive Pay System
4. Reduction-In-Force (RIF)
5. Competitive Examining/Distinguished Scholastic Appointments
C. Project Implementation
D. Entry Into/Exit From The Project
E. Project Duration
IV. Evaluation Plan
V. Waivers of Law/Regulation
VI. Cost
VII. Project Oversight/Management
I. Executive Summary
The Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Naval Undersea Warfare
Center, designated as Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories,
wish to conduct a Personnel Demonstration Project similar in nature to
that of the 1980 Demonstration Project approved for the Naval Weapons
Center, China Lake, and Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego. The
Warfare Centers' project includes the following key project components:
A Broad Banding Classification and Pay System for ``white collar''
employees; a Performance Development System; an Incentive Pay System; a
new Reduction-in-Force (RIF) system; and a Competitive Examining and
Appointment System. The Warfare Centers' project addresses an
organization which is substantially larger (over 23,000 employees), has
greater diversity of mission than previous projects, and has extensive
union involvement at all major sites. In addition, the project plan has
been developed with on-going involvement of the various unions
represented in the Warfare Centers.
II. Introduction
A Purpose
The overall goal of the Demonstration Project is to implement a
Human Resource Management System that facilitates mission execution and
organization excellence and responds to today's dynamic environment of
downsizing, restructuring and closures by obtaining, developing,
utilizing, incentivizing and retaining high performing employees; and
adjusting workforce levels to meet program and organizational needs.
The system to be demonstrated has the flexibilities to accommodate and
support wide-ranging activity missions, strategies and cultures. It is
responsive to business considerations and permits a high degree of
control over workforce costs. Clearly, it is more streamlined and
understandable for those who will use it as well as those affected by
it. Most importantly, it is focused not just on the needs of the
organization, but also on the needs of the people who are the
organization.
These objectives reflect the Federal and DoD goals of creating a
government that works better and costs less, and a flexible system that
can reduce, restructure or renew to meet diverse mission needs, expand
or contract a workforce quickly, respond to workload exigencies, and
contribute to quality
[[Page 64053]]
products, people and workplaces. The objectives also align with the
Federal and DoD values and guiding principles of empowering employees
to get results, maximum flexibility tempered with accountability,
innovation and continuous improvement, caring for people during
downsizing, and vital partnerships and teaming with all the
stakeholders in the process.
B. Problems With Present System
The Warfare Centers find the current Federal Personnel System to be
cumbersome, confusing, and unable to provide the flexibility necessary
to respond to the current mandates of downsizing, restructuring, and
possible closure while trying to maintain a high level of mission
excellence. The present system--a patchwork of laws, regulations, and
policies--often inhibits rather than supports the goals of developing,
recognizing, and retaining the employees needed to realign the
organization with its changing fiscal and production requirements.
The current Civil Service General Schedule (GS) system has 15
grades with 10 levels each and involves lengthy, narrative, individual
position descriptions, which have to be classified by complex, OPM-
mandated position classification standards. Because these standards
have to meet the needs of the entire federal government, they are often
not relevant to the needs of the Warfare Centers and are frequently
obsolete. Distinctions between levels are often not meaningful.
Currently, standards do not provide for a clear progression beyond the
full performance level, especially for science/engineering occupations
where career progression through technical as well as managerial career
paths is important.
In addition, there are limited mechanisms for dealing with an
employee who has been promoted out of his/her level of expertise or
who, after a successful career, has been unable to gain the skills
required of a new work environment. In most cases, the only possible
action may be a reduction in grade. Under the current system a demotion
to a lower grade is considered an adverse action even if there is no
loss in pay. Under the proposal, a reduction in band level without a
loss in pay will not be considered an adverse action.
Performance Management systems require additional emphasis on
continuous, career-long development in a work environment characterized
by an ever increasing rate of change. Since past performance and/or
longevity are the factors on which pay raises are currently assessed,
there is often no positive correlation between compensation and
performance contributions nor value to the organization. These limited
criteria do not take into account the future needs of the organization
nor other culturally relevant criteria which an organization may wish
to use as incentives.
The present Reduction in Force (RIF) process is highly complicated
and relatively unresponsive to requirements for rapid work force
restructuring and retention of employees with mission appropriate
skills. RIF is confused by an augmented service credit for performance
that is based in a performance appraisal system fraught with
contention. Round I adds complexity, confusion, and uncertainty. Cost
savings expected from RIF are drastically reduced by the inordinate
administrative costs of the process and the likelihood that the
employee ultimately separated will be at a lower grade than the
originally targeted position. Additionally there is the expense of
retained grade and retained pay. Current RIF procedures impact
negatively on morale because of the high number of people affected and
frequent misunderstandings of a complicated system that leaves affected
employees wondering why they have been ``targeted.''
And finally, the complexity of the current examining system creates
delays in hiring. Line managers find the complexity limiting as they
attempt to accomplish timely recruitment of needed skills. To compete
with the private sector for the best talent available, they need a
process which is streamlined, easy to administer, and allows for timely
job offers.
C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits
The proposed Demonstration Project responds to problems in the
classification system with a Broad Banding Classification system for GS
employees; to problems in the current performance management system
with a Performance Development and Incentive Pay System; to the
problems of the existing RIF procedures with a streamlined RIF system;
and to problems of complicated hiring and examining procedures with a
simplified examining and appointment process.
D. Participating Organizations/Mission
Both the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center will participate in the project. The Warfare Centers are
comprised of a total of seven Divisions with 14 major sites nationwide.
The sites are diverse in employment profiles and size and have
bargaining unit populations ranging from a small percentage to more
than half of the workforce. These organizations operate throughout the
full spectrum of research, development, test and evaluation,
engineering and fleet support.
The Warfare Centers are Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF)
activities. Under DBOF, the cost of operating is paid by billing
customers for work performed. The Warfare Centers seek to maximize
management flexibility to control expenditures since the continued
economic viability of a DBOF activity depends in large measure on
remaining cost competitive with other organizations.
E. Participating Employees
This Demonstration Project will involve civilian personnel at all
Warfare Center sites. There are 14 major sites (over 200 civilian
personnel) and many smaller sites. Currently 23,697 civilians are
employed as shown in Figure 1. The intent of the plan is to cover all
civilian appropriated fund employees at all sites with the exception of
the members of the Senior Executive Service. While the Demonstration
Project, and its five components, cover all General Schedule (GS)
employees, the Federal Wage System (FWS) employees are included only
for purposes of changes in the Performance Development, Reduction-In-
Force and Competitive Examining systems. Likewise, Senior Level (SL)
and Scientific and Technical (ST) employees are covered only under the
Incentive Pay, Performance Development and Reduction-In-Force systems.
The Demonstration Project may be implemented incrementally throughout
the Warfare Centers. The Demonstration Project will be implemented in
bargaining units when those units so request and a negotiated agreement
is reached. Approximately fifty percent of the workforce is represented
by unions.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[[Page 64054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE97.000
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
F. Employee/Labor Participation
One of the keys to developing a project plan sensitive to the
multiplicity of management and employee needs has been the involvement
of a Steering Committee composed of representatives from the Warfare
Center Divisions and six national unions having bargaining units at the
Warfare Center sites. The American Federation of Government Employees
(AFGE), Metal Trades Council (MTC), International Association of
Machinists (IAM), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE),
the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and Fraternal Order
of Police (FOP) represent more than half of the more than 25,000
employees in a variety of occupational groups at Warfare Center sites
across the United States. Appendix A further describes the employee/
union participation in this effort. The Steering Committee developed a
project plan capable of meeting the seemingly differing, sometimes
conflicting, goals of management and the unions. The Steering Committee
substantially altered the original concept to address those needs in
order to provide a viable implementation framework capable of meeting
the wide variety of cultures and needs across the Warfare Center
spectrum. The Steering Committee is also working to foster the
establishment of partnerships within the Warfare Centers.
The Steering Committee agreed to the following language with
respect to the implementation of the Demonstration Project in the
Warfare Center bargaining units. ``Essential to the success of the
Demonstration Project within a collective bargaining unit is the
explicit choice of the parties to freely enter into the project with
mutual agreement on all provisions associated with the project. To that
end, either party will have the option NOT to enter the project up to
the point where both parties sign a collective bargaining agreement
covering the Demonstration Project and, if required, that agreement is
ratified and approved. Further the parties may include in the contract
provisions for evaluating, modifying and leaving the project during the
life of the contract.'' Any disputes or impasses that arise in
connection with the negotiation on the implementation of the
Demonstration Project will be subject to mediation but not binding
impasse procedures. For any bargaining subsequent to adoption of the
Demonstration Project, the parties shall use impasse procedures defined
in 5 U.S.C. 7119 unless alternative impasse procedures have been
negotiated. In the event Executive Order 12871 is no longer in effect,
the parties within the Demonstration Project will continue to negotiate
issues covered by 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1) to the extent those issues impact
on the provisions of the Demonstration Project. Within bargaining
units, violations of provisions of the Demonstration Project may be
covered by the negotiated grievance procedure.
This Demonstration Project was developed with management and union
input through a collaborative process; however, it was agreed that
union participation did not necessarily constitute full and complete
endorsement of all details of the project. The Project will be
implemented in bargaining units only after there is full agreement
through the collective bargaining process.
While understanding that each bargaining unit will make its own
choice about participating in the Demonstration Project, the Steering
Committee has endeavored to create a project plan to fulfill the mutual
interests of management and employees while supporting the long term
objective of vital, competitive Warfare Centers capable of developing
and delivering the best possible technology to their customers.
III. Methodology
A. Project Design
An overarching objective in the project design has been the
development of a personnel system that provides a maximum opportunity
for local ``tailoring'' to meet the variety of requirements of
organizations engaged in missions ranging from theoretical research
into submarine vulnerability and survivability to the storage of
torpedoes. While the Divisions seek to recruit and retain world class
engineers and scientists in order to remain viable as laboratories,
they must also meet the development and motivational needs of an
extraordinarily diverse workforce; i.e., employees ranging from small
arms repairers in Crane, Indiana to program analysts in Newport, Rhode
Island. In order to accomplish that end, the goal is to begin the
process of delegating decision making to the people who know the most
about what they need and how to get their work accomplished: the
Divisions and sites.
While much of the Demonstration Project will be applied uniformly,
there are decisions which will be delegated to
[[Page 64055]]
the Divisions and activities so that the needs and cultures of those
organizations may be taken into account. Decisions at the local level
will be made through the collective bargaining process.
B. Personnel System Changes
1. Classification/Pay
A fundamental element of the system is a simplified white collar
classification and pay component. The proposed broad banding scheme
reduces the fifteen GS grade levels and the Senior Level (SL) and
Scientific & Technical (ST) pay levels, into five to six broad pay
bands. (See Figure 2) GS occupations are further broken down into three
separate career paths: Scientific and Engineering (ND), Administrative
and Technical (NT), and General Support (NG).
The OPM-developed classification standards are replaced by a small
number of one-page, generic benchmark standards developed within the
Demonstration Project. These standards also serve as the core of the
position description and replace lengthy individually tailored position
descriptions. These generic level descriptions encompass multiple
series and provide maximum flexibility for the organization to assign
individuals consistent with the needs of the organization, established
level or rank that the individual has achieved, and the individual's
qualifications. Career progression between levels will occur by
promotion, and pay progression within levels will occur through
incentive pay.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE97.001
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
The Warfare Centers' long experience with industrial funding will
ensure their ability to control costs, an essential requirement in
today's environment.
a. Career Paths. The Warfare Centers request exemption from the
current GS classification system and substitute career paths and band
levels. The designated career paths are: Scientific and Engineering
(ND), Administrative and Technical (NT), and General support (NG). Like
the China Lake system, the GS classification series would be retained.
More detailed descriptions of the career paths and the classification
series for each path are provided below. The breakdown of occupational
series to career paths reflects only those occupations which currently
exist within the two Warfare Centers. Additional series may be added as
a result of changes in mission requirements or OPM recognized
occupations. These additional series will be placed in the appropriate
career path consistent with the established career path definitions.
SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING: Professional engineering positions and
scientific positions in the physical, biological, mathematical, and
computer sciences; and student positions for training in these
disciplines. Series and titles included in the path are: 0401, General
Biological Science Series; 0403, Microbiology Series; 0408, Ecology
Series; 0440, Genetics Series; 0460, Forestry Series; 0471, Agronomy
Series; 0499, Biological Science Student Trainee Series; 0801, General
Engineering Series; 0803, Safety Engineering Series; 0804, Fire
Protection Engineering Series; 0806, Materials Engineering Series;
0807, Landscape Architecture Series; 0808, Architecture Series; 0810,
Civil Engineering Series; 0819, Environmental Engineering Series; 0830,
Mechanical Engineering Series; 0840, Nuclear Engineering Series; 0850,
Electrical Engineering Series; 0854, Computer Engineering Series; 0855,
Electronics Engineering Series; 0861, Aerospace Engineering Series;
0871, Naval Architecture Series; 0892, Ceramic Engineering Series;
0893, Chemical Engineering Series; 0894, Welding Engineering Series;
0896, Industrial Engineering Series; 0899, Engineering and Architecture
Student Trainee Series; 1301, General Physical Science Series; 1306,
Health Physics Series; 1310, Physics Series; 1313, Geophysics Series;
1320, Chemistry Series; 1321, Metallurgy Series; 1330, Astronomy and
Space Science Series; 1350, Geology Series; 1360, Oceanography Series;
1372, Geodesy Series; 1386, Photographic Technology Series; 1399,
Physical Science Student Trainee Series; 1515, Operations Research
Series; 1520, Mathematics Series; 1529, Mathematical Statistician
Series; 1530, Statistician Series; 1550,
[[Page 64056]]
Computer Science Series; 1599, Mathematics and Statistics Student
Trainee Series.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL: Professional or specialist positions
in such administrative, technical and managerial fields as finance,
procurement, human resources, computer, legal, librarianship, public
information, safety, social sciences, and program management and
analysis; nonprofessional technician positions that support scientific
and engineering activities through the application of various skills
and techniques in electrical, mechanical, physical science, biology,
mathematics, and computer fields; and student positions for training in
these disciplines. Series and titles included in this path are: 0018,
Safety and Occupational Health Management Series; 0020, Community
Planning Series; 0028, Environmental Protection Specialist Series;
0080, Security Administration Series; 0099, General Student Trainee
Series; 0101, Social Science Series; 0110, Economist Series; 0132,
Intelligence Series; 0170, History Series; 0180, Psychology Series;
0185, Social Work Series; 0187, Social Services Series; 0188,
Recreation Specialist Series; 0201, Personnel Management Series; 0205,
Military Personnel Management Series; 0212, Personnel Staffing Series;
0221, Position Classification Series; 0230, Employee Relations Series;
0233, Labor Relations Series; 0235, Employee Development Series; 0260,
Equal Employment Opportunity Series; 0299, Personnel Management Student
Trainee Series; 0301, Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series;
0334, Computer Specialist Series; 0340, Program Management Series;
0341, Administrative Officer Series; 0342, Support Services
Administration Series; 0343, Management and Program Analysis Series;
0346, Logistics Management Series; 0391, Telecommunications Series;
0399, Administration and Office Support Student Trainee Series; 0501,
Financial Administration and Program Series; 0505, Financial Management
Series; 0510, Accounting Series; 0560, Budget Analysis Series; 0599,
Financial Management Student Trainee Series; 0602, Medical Officer
Series; 0610, Nurse Series; 0690, Industrial Hygiene Series; 0802,
Engineering Technician Series; 0809, Construction Control Series; 0818,
Engineering Drafting Series; 0856, Electronics Technician Series; 0895,
Industrial Engineering Technician Series; 0899, Engineering and
Architecture Student Trainee Series; 0905, General Attorney Series;
0950, Paralegal Specialist Series; 0962, Contact representative; 1001,
General Arts and Information Series; 1010, Exhibits Specialist Series;
1015, Museum Curator Series; 1016, Museum Specialist and Technician
Series; 1020, Illustrating Series; 1035, Public Affairs Series; 1060,
Photography Series; 1071, Audiovisual Production Series; 1082, Writing
and Editing Series; 1083, Technical Writing and Editing Series; 1084,
Visual Information Series; 1101, General Business and Industry Series;
1102, Contracting Series; 1103, Industrial Property Management Series;
1104, Property Disposal Series; 1150, Industrial Specialist Series;
1152, Production Control Series; 1173, Housing Management Series; 1176,
Building Management Series; 1199, Business and Industry Student Trainee
Series; 1222, Patent Attorney Series; 1311, Physical Science Technician
Series; 1410, Librarian Series; 1412, Technical Information Services
Series; 1420, Archivist Series; 1521, Mathematics Technician Series;
1601, General Facilities and Equipment Series; 1640, Facility
Management Series; 1654, Printing Management Series; 1670, Equipment
Specialist Series; 1701, General Education and Training Series; 1710,
Educational and Vocational Training Series; 1712, Training Instruction
Series; 1810, General Investigating Series; 1811, Criminal
Investigating Series; 1910, Quality Assurance Series; 2001, General
Supply Series; 2003, Supply Program Management Series; 2010, Inventory
Management Series; 2030, Distribution Facilities and Storage Management
Series; 2032, Packaging Series; 2050, Supply Cataloging Series; 2101,
Transportation Specialist Series; 2130, Traffic Management Series;
2150, Transportation Operations Series; 2181, Aircraft Operations
Series.
GENERAL SUPPORT: Assistant and clerical positions providing support
in such fields as budget, finance, supply, human resources; positions
providing support through application of typing, clerical, or
secretarial knowledge and skills; positions providing specialized
facilities support such as guards, police officers and firefighters;
and student positions for training in these disciplines. This path
includes the following series and titles: 0019, Safety Technician
Series; 0029, Environmental Protection Assistant Series; 0081, Fire
Protection and Prevention Series; 0083, Police Series; 0085, Security
guard Series; 0086, Security Clerical and Assistance Series; 0134,
Intelligence Aid and Clerk Series; 0186, Social Services Aid and
Assistant Series; 0189, Recreation Aid and Assistant Series; 0203,
Personnel Clerical and Assistance Series; 0204, Military Personnel
Clerical and Technician Series; 0303, Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant
Series; 0304, Information Receptionist Series; 0305, Mail and File
Series; 0318, Secretary Series; 0322, Clerk-Typist Series; 0326, Office
Automation Clerical and Assistance Series; 0332, Computer Operation
Series; 0335, Computer Clerk and Assistant Series; 0344, Management
Clerical and Assistance Series; 0350, Equipment Operator Series; 0351,
Printing Clerical Series; 0356, Data Transcriber Series; 0361, Equal
Opportunity Assistance Series; 0382, Telephone Operating Series; 0390,
Telecommunications Processing Series; 0392, General Communications
Series; 0394, Communications Clerical Series; 0399, Administration and
Office Support Student Trainee Series; 0462, Forestry Technician
Series; 0503, Financial Clerical and Assistance Series; 0525,
Accounting Technician Series; 0530, Cash Processing Series; 0540,
Voucher Examining Series; 0544, Civilian Pay Series; 0561, Budget
Clerical and Assistance Series; 0640, Health Technician; 0647,
Diagnostic Radiologic Technologist Series; 0675 Medical Records
Technician Series; 0679, Medical Clerk Series; 0698, Environmental
Health Technician Series; 0945, Clerk of Court Series; 0986, Legal
Clerical and Assistance Series; 1087, Editorial Assistance Series;
1105, Purchasing Series; 1106, Procurement Clerical and Technician
Series; 1107, Property Disposal Clerical and Technician Series; 1411,
Library Technician Series; 1531, Statistical Assistant; 1702, Education
and Training Technician Series; 2005, Supply Clerical and Technician
Series; 2091 Sales Store Clerical Series; 2102, Transportation Clerk
and Assistant Series; 2131, Freight Rate Series; 2135, Transportation
Loss and Damage Claims Examining Series; 2151, Dispatching Series.
b. Broad Bands and Levels of Responsibility. A fundamental purpose
of broad banding is to make the distinctions between levels easier to
discern and more meaningful. In that regard, the 15 GS grade levels are
reduced to no more than six band levels, each representing a defined
level of work. Within each career path, bands typically include the
following categories of positions: student trainee and/or entry level,
developmental, full performance level, and expert and/or supervisor/
manager.
With fewer band levels than GS grades, the level of responsibility
reflected in each band typically
[[Page 64057]]
encompasses the responsibilities of two or more GS grade levels. For
example, the responsibilities of a band level covering work at the full
performance level may represent a synthesis of GS-11 and GS-12
responsibilities. For the NT career path, the responsibilities
associated with the top two bands do not precisely align with
equivalent GS levels. Some GS-14 level responsibilities band best with
GS-13 while others band best with GS-15.
Although Band VI of the ND career path covers SL and ST positions,
this does not represent a requested change in the basis for
classification or allocation of billets for these positions. The
authority to allocate new billets, classify positions and set initial
pay for assignment to SL and ST positions within the Warfare Centers
will be retained at the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs) level. (Accordingly, classification appeal procedures
for such positions are not affected by the provisions of this
demonstration project.) The intent of including these positions in the
ND career path was two fold: (1) to emphasize the dual career
progression for scientists and engineers in nonsupervisory and
nonmanagerial career paths; and (2) to include SL and ST employees in
all other aspects of the Demonstration Project, i.e., performance
development, incentive pay and reduction-in-force systems. Consistent
with our goal of developing, recognizing, and retaining employees
needed to meet our changing organizational needs, the Demonstration
Project seeks the authority to manage its SL and ST workforce under the
same performance development and incentive system as other employees.
This includes the authority at the Division level to adjust the pay of
SL and ST employees up to Level IV of the Executive Schedule. Incentive
pay decisions will be made against criteria relevant to the needs of
the organization including the criticality and difficulty of the
position, critical skills, and current salary level of the employees.
c. Simplified Classification Process. A limited number of Warfare
Center one-page generic, level descriptors that also serve as the core
of preclassified position descriptions will be created within the
Demonstration Project. Those descriptions may be further tailored with
an addendum to provide information on Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
coverage, selective placement factors, specialized knowledge/skills/
abilities, etc. Within the Demonstration Project, the term
``classification of a position'' for positions covered by broad banding
is defined as the placement of a position in its appropriate career
path, occupational series, and band level based on the application of
standards (referred to as level descriptions or benchmark standards)
established at the Warfare Center level. Line managers will be
meaningfully involved in the classification process to make it more
relevant to their organization's needs.
d. Classification Appeals. (Classification appeal procedures for SL
and ST employees placed in Band VI of the ND career path remain as
currently provided for and are not affected by the appeal procedures
described in this demonstration project.) An employee may appeal the
career path, series, or broad band level of his or her position at any
time. When doing so, the employee must formally raise the areas of
concern to the supervisor in the immediate chain of command. If an
employee is not satisfied with the supervisor response, he or she may
then appeal to the DOD appellate level via the employee's chain of
command and the Warfare Centers' Demonstration Project Office. Only
after DOD has rendered a decision under the provisions of this
demonstration project, may an employee file an appeal with the Office
of Personnel Management. Appellate decisions from OPM are final and
binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and
accounting officials of the Government. Time periods for case
processing under Title 5 apply.
An employee may not appeal the demonstration project classification
criteria, the accuracy of the level descriptor, or the pay setting
criteria; the assignment of occupational series to a career path; the
title of a position; the propriety of a salary schedule; or matters
grievable under an administrative or negotiated grievance procedure or
an alternative dispute resolution procedure. The evaluation of a
classification appeal under this demonstration project is based upon
the demonstration project classification criteria. Case files will be
forwarded for adjudication through the servicing human resources
organization and will include copies of the employee's level
descriptor, the addendum, and a copy of the Warfare Centers'
classification criteria along with other documents or information
required by the Office of Personnel Management.
e. Simplified Assignment Process. Today's environment of downsizing
and workforce transition mandates that the organization has maximum
flexibility to assign individuals. Broad banding can be used to address
these needs. As a result of the assignment to a particular level
descriptor, the organization will have maximum flexibility to assign an
employee within broad descriptors consistent with the needs of the
organization, and the individual's qualifications and rank or level.
Subsequent assignments to projects, tasks, or functions anywhere within
the organization requiring the same level and area of expertise, and
qualifications would not constitute an assignment outside the scope or
coverage of the currently level descriptor. Such assignments within the
coverage of the generic descriptors are accomplished as realignments
and do not constitute a position change. For instance, a technical
expert can be assigned to any project, task, or function requiring
similar technical expertise. Likewise, a manager could be assigned to
manage any similar function or organization consistent with that
individual's qualifications. This flexibility allows a broader latitude
in assignments and further streamlines the administrative process and
system.
f. Broad Bands and Salary Ranges. The basis for the Demonstration
Project pay system is each band level having a basic salary range that
exactly corresponds to salaries of three or more GS grade levels. This
continued linkage with the GS system will result in adjustments to the
salary ranges through future general and locality pay increases under
the General Schedule System. To more closely replicate the salary
overlap found in the current GS system, there is a one grade extended
salary overlap with each lower band for bands II and above. (See Figure
3) The one exception is the band for ST and SL positions (ND VI). The
pay range for these positions will be 120% of the minimum rate of basic
pay for GS-15 up to Level IV of the Executive Schedule. The purpose of
the salary overlap is twofold. First, it is to provide pay setting
flexibilities and cost containment opportunities in promotions. This
reduces the instances of nondiscretionary promotion pay increases of
greater than 6% that may otherwise be required to advance pay to the
lower end of the next higher band level. The second purpose is to
facilitate an assignment back to the next lower level without loss in
pay when appropriate.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[[Page 64058]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE97.002
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
g. Locality Pay and Special Salary Rates. For each band level., the
basic annual rate of pay will be adjusted to reflect the appropriate
locality pay percentage. The maximum locality rate for each band level
will be referred to as a ``locality pay point.'' When the special
salary rates authorized under the GS system exceed the locality pay
point, the top of the applicable band will be extended to the maximum
special salary rate authorized for that series and geographic location.
Placement within this special rate extension will be restricted to
employees in an occupation and location covered by that special rate.
An employee will be considered a special rate employee only if his/her
basic pay falls within the extension, i.e., the basic pay exceeds the
locality pay point. Consistent with the intent of locality pay, special
salary rate employees, as defined above, will not be eligible for
locality pay adjustments. When the locality pay point overtakes the
employee's rate of basic pay through general or locality pay increases,
the employee will no longer be considered a special salary rate
employee. In this instance, the employee's total adjusted basic pay
will be increased to the new locality pay point. The employee's new
adjusted salary will then be reallocated into a new basic pay and a
locality pay adjustment rate. Pay retention provisions and adverse
action procedures will not apply to the reallocation of the employee's
salary as the employee's total adjusted salary will remain the same.
h. Pay Administration. The following definitions and policies will
apply to the movement of employees within the Demonstration Project
from one career path or band level to another, or placement in a
Demonstration Project Career Path from the GS, FWS, or other personnel
systems:
ADVANCED IN-HIRE RATE: Upon initial appointment, the individual's
pay may be set anywhere within the band level consistent with the
special qualifications of the individual and the unique requirements of
the position. These special qualifications may be in the form of
education, training, experience, or any combination thereof that is
pertinent to the position in which the employee is being placed.
Geographic Movement Within the Demonstration Project: An employee
covered by broad banding who moves to a new duty station in a different
geographic area and continues to be an employee covered by the Warfare
Center Demonstration Project will have his/her pay in the new area
computed as explained below. In all cases, the geographic movement is
processed before any other simultaneous pay action (e.g., promotion,
reassignment, downgrade, change in series, etc.) effective on the same
day.
1. Regular Range Employees. An employee paid at a rate below the
locality pay point for his or her band level will receive no change in
his or her rate of basic pay upon geographic movement. The employee's
locality pay adjustment will be recomputed using the newly applicable
locality pay percentage, which may result in a higher or lower locality
pay adjustment and, thus, a higher or lower adjusted rate (locality
rate or special rate, as applicable). Exception: For employees who
would be eligible for a special rate under the GS system and who are in
the regular range of a band with a special rate extension, the new
adjusted salary following a geographic move may not be less than the
old adjusted salary multiplied by the factor derived by dividing the
new adjusted band maximum by the old adjusted band maximum.
2. Special Rate Extension Employees. For an employee being paid at
a rate in a special rate extension, the new adjusted salary following a
geographic move is equal to the old adjusted salary multiplied by the
factor derived by dividing the new adjusted band maximum by the old
adjusted band maximum; however the new adjusted rate may not be less
than the applicable locality pay point in the new area.
3. Pay Protection Provision. A special pay protection provision
applies to employees who (a) were entitled to a special rate
immediately before conversion into the Demonstration project, (b)
continue to meet the GS special rate eligibility conditions, and (c)
are paid at a rate that equals or exceeds the dollar amount of the pre-
conversion special rate. For these employees, the new adjusted rate
[[Page 64059]]
following a geographic move may not be less than the dollar amount of
the employee's pre-conversion special rate. Adverse action and pay
retention provisions of Title 5, United States Code, will not apply to
any reduction in basic pay due solely to the operation of the above
rules.
PROMOTION: Within the Demonstration Project Broad Banding system a
promotion will be defined as the movement of an employee from a lower
to a higher band level in the same career path, or from one career path
to another wherein the band in the new career path has a higher maximum
salary than the band from which the employee is moving.
After the implementation of the Demonstration Project, for an
employee moving from the GS, a promotion will be defined as placement
in a band level which incorporates a GS grade level which is higher
than the employee's current grade.
For an employee moving from the FWS, a promotion will be defined as
placement in the Demonstration Project in a band level where the
representative rate of the highest GS grade covered (i.e., step 04
adjusted rate of the highest GS grade) is higher than the
representative rate of the employee's current FWS grade (i.e., step
02).
Promotions will follow basic federal merit promotion policy that
provides for competitive and non-competitive promotions. Except for
promotions from the FWS to positions covered by the Demonstration
Project broad banding system, an employee will normally receive an
increase of six percent upon promotion unless a higher increase is
necessary to raise the employee's salary to the minimum salary of the
new band. The employee's total adjusted pay (basic pay and locality
pay; if any) will be used in determining the amount of the promotion
increase and in setting the employee's adjusted pay in the higher band.
Decisions not to increase pay or for increases of other than six
percent or to the minimum level of the band must be approved at the
Division level, unless otherwise delegated to lower levels. In no
situation may an employee's salary upon promotion be established lower
than the minimum salary range of the new band.
Factors to be used to help determine the amount of the increase may
include, but are not limited to, the employee's directly related
experience which may be of immediate use in the new position; the
employee's current pay; and the relationship to salaries of other
similarly qualified employees.
REASSIGNMENT: For movement within the Demonstration Project Broad
Banding system, a reassignment will be movement to a position covered
by the same band level, or from one career path to another when the
salary range of the new band level and the employee's current band
level remains the same.
For an employee moving from the GS, a reassignment will be defined
as placement in the Demonstration Project in a band level where the
highest GS grade covered is the same as the employee's current GS
grade.
For an employee moving from the FWS, a reassignment will be defined
as placement in the Demonstration Project in a band level where the
representative rate of the highest GS grade covered (i.e., step 04
adjusted rate of the highest GS grade included in that broad band) is
the same as the representative rate of the employee's current FWS
grade.
DEMOTION OR CHANGE TO LOWER BAND LEVEL: For movement within the
Demonstration Project Broad Banding system, a demotion will be defined
as the movement of an employee from a higher band to a lower band
within the same career path, or from one career path to another where
the band in the new career path has a lower maximum salary than the
band from which the employee is moving.
For an employee moving from the GS, a demotion will be defined as
placement in the Demonstration Project in a band level where the
highest GS grade covered is lower than the employee's current GS grade.
For employees moving from the FWS, a demotion will be defined as
placement in the Demonstration Project in a band level where the
representative rate of the highest GS grade covered (i.e., step 04
adjusted rate of the highest grade included in that pay band) is lower
than the representative rate of the employee's current FWS grade.
SALARY ADJUSTMENT: A salary adjustment is defined as an increase in
an employee's base pay (by other than the incentive pay process) within
the employee's current band level to an amount which does not exceed
the top of the band. The salary adjustment may be used to adjust the
pay of individuals who have acquired a level of education that would
otherwise make the employee qualified for an appointment at a higher
level and would be used in lieu of a new appointment. For example, this
authority may be used to adjust the pay of graduate level Cooperative
Education (COOP) students or employees who have obtained an advanced
degree, e.g., Ph.D.
OTHER: Current provisions for Highest Previous Rate, Pay Retention
(except as otherwise noted), Special Recruitment and Relocation
Bonuses, Retention Allowances and Accelerated Promotions will continue.
The use of OPM's Operating Manual for ``Qualification Standards For
General Schedule Positions'' will continue with minor modifications;
``Band'' will be substituted for ``Grade'' where appropriate and the
time in grade requirement will be eliminated.
2. Performance Development System
The philosophical base of this Demonstration Project is that
employees are valued and trusted and are the organization's most
critical assets. Accordingly, the primary objectives of the
Demonstration Project are to: develop employees to meet the changing
needs of the organization; to help employees achieve their career
goals; to improve performance in current positions; to retain high
performers, and to improve communication with customers, colleagues,
managers and employees. The system focuses on continuous performance
improvement and minimizes administrative requirements. On-going
dialogue between the employee and supervisor is fundamental to this
development focus, and Performance Development Resources are provided
as part of the system to facilitate this dialogue and assist with
diagnosis of performance issues. The emphasis on continued improvement
is carried over into the process for addressing performance problems.
The proposed system substitutes an early intervention which focuses
immediately on a formal performance plan designed to support the
employee's success. A determination of unacceptable performance is made
only if the employee does not meet the requirements for acceptable
performance detailed in that plan. The following paragraphs describe
the key components of the Performance Development System. Figure 4
depicts the relationship of these components and their linkage with the
Incentive Pay System.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[[Page 64060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE97.003
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
a. Performance Development Resources (PDR). At the heart of the
performance development system is the concept of providing
organizational resources to support the development process. While the
design of these resources will be delegated to each Division, they will
typically consist of a pool of people, including union representatives,
who act as a support system to identify or help provide for the needs
of employees and managers in the development process. Current
limitations regarding union involvement in discussions concerning
assigning and directing employees will not prevent the parties within
the Demonstration Project from developing appropriate procedures for
the Performance Development Resources.
The PDR will be available to facilitate communications around
expectations and needs, and help supervisors and employees seek
agreement throughout all aspects of the performance development
process. Should performance problems arise, the PDR will be
particularly useful in diagnosing issues impacting performance (e.g.,
employee skills, attitudes and motivation, clarity of job expectations,
systemic issues, access to information and resources, relationships
with co-workers and supervisor, etc.) and identifying options for
addressing these issues (e.g., development opportunities, tools or
equipment to support improved performance, reassignment of the employee
to a position that better matches his/her capabilities and interests,
etc.) They will also make referrals to others who may be helpful, and
identify systemic or organization wide issues which may be affecting
performance.
Supervisors are expected to utilize the PDR for assistance in
preventing and alleviating performance problems. Employees may also use
the PDR to assist them in correcting self-identified performance
problems, in development planning to enhance their career opportunities
consistent with the needs of the organization, and to facilitate
communication and feedback with their supervisors, etc.
b. Two Level Rating System. The system employs a two level rating
system: ``acceptable'' and ``unacceptable'' performance. ``Acceptable''
performance is defined as ``performance that fulfills the requirements
for which the position exists.'' An employee's performance may not be
determined ``unacceptable'' unless the employee has been placed on and
failed a performance plan. Employee performance ratings will be
documented annually.
c. Establishing Performance Expectations. Clear, mutually
understood performance expectations that are linked to organizational
goals, strategies and values are fundamental to successful individual
and organizational performance. The outcome of this component of the
Performance Development System is clear communication of the products
and/or services to be delivered by the employee(s), and the success
criteria against which those outputs will be assessed. Documentation of
outputs and success criteria is expected when necessary to facilitate
mutual understanding of performance expectations.
The most effective means of creating a common understanding is
through a process in which the supervisor and employee(s) discuss
requirements and establish performance goals and expectations.
Employees and supervisors are expected to actively participate in these
discussions to seek clarity regarding expectations and identify
potential obstacles to meeting goals. In addition, employees should
explain (to the extent possible) what they need from their supervisor
to support goal accomplishment. The timing of these goal setting
discussions will vary based on the nature of work performed, but will
occur at least annually. More frequent, task specific, discussions of
expectations may be more appropriate in some organizations. In cases
where work is accomplished by a team, team discussions regarding goals
and expectations may be appropriate,
[[Page 64061]]
however expectations for individual contributions to the team goals
should always be clearly specified. Either the supervisor, the
employee, or the union may enlist the assistance of the Performance
Development Resources to facilitate effective dialogue with regard to
these issues.
Documentation of performance expectations is a helpful mechanism
for ensuring clarity of understanding and providing a focus for later
discussions on progress and developmental needs. As a minimum, formal
documentation of expectations is required when an employee begins a new
or substantially different job. Documentation in other situations is
based on the needs and desires of the employee and supervisor, and may
rely on other existing documentation (e.g., project plans, process
documentation, customer requirements, etc.) No prescribed format is
required for such documentation; the employee and supervisor are
encouraged to seek agreement on what form of documentation will meet
their needs and who will be responsible for producing it. The
assistance of the Performance Development Resources may be enlisted by
either party to support their efforts to reach agreement. In bargaining
units, documentation procedures will be subject to bargaining. Current
limitations regarding union involvement in decisions concerning
assigning and directing employees will not prevent the parties within
the Demonstration Project from developing appropriate procedures for
documenting performance discussions.
d. On-going Performance Dialogue. To facilitate performance
development, employees and supervisors will engage in on-going
dialogue. Ideally this dialogue will occur as part of normal day-to-day
interactions for the purpose of ensuring a common understanding of
expectations, reviewing whether expectations are being met, providing
support in identifying resources or solving problems, providing
coaching on complex or sensitive issues, providing information to
increase the understanding of the project context, and keeping the
supervisor informed of progress. In addition to this on-going
interaction, however, it is expected that periodically a more formal
dialogue will occur focused on reviewing progress, discussing customer
feedback, exploring process improvements that could remove obstacles to
effective performance, and identifying developmental needs to support
continual improvement and career growth. The employee and supervisor
should seek agreement on the frequency and form for both the formal and
informal dialogues to ensure they will meet their needs. Either the
supervisor, the employee or the union may call upon the Performance
Development Resources to facilitate communications or conflict
resolution around these issues. In cases where work is accomplished by
a team, team meetings may be an appropriate forum for some of this
interaction, however team discussions do not eliminate the need for the
supervisor to have some form of individual dialogue with each employee.
The expected outcomes from this on-going dialogue component are
plans to support the continuous improvement of individual and
organizational performance. Documentation of these discussions and
resulting plans is encouraged to the extent that it contributes to
clarity of understanding and facilitates later review of progress on
continuous improvement efforts. The nature and content of such
documentation is based on the needs and desires of the employee and
supervisor. No prescribed format is required for such documentation;
the employee and supervisor are encouraged to seek agreement on what
form of documentation will meet their needs and who will be responsible
for producing it. The assistance of the Performance Development
Resources may be enlisted by either party to support their efforts to
reach agreement.
In bargaining units, these procedures are subject to bargaining.
Current limitations regarding union involvement in decisions concerning
assigning and directing employees will not prevent the parties within
the Demonstration Project from developing appropriate procedures for
ongoing performance dialogues and for documenting performance
discussions.
e. Feedback from Multiple Sources. The primary purpose of feedback
in the Performance Development System is to provide employees with
information regarding how well their performance is meeting customer
requirements in order to help the employees continually improve their
performance. The outputs expected from this component are data and
customer feedback which enable review of performance against success
criteria. These data provide input to the review and continuous
performance improvement planning discussed as part of the on-going
dialogue component.
The responsibility for employee development and continuous
improvement is jointly held between the supervisor and employee. They
are expected to work together to identify internal and external
customers and to define and implement a process by which the employee
can regularly receive feedback. A variety of mechanisms may be
appropriate, such as customer surveys, process measures which track
customer requirements, an discussions with customers. Supervisors are
expected to facilitate this process and work with employees to
interpret the feedback and establish improvement goals. Performance
Development Resources may be helpful during this process. Their
assistance may be requested by the supervisor, the employee or the
union. Current limitations regarding union involvement in decisions
concerning assigning and directing employees will not prevent the
parties within the Demonstration Project from developing appropriate
mechanisms and procedures for obtaining feedback from multiple sources.
Managers and supervisors are also expected to obtain feedback from
their customers, including their employees, and to use that feedback as
a basis for establishing both personal and organizational performance
development goals. The use of an anonymous instrument is appropriate
for providing feedback to supervisors and managers on the impact of
their behavior. The use of these instruments will help focus attention
on desired leadership behaviors, structure the feedback in a
constructive manner, and offset the power imbalance that often prevents
supervisors from getting useful feedback from their employees. When
necessary, supervisors and managers may choose to use the Performance
Development Resources to help support their own developmental needs.
f. Performance Plan. When an employee has continued performance
difficulties, the organization will provide a formal Performance Plan
to support the supervisor and employee in resolving Performance Plan to
support the supervisor and employee in resolving the performance
problems. Use of the Performance Development Resources will be an
integral part of this effort. Supervisors are expected to call on the
Resources for assistance in preventing or alleviating performance
problems before the need for formal action arises. When there is an
indication that performance is not consistently meeting customer
requirements, supervisors are expected to call on the Resources to
analyze the causes of the difficulty and develop an approach for
resolving it. Development of a formal Performance Plan is indicated if
and when it is determined that the employee's performance (vs. system
performance) is a contributor to the problem informal intervention has
[[Page 64062]]
not been successful in correcting the problem. Use of the Performance
Development Resources is expected throughout the period of the
Performance Plan in an attempt to facilitate a solution to the problem.
The Performance Plan must be written, and will clearly document
organizational expectations for successful job performance, specify
accountability, identify developmental resources to correct any skill
deficiencies, define the time frame of the performance plan, specify
organizational support that will be provided and how performance
results will be monitored. In addition, the Plan will clearly specify
the potential consequences if performance is not acceptable. Periodic
discussions between the supervisor and employee must occur during the
time frame of the Performance Plan to review progress; these
discussions must be documented. Current limitations regarding union
involvement in decisions concerning assigning, directing, removing or
reducing in grade employees will not prevent the parties within the
Demonstration Project from developing appropriate procedures and
documentation in connection with Performance Plans. (NOTE: Nothing in
this subsection will preclude action under Title 5, United States Code,
Chapter 75, when appropriate.)
g. Accountability for Performance. An employee will be given a
rating of ``unacceptable'' only if and when the employee is unable to
successfully complete the Performance Plan. When an employee's
performance is rated as ``unacceptable,'' one of four actions will be
taken: (1) removal from the Federal Service, (2) placement in a lower
band level with a corresponding reduction in pay (demotion), (3)
reduction in pay while remaining in the same band level, or (4)
placement in a lower band level with no reduction in pay (demotion).
For the third category of action, the amount of reduction in pay
will be up to, but may not exceed, the maximum amount of incentive pay
(see below) that the employee could be eligible to receive during the
current payout period, i.e., up to the equivalent of 4 continuing pay
points as of the most recent payout cycle. Following the pay reduction,
the objection is to restore performance and may commensurate with it. A
formal Development Plan will be established to maximize the opportunity
for success in the assignment by clearly identifying performance
expectations and defining a plan to achieve them within an appropriate
time frame, not to exceed 12 months. The activity's Performance
Development Resources will be utilized throughout this process. If and
when performance improves during the period in which the employee is
otherwise ineligible for incentive pay, some or all of the reduced pay
may be restored. Such restoration is not retroactive and is separate
and apart from incentive pay.
For the fourth category of action, the employee may be moved to the
next lower band level provided no loss in pay results and the
employee's pay does not exceed the top of the lower bank level. Within
the Demonstration Project, this would not be considered an adverse
action and would not be appealable through a statutory appeals process
except for preference eligible employees. Employees will be provided
with a written notice of the decision and preference eligibles will be
notified of their right to appeal the action to the Merit Systems
Protection Board. Current limitations regarding union involvement in
decisions concerning reducing employees in grade will not prevent the
parties within the Demonstration Project from developing procedures for
the non-adverse reduction in band level. The decision to reduce an
employee to a lower band level with no reduction in pay will be subject
to review under existing grievance or alternative dispute resolution
procedures.
3. Incentive Pay System
The Incentive Pay System provides a mechanism for encouraging and
rewarding performance contributions and other outcomes resulting from
the continuous improvement focus of the performance development system.
INCENTIVE PAY FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY BROAD BANDING: Supervisors
will conduct an annual review of each employee's salary and decide how
total compensation should be adjusted to reflect the employee's
performance contribution to the organization. The adjustment may be
made as a continuing increase to base pay and/or as a one-time cash
bonus to adjust total compensation. The philosophical foundation for
incentive pay is described below:
Principles of Incentive Pay
Background: One of the outcomes of pay banding is an expanded
range of pay progression opportunities for employees. This is
accomplished through ``incentive pay.'' Incentive pay is awarded to
people based on the value of their performance contributions to the
organization. With this comes the necessity to insure that pay
decisions are consistent with the needs and values of the
organization. At the same time, they must be seen as fair and
equitable. While the Demonstration Project provides discretion for
Warfare Center Divisions to substantially define the criteria and
process for managing incentive pay, it is appropriate that there be
general Project-wide principles that provide a policy framework for
division decisions. The following are those principles.
PRINCIPLE: ``The organization succeeds through the collective
contributions of people in all occupations.''
The Warfare Centers perform critical missions for the Navy in
support of national defense. These missions require the collective
efforts of all their people. While certain positions and occupations
are highly visible, it is the whole organization as a team pulling
in the same direction and towards the same goals that enables the
Centers to excel. In that regard, no occupational groups are to be
effectively excluded from opportunities for incentive pay and other
forms of recognition. Rather, there is an expectation that incentive
pay generally will be distributed proportionally to the various
career paths. Further, all people who are making positive
performance contributions as demonstrated by acceptable performance
will share in incentive pay. Amounts and time intervals will be set
by Divisions/sites.
PRINCIPLE: ``Pay should be commensurate with value of
performance to the organization.''
In general, an individual's total pay (base pay, plus any
incentive pay) should be commensurate with the value of the
performance contributions to the organization. Contributions may be
based on past and/or potential performance consistent with criteria
defined by the Warfare Center Divisions. In that regard, there
should be relative pay equity between people whose contributions to
the organization are of equal value. Consistent with this principle,
as the value of a person's contribution increases, compensation
should likewise increase. It follows that as an individual's
compensation increases, there is a corresponding increase in
expected performance contributions.
Typically, when a person is hired, or promoted to a higher band
level, and pay is at or near the lower end of that band, there are
expected successive increases in pay toward the mid range of that
band. This pay growth is reflective of a learning curve upon
entering a new position, and the corresponding increasing value to
the organization. Pay progression through the mid range occurs with
progressively higher levels of performance contributions. Beyond
that, extraordinary contributions are expected for pay to increase
through the upper levels of the band.
a. Eligibility. All employees who are making positive performance
contributions as demonstrated by acceptable performance will share in
incentive pay with the amounts and time intervals set by the Divisions
and sites. Employees receiving an unacceptable rating since the last
incentive payout are ineligible for the next incentive pay
consideration.
b. Incentive Pay Pool. Payments under the Incentive Pay System are
made from the incentive pay pool. Within the incentive pay pool, there
are separate
[[Page 64063]]
funds for continuing pay increases and bonus payments. The incentive
pay pool is not used to fund promotions between pay bands. It is also
not used to fund general pay increases, special rate increases, or
locality pay increases; rather, employees will continue to receive any
such increases (as applicable under the Plan) consistent with other
employees outside the demonstration project.
The incentive pay pool will be operated within the parameters of
the overall finance system governing the Warfare Centers. As a Defense
Business Operating Fund (DBOF) activity, the Warfare Centers are 100
percent industrially funded and operate as ``not-for-profit''
competitors within the Department of Defense. Under DBOF, the Centers
are reimbursed for their work by their customers through billings based
on stabilized rates. The assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial
Management and Comptroller oversees the establishment of these
stabilized rates through reviews of Biannual Financial Management
Budget submissions, which are highly visible at all Command levels.
This funding process imposes a discipline in controlling costs
(including salary expenditures for the Warfare Centers that is not
present under appropriated funded organizations.
The size of the continuing pay fund is based on appropriate
factors, including the following:
a. Historical spending for within-grade increases, quality step
increases, and in-level career promotions (with dynamic adjustments to
account for changes in law or in staffing factors e.g., average
starting salaries and the distribution of employees among job
categories and band levels);
b. Labor market conditions and the need to recruit and retain a
skilled workforce to meet the business needs of the organization; and
c. The fiscal condition of the organization.
Given the implications of base pay increases on long-term pay and
benefit costs, the amount of the continuing pay fund will be derived
after a cost analysis with documentation of the mission-driven
rationale for the amount. Any decision to substantially reduce the
amount of funds devoted to continuing pay increases would typically
occur only in lieu of more drastic cost cutting measures (e.g., RIF or
furlough). As part of the evaluation of the project, average salary
(base pay) will be tracked over time using two comparison groups: (1)
The original two Navy Demonstration labs in China Lake and San Diego,
and (2) a comparison group constructed using OPM's Central Personnel
Data File.
The size of the bonus pay fund will be based on appropriate
factors, including the following:
a. Historical spending for performance awards, special act awards,
and awards for beneficial suggestions;
b. The organization's fiscal condition and financial strategies;
and
c. Employee retention rates.
The decision process for defining the size of the incentive pay
pool and the two funds within that pool will be established at the
Division/site level. The design of the decision process, insofar as it
affects bargaining unit employees, will be subject to collective
bargaining.
d. Delegated Criteria Setting. The criteria and process for
incentive pay will be substantially defined at the Division/site level.
The incentive pay decision may be based on some combination of past,
present and future performance. Examples of criteria may include
criticality of skills, difficulty of position, criticality of position,
individual or team contributions, suggestions for improving system or
organization processes, length and/or quality of experience, current
total compensation, etc. The criteria and process for incentive pay
distribution for bargaining unit employees are subject to collective
bargaining. Current limitations regarding union involvement in
decisions concerning assigning and directing employees will not prevent
the parties from developing the criteria and process for incentive pay
decisions. (Note: The movement of an employee within a band based on
the execution of an incentive pay decision is not a ``classification''
action.)
e. Pay Points. The payout process will utilize a point system to
distribute incentive pay increases. A maximum of four (4) points will
be available, thus each employee performing in an acceptable manner
will be eligible to receive 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 pay points in the form of
continuing pay, bonus pay or some combination.
FOR FWS EMPLOYEES, cash awards continue to be available under the
existing Incentive Awards system based on performance and special acts.
f. Communication and Documentation. It is important that employees
understand what is expected in order to receive a pay increase.
Supervisors will interpret organizational criteria for their employees
to clarify how it applies to their work and have periodic assessment
discussions with employees to prevent surprise decisions at the time of
payout. These assessment discussions should normally be held separately
from performance development dialogues. Supervisors and employees are
encouraged to seek agreement on their documentation needs. In addition,
supervisors are expected to document their payout recommendation
decisions and to discuss their decision rationale with employees. In
bargaining units, documentation procedures will be subject to
bargaining. Current limitations regarding union involvement in
decisions concerning assigning and directing employees will not prevent
the parties from developing documentation procedures for the
communication and documentation of incentive pay discussions and
decisions.
g. Reconsideration of Incentive Pay Decisions. Employees will have
the opportunity for a reconsideration of incentive pay decisions. While
the specific purpose of the reconsideration is to address employee
concerns about such decisions, the process is also intended to
facilitate communication and understanding between employees and
supervisors/managers concerning performance contributions and their
impact on pay decisions. In addition, the process seeks to identify
possible systemic problems that need to be addressed. In that regard,
reconsideration is considered a positive and integral component of an
effective incentive pay system by providing a mechanism to support
continuous improvement. Accordingly, employees will not be discouraged
from requesting reconsideration. Neither will they be subjected to
reprisal or stigma. The specific process for reconsideration will be
defined at the Division/site level. Current limitations regarding union
involvement in decisions concerning assigning and directing employees
will not prevent the parties from developing procedures for the
reconsideration of incentive pay decisions. That process will include,
but will not necessarily be limited to, the following characteristics:
It should be administratively streamlined; provide expedited
resolution; maintain appropriate confidentiality; be fair and
impartial; address assertions of harmful error involving issues of
process and procedure; and ensure that management payout decisions
reflect reasonableness in judgment in evaluating applicable criteria.
h. Guidance on Managing Incentive Pay. Each Division is expected to
develop policies and criteria to guide the implementation of the
incentive pay system which are consistent with their mission,
strategies and organizational values, and supportive of the Naval Sea
[[Page 64064]]
Systems Command and Warfare Center strategic plans. Some Divisions may
rely on individual management judgment based on general guidance, while
other Divisions may define a more mechanical process based on highly
objective criteria. Additional guidance may be provided by major
organizational components (e.g., departments or directorates) to tailor
or interpret the command-level criteria for their specific mission and
strategies. Each major organizational component will have authority to
manage the incentive pay allocation derived from the salaries of
employees in that component. Departments/Directorates may further
delegate authority to mange a prorated portion of the fund to the next
lower echelon. Supervisors and managers within the unit will be
assessing the nature of each employee's contribution, consistent with
the organization's policy and criteria as reflected in the written
guidance. They will then make recommendations to a second level
reviewer regarding the number of pay points to be awarded to each
employee (i.e., 0 to 4 points) and the nature of incentive pay (i.e.,
continuing pay and/or bonus pay). Decisions regarding approval/
disapproval of recommendations will be made at the organizational level
to which authority has been delegated to manage the pay pool; typically
this will be the second or third level reviewer. In cases where work is
accomplished by a team, the team members may be involved in formulating
the recommendation for distribution of incentive pay.
4. Reduction-In-Force (RIF)
Flexible and responsive alternatives are needed to restructure an
organization in a short period of time. The current RIF system is
complicated, costly, and relatively unresponsive to the needs of the
organization.
The proposed RIF system will have a single round of competition to
replace the current ``two round'' process. Once the position to be
abolished has been identified, the incumbent of that position may
``displace'' another employee when the incumbent has a higher retention
standing and is fully qualified for the position occupied by the
employee with a lower standing. Retention standing is based on tenure,
veterans' preference, length of service, and performance. However,
there will be no augmented service credit based on performance ratings.
An employee rated as unacceptable during the 12 month period preceding
the effective date of a RIF may only displace an employee rated
unacceptable during that same period. The same ``undue disruption''
standard currently utilized will serve as the criteria to determine if
an employee is fully qualified. The displaced individual may similarly
displace other employees. If/when there is no position in which an
employee can be placed by this process or assigned to a vacant
position, that employee will be separated.
Displacement is limited to one broad band level below the
employee's present level. A preference eligible employee with a
compensable service connected disability of 30 percent or mre may
displace up to two broad band levels (or the equivalent of five General
Schedule grades) below the employee's present level. Employees not
covered by broad banding (FWS), may ``displace'' up to three grades/
intervals (five grades/intervals for preference eligibles with a
service connected disability of 30 percent or more).
The new system will eliminate retained grade but will preserve
retained pay.
All positions included in the Demonstration Project within an
activity at a specific geographic location will be considered a
separate competitive area.
5. Competitive Examining and Distinguished Scholastic Appointments
The Warfare Center needs a process which will allow for the rapid
filling of vacancies, is less labor intensive, and is responsive to our
needs. Restructuring the examining process and providing an authority
to appoint candidates meeting distinguished scholastic achievements
will help achieve these goals. When a Division implements the
Demonstration Project for some portion of their workforce, this
component may be available for all occupations. This will eliminate the
imposition of multiple examining and appointment systems on the public
and will strengthen efficiencies gained under the Demonstration
Project. To further minimize resource requirements and the complexities
inherent in administering two different sets of examining and hiring
processes, this component may also be applied to GS and FWS positions
in activities for which the Warfare Center Divisions provide human
resource services.
a. Delegated Examining Authority. The Warfare Centers propose to
demonstrate a streamlined examining process for both permanent and non-
permanent positions. This authority will be further delegated to the
Division level. This authority will apply to all positions with
exception of positions in the Senior Executive Service, to Senior Level
(ST/SL) positions, to the Executive Assignment System or positions of
Administrative Law Judge. This authority will include the coordination
of recruitment and public notices, the administration of the examining
process, the administration of veterans' preference, the certification
of candidates, and selection and appointment consistent with merit
principles.
b. Description of Examining Process: The primary change in the
examining process to be demonstrated is the grouping of eligible
candidates into three Quality Groups using numerical scores and the
elimination of consideration according to the ``rule of three''.
For each candidate, minimum qualifications will be determined using
OPM's Operating Manual for ``Qualification Standards For General
Schedule Positions''/``Job Qualification Systems For Trades and Labor
Occupations (Handbook X-118C)'' including any selective placement
factors identified for the position. Candidates who meet basic
(minimum) qualifications will be further evaluated based on knowledge,
skills and abilities which are directly linked to the position(s) to be
filled. Based on this assessment, candidates will receive a numerical
score of 70, 80, or 90. No intermediate scores will be granted except
for those eligibles who are entitled to veterans' preference.
Preference eligibles meeting basic (minimum) qualifications will
receive an additional 5 or 10 points (depending on their preference
eligibility) which is added to the minimum scores identified above.
Candidates will be placed in one of three quality groups based on their
numerical score, including any veterans' preference points: Basically
Qualified (score of 70 and above), Highly Qualified (score of 80 and
above), or Superior (score of 90 and above). The names of preference
eligibles shall be entered ahead of others having the same numerical
rating.
For scientific/engineering and professional positions at the
equivalent of GS-9 and above, candidates will be referred by quality
groups in the order of the numerical ratings, including any veterans'
preference points. For all other positions, i.e., other than
scientific/engineering and professional positions at the equivalent of
GS-9 and above, preference eligibles with a compensable service-
connected disability of 10 percent or more who meet basic (minimum)
eligibility will be listed at the top of the highest group certified.
In selecting the top candidate, selecting officials should be
provided with a reasonable number of qualified candidates from which to
choose. All
[[Page 64065]]
candidates in the highest group will be certified. If there is an
insufficient number of candidates in the highest group, candidates in
the next lower group may be certified in rank order. When two or more
groups are certified, candidates will be identified by quality group
(i.e., Superior, Highly Qualified, Basically Qualified) in the order of
their numerical scores. In making selections, to pass over any
preference eligible(s) to select a nonpreference eligible requires
approval under current pass over or objection procedures.
c. Distinguished Scholastic Achievement Appointment: The Warfare
Centers further propose to establish a Distinguished Scholastic
Achievement Appointment using an alternative examining process which
provides the authority to appoint undergraduates and graduates through
the doctoral level to professional positions at the equivalent of GS-7
through GS-11, and GS-12 positions involved in research.
At the undergraduate level, candidates may be appointed to
positions at a pay level no greater than the equivalent of GS-7 step 10
provided they meet the minimum standards for the position as published
in OPM's operating manual, Qualification Standards for General Schedule
Positions, plus any selective factors stated in the vacancy
announcement; the occupation has a positive education requirement; and,
the candidate has a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or better (on
a 4.0 scale) in those courses in those fields of study that are
specified in the Qualifications Standards for the occupational series.
Appointments may also be made at the equivalent of GS-9 through GS-12
on the basis of graduate education and/or experience for those
candidates with a grade point average of 3.5 or better (on a 4.0 scale)
for graduate level courses in the field of study required for the
occupation.
Veterans' preference procedures will apply when selecting
candidates under this authority. Preference eligibles who meet the
above criteria will be considered ahead of nonpreference eligibles. In
making selections, to pass over any preference eligible(s) to select a
nonpreference eligible requires approval under current objection
procedures. Priority must also be given to displaced employees as may
be specified in OPM and Department of Defense regulations.
Distinguished Scholastic Achievement Appointments will enable the
Warfare Centers to respond quickly to hiring needs with eminently
qualified candidates possessing distinguished scholastic achievements.
C. Project Implementation
While many of the basic elements of each component of the project
will be implemented uniformly at all sites through policies established
at the Warfare Center level, a number of policies, procedures, or
processes will be delegated to the Division and/or site levels. This
permits the system to be operationally defined, within a Warfare Center
directed framework, to fit the culture and needs of the local
organizations. In bargaining units, the project will be implemented
only after there is full agreement through the collective bargaining
process.
D. Entry Into/Exit From the Project
1. Initial Conversion of Current Workforce
For the most part, current GS/GM employees will be converted
automatically from their current grades to the appropriate career paths
and band levels. However, the Warfare Centers consider it essential to
the success of the project that employees, upon entering the project,
feel that they are not losing a pay entitlement accrued under the GS
system. Accordingly, the current employees of the Warfare Centers will
be ``made whole'' through a one year ``buy-in'' period. On the day of
conversion, employees typically will receive base pay increases for
prorated step increase equivalents. Employees at the 10th step or
receiving a retained rate are not eligible for the increase. Further,
during the first 12 months following conversion, employees will receive
pay increases for non-competitive promotion equivalents when the grade
level of the promotion is encompassed within the same band, the
employee's performance warrants the promotion and promotions would have
otherwise occurred during that period. Employees who receive an in-
level promotion at the time of conversion will not receive a prorated
step increase equivalent.
Additionally, in many cases, employees who are today covered by a
local or national special salary rate will no longer be considered a
special rate employee under the Demonstration Project and will thus
gain eligibility for full locality pay. To control conversion costs and
to avoid a salary increase windfall for these employees, the adjusted
salaries of these employees will not change. Rather, the employees will
receive a new basic pay rate computed by dividing their adjusted basic
pay 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.
2. New and Transfer Employees
New hires, including employees transferring from other Federal
activities, will be converted into the Demonstration Project in the
career path and at the level and pay consistent with the duties and
responsibilities of the position and individual qualifications.
3. Exit From the Demonstration Project
Employees who leave the Demonstration Project broad banding system
to accept federal employment in the traditional Civil Service system
will have their pay set by the gaining activity. To assist activities
in setting pay and in determining whether such placement constitutes a
promotion, reassignment, or change to lower grade, the employee's band
and salary level will be converted to a General Schedule equivalent
grade prior to leaving the Demonstration Project in the following
manner:
Employees who exit the Demonstration Project will be tentatively
converted to a GS grade most comparable to the employee's current
Demonstration Project level and salary. In instances where the current
salary is in the area between two overlapping GS grades within the same
level, the converted grade is either (1) the higher of the two
overlapping GS grades if the current salary meets or exceeds Step 4 of
the higher GS grade, or (2) the lower of the overlapping grades if the
current salary is less than Step 4 of the higher GS grade. In those
instances where the current salary falls below the established GS
salary range for the lowest GS grade covered by the Demonstration
Project band level, the converted grade is the lowest GS grade level in
that band. In those situations where an employee has not been promoted
or placed in a lower pay band while covered by the Demonstration
Project, the employee will be converted at a level which is no lower
than the GS grade held immediately prior to entering the Demo project.
This converted GS grade is the GS equivalent grade and is not
necessarily the grade the employee will have upon transfer or
reassignment outside the Demonstration Project. If the employee is
receiving a retained rate under the Demonstration Project, the
employee's GS-equivalent grade is the highest grade encompassed in his
or her bank level. The Warfare Center will coordinate with OPM to
describe a procedure for determining the GS-equivalency pay rate for an
employee retaining a rate under the Demonstration Project.
[[Page 64066]]
An employee's pay within the converted GS grade is set by
converting the Demonstration project adjusted rate of pay to a rate on
the highest applicable adjusted rate range for the converted GS grade
(including locality rates and special rates, as applicable). For
example, if the highest applicable adjusted rate range under the GS pay
system for a particular employee is a special rate range, the adjusted
project rate (locality rate or special rate) is converted to the lowest
special rate in that range that equals or exceeds the project rate;
from this converted special rate, the employee's unadjusted GS rate and
locality rate would be derived. This pay conversion is done before
processing any geographic movement or other pay-related action
coinciding with the employee's conversion out of the Demonstration
project.
When an employee transfers to another activity, the employee's
rating of record will be transferred. When the gaining activity uses
other than a two level performance system, the employee may be provided
a supplementary performance assessment using the gaining organizations
appraisal criteria. If the employee requests such an appraisal, the
employee will be responsible for providing the criteria to the
supervisor for completion. Gaining organizations are not bound to use
this supplementary performance appraisal in any formal actions.
Service under the Demonstration Project is creditable for within-
grade increase purposes upon conversion back to the GS system.
Incentive Pay increases (including a zero increase) under the
Demonstration Project are equivalent increases for the purpose of
determining the commencement of a within-grade increase waiting period
under 5 CFR 531.405(b).
E. Project Duration
The initial implementation period for the Project will be five
years. At that time, the entire Demonstration project will be
reexamined to determine whether to continue, modify or terminate the
Project.
IV. Evaluation Plan
Chapter 47 (Title 5 U.S.C.) requires that an evaluation system be
implemented to measure the effectiveness of the proposed personnel
management interventions. An evaluation plan for the entire laboratory
Demonstration program covering 24 DOD labs was developed by a joint
OPM/DOD Evaluation Committee. A Comprehensive evaluation plan was
submitted to the Office of Defense Research & Engineering in 1995 and
subsequently approved. (Proposed Plan for Evaluation of the Department
of Defense S&T Laboratory Demonstration Program, Office of Merit
Systems Oversight & Effectiveness, June 1995). The overall evaluation
effort will be coordinated and conducted by OPM's Personnel Resources
and Development Center (PRDC). The primary focus of the evaluation is
to determine whether the waivers granted result in a more effective
personnel system than the current as well as an assessment of the costs
associated with the new system.
The present personnel system with its many rigid rules and
regulations is generally perceived as an impediment to mission
accomplishment. The Demonstration Project is intended to remove some of
those barriers and therefore, is expected to contribute to improved
organizational performance. While it is not possible to prove a direct
causal link between intermediate and ultimate outcomes (improved
personnel system performance and improved organizational
effectiveness), such a linkage is hypothesized and data will be
collected and tracked for both types of outcome variables.
An intervention impact model (Appendix B) will be used to measure
the effectiveness of the various personnel system changes or
interventions. Additional measures will be developed as new
interventions are introduced or existing interventions modified
consistent with expected effects. Measures may also be deleted when
appropriate. Activity specific measures may also be developed to
accommodate specific needs or interests which are locally unique.
The evaluation model for the Demonstration Project identifies
elements critical to an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
interventions. The overall evaluation approach will also include
consideration of contact variables that are likely to have an impact on
project outcomes: e.g., HRM regionalization, downsizing, cross-service
integration, and the general state of the economy. However, the main
focus of the evaluation will be on intermediate outcomes, i.e., the
results of specific personnel system changes which are expected to
improve human resources management. The ultimate outcomes are defined
as improved organizational effectiveness, mission accomplishment and
customer satisfaction.
Data from a variety of different sources will be used in the
evaluation. Information from existing management information systems
supplemented with perceptual data will be used to assess variables
related to effectiveness. Multiple methods provide more than one
perspective on how the Demonstration project is working. Information
gathered through one method will be used to validate information
gathered through another. Confidence in the findings will increase as
they are substantiated by the different collection methods. The
following types of data will be collected as part of the evaluation:
(1) workforce data; (2) personnel office data; (3) employee attitudes
and feedback using surveys, structured interviews and focus groups; (4)
local activity histories; and, (5) core measures of laboratory
effectiveness.
V. Waivers of Law and Regulation
A. Waivers to Title 5, United States Code
Chapter 33, Section 3317(a): Competitive service, certification
from register (in so far as ``rule of three'' is eliminated under the
Demonstration project).
Chapter 33, Section 3318(a): In so far as ``rule of three'' is
eliminated under the Demonstration Project. Veterans preference
provisions remain unchanged.
Chapter 43, Section 4301: Definitions.
Chapter 43, Section 4302: Establishment of performance appraisal
systems.
Chapter 43, Section 4303: Modified to the extent that an employee
may be removed, reduced in band level with a reduction in pay, reduced
in pay without a reduction in band level or reduced in band level
without a reduction in pay based on unacceptable performance. For
employees who are reduced in band level without a reduction in pay,
Sections 4303(b) and 4303(e) (2) and (3) do not apply.
Chapter 43, Section 4303(b)(1)(A)(ii): Requirement for critical
elements.
Chapter 51, Section 5101-5111: Purpose, definitions, basis,
classification of positions, review, authority--To the extent that
white collar employees will be covered by broad banding. Pay category
determination criteria for Federal Wage System positions remain
unchanged.
Chapter 53, Section 5303; 5302 (1), (8), and (9); Section 5303; and
Section 5304: Pay Comparability System. (To the extent necessary to
allow Demonstration project employees covered by broad banding 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.) (This waiver does not apply to Federal Wage System (FWS)
employees. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST employees who
[[Page 64067]]
continue to be covered by these provisions, as appropriate.)
Section 404 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-509): Special Pay Adjustments for Law Enforcement Officers in
Selected Cities. (To the extent necessary to allow law enforcement
officers under the Demonstration project to be treated as law
enforcement officers under the General Schedule.)
Chapter 53, Section 5305: Special Pay Authority.
Chapter 53, Section 5331-5336: General Schedule Pay Rates.
Chapter 53, Section 5362: Grade Retention.
Chapter 53, Section 5363: Pay Retention. (Only to the extent
necessary to (1) replace ``grade'' with ``band level''; (2) allow
Demonstration Project employees to be treated as General Schedule
employees; (3) provide that pay retention does not apply to conversions
from General Schedule special rates to Demonstration project pay and
reallocations of Demonstration project pay rates within special rate
extensions to locality adjusted pay rates due to promotions or general
or locality pay increases, as long as the employee's total rate of pay
is not reduced; and (4) provide that pay retention does not apply to
reductions in basic pay due solely to the operation of the pay setting
rules for geographic movement within the Demonstration Project.) (This
waiver does not apply to FWS employees who continue to be covered by
these provisions, as appropriate. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST
employees unless they move to a GS equivalent position under conditions
that trigger entitlement to pay retention.)
Chapter 53, Section 5371: Health Care Positions. (Only to the
extent necessary to allow Demonstration project employees to hold
positions subject to chapter 51 of title 5. (This waiver does not apply
to FWS employees.)
Chapter 55, Section 5545(d): Hazardous Duty Differential. (Only to
the extent necessary to allow Demonstration project employees covered
by broad banding to be treated as General Schedule employees.) (This
waiver does not apply to FWS and SL/ST employees.)
Cgapter 57, Sections 5753, 5754, and 5755: Recruitment; Relocation
Bonuses; Retention Allowances; Supervisory Differentials: (Only to the
extent necessary to allow employees and positions under the
Demonstration project covered by broad banding to be treated as
employees and positions under the General Schedule.) (This waiver does
not apply to FWS employees. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST
employees who continue to be covered by these provisions, as
appropriate.)
Chapter 59, Section 5941: Allowances based on living costs and
conditions of environment; employees stationed outside continental
United States or Alaska (Only to the extent necessary to provide that
COLA's paid to employees under the Demonstration project are paid in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the President (as delegated
to OPM).
Chapter 71, Section 7106(a)(2): In so far as provision on assigning
and directing, documenting performance discussions, Performance
Development Resources, Performance Plans, criteria and process for
incentive pay, and communication and documentation requirements for
incentive pay and reconsideration of incentive pay decisions; and, in
so far as provision on reducing employees in grade may prevent the
parties from negotiating procedures for non-adverse assignment of
employees to a lower pay band.
Chapter 71, Section 7119(b)(1): In so far as provision for either
party to request impasse proceedings would be contrary to provisions of
the Demonstration project.
Chapter 75, Section 7512(3); To the extent necessary to (1) replace
``grade'' with ``band level''; and, (2) exclude reductions in band
level not accompanied by a reduction in pay taken under Chapter 43.
Chapter 75, Section 7512(4): Adverse Action. (Only to the extent
necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply to--
(1) conversions from General Schedule special rates to Demonstration
project pay and reallocations of Demonstration project pay rates within
special rate extensions to locality adjusted pay rates due to
promotions of general or locality pay increases, as long as the
employee's total rate of pay is not reduced; and (2) reductions in
basic pay due solely to the operations of the pay setting rules for
geographic movement within the Demonstration project.)
B. Waivers to Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations
Part 300, Sections 300.601 through .605: Time in grade restrictions
are eliminated in the Demonstration project.
Part 332, Section 332.401(b): Only to the extent that for non-
professional or non-scientific positions equivalent to GS-9 and above,
preference eligibles with a compensable service-connected disability of
10 percent or more who meet basic (minimum) qualification requirements
will be entered at the top of the highest group certified without the
need for further assessment.
Part 332, Section 332.402: ``Rule of three'' will not be used in
the Demonstration project.
Part 332, Section 332.404: Order of selection is not limited to
highest three eligibles.
Part 351, Section 351.402(b): Competitive area to the extent that
the Demonstration project will be a separate competitive area within
the activity.
Part 351, Sections 351.403 (a) and (b): Competitive levels to the
extent that there is no requirement for the establishment of
competitive levels in the Demonstration project.
Part 351, Section 351.404 (a) and (b): Retention register to the
extent that the requirement to establish separate retention registers
by competitive level is eliminated.
Part 351, Section 351.501(a)(3): For order of retention, delete
``as augmented by credit for performance'' under Section 351.504.
Part 351, Section 351.504: Credit for performance to the extent
that the Demonstration project eliminates service credit for
performance.
Part 351, Section 351.601 through .608: References to competitive
levels are eliminated.
Part 351, Section 351.701 (b) and (c) Assignment rights (bump and
retreat): To the extent that the distinction between bump and retreat
is eliminated and the placement of ``white collar'' Demonstration
Project employees is restricted to no more than one broad band level
below the employee's current level, except that for a preference
eligible with a compensable service connected disability of 30 percent
or more, the limit is two broad band levels (or the equivalent of five
General Schedule grades) below the employee's present level.
Part 430, Subpart B: Performance appraisal for General Schedule,
Prevailing Rate and certain other employees: Employees under the
Demonstration project will not be subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
Part 432: Modified to the extent that an employee may be removed,
reduced in band level with a reduction in pay, reduced in pay without a
reduction in band level and reduced in band level without a reduction
in pay based on unacceptable performance. Also modified to delete
referenced to critical element. For employees who are reduced in band
level without a reduction in pay, Sections 432.105 and 432.106(a) do
not apply, except that such sections continue to apply to preference
eligible employees.
[[Page 64068]]
Part 432, Section 432.104 and .105: Proposing and Taking Action
Based on Unacceptable Performance: In so far as references to
``critical elements'' are deleted and adding that the employee may be
``reduced in grade or pay or removed'' if performance does not improve
to acceptable levels after a reasonable opportunity. In addition,
requirements waived to the extent that a reduction in band level is
taken based on skill utilization criteria when there is no reduction in
pay.
Part 511, Section 511.201: Coverage of and exclusions from the
General Schedule (To the extent that White Collar positions are covered
by broad banding. Pay category determination criteria for Federal Wage
System positions remain unchanged)
Part 511, Section 511.601: Classification appeals--modified to the
extent that white collar positions established under this demonstration
project, although specifically excluded from Title 5, are covered by
the classification appeal process outlined in this section, as amended
below.
Part 511, Section 511.603(a): Right to appeal--substitute ``band''
for grade.
Part 511, Section 511.607(b): Non Appealable Issues--add to the
list of issues which are neither appealable nor reviewable, ``the
assignment of series under this demonstration project to appropriate
career paths.''
Part 530, Subpart C: Special Salary Rates.
Part 531, Subparts B, D, and E: Determining The Rate of Basic Pay,
Within-Grade Increases, and Quality Step Increases. (Except that the
provisions relating to highest previous rate under Parts 531.202 and
531.203 are waived only to the extent necessary to work in a broad
banding system.)
Part 531, Subpart C and F: Special Pay Adjustments for Law
Enforcement Officers and Locality-Based Comparability Payments. (Only
to the extent necessary to allow Demonstration Project employees
covered by broad banding to be treated as General Schedule employees
and to allow basic rates of pay under the Demonstration project to be
treated as scheduled annual rates of pay.) (This waiver does not apply
to FWS employees. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST employees who
continue to be covered by these provisions, as appropriate.)
Part 536: All provisions pertaining to grade retention.
Part 536, Section 536.104: Pay Retention. (Only to the extent
necessary to (1) Replace ``grade'' with ``band level''; (2) allow
Demonstration Project employees to be treated as General Schedule
employees; (3) provide that pay retention does not apply to--
conversions from General Schedule special rates to Demonstration
project pay and reallocations of Demonstration project pay rates within
special rate extensions to locality adjusted pay rates due to
promotions or general or locality pay increases, as long as the
employee's total rate of pay is not reduced; and (4) provide that pay
retention does not apply to reductions in basic pay due solely to the
operation of the pay setting rules for geographic movement within the
Demonstration Project.) (This waiver does not apply to FWS employees
who continue to be covered by these provisions, as appropriate. This
waiver does not apply to SL/ST employees unless they move to a GS
equivalent position under conditions that trigger entitlement to pay
retention.)
Part 550, Section 550.703: Severance Pay. (Modify the definition of
``reasonable offer'' by replacing ``two grade or pay levels'' with
``one band level'' and ``grade or pay level'' with ``band level.'').
(This waiver does not apply to FWS employees.)
Part 550, Section 550.902, definition of ``employee'': Hazardous
Duty Pay. (Only to the extent necessary to treat Demonstration project
employees covered by broad banding as General Schedule employees.)
(This waiver does not apply to FWS and SL/ST employees.)
Part 575, Subparts A, B, C, and D: Recruitment Bonuses, Relocation
Bonuses, Retention Allowances, and Supervisory Differentials. (Only to
the extent necessary to allow employees and positions under the
Demonstration project covered by broad banding to be treated as
employees and positions under the General Schedule.) (This waiver does
not apply to FWS employees. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST
employees who continue to be covered by these provisions, as
appropriate.)
Part 591, Subpart B: Cost-of-Living Allowances and Post
Differential-Nonforeign Areas. (To the extent necessary to allow
Demonstration project employees covered by broad banding to be treated
as employees under the General Schedule.) (This waiver does not apply
to FWS employees. This waiver does not apply to SL/ST employees who
continue to be covered by these provisions, as appropriate.)
Part 752: Section 752.401(a)(3): To the extent necessary to (1)
Replace ``grade'' with ``band level''; and (2) exclude reductions in
band level not accompanied by a reduction in pay taken under Chapter
43.
Part 752: Section 752.401(a)(4): Adverse Action. (Only to the
extent necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply
to--(1) conversions from General Schedule special rates to
Demonstration project pay and reallocations of Demonstration project
pay rates within special rate extensions to locality adjusted pay rates
due to promotions or general or locality pay increases, as long as the
employee's total rate of pay is not reduced; and (2) reductions in
basic pay due solely to the operation of the pay setting rules for
geographic movement within the Demonstration Project.
VI. Cost
The goal of this Demonstration Project is the implementation of a
system in which payroll costs and resource utilization can be
controlled consistent with the organization's larger fiscal strategies.
This is especially critical in our industrially funded (DBOF)
environment. The continued economic viability of the DBOF activities
depends in large measure on controlling expenditures and remaining cost
competitive with other organizations. This Demonstration Project
proposes a system of pay incentives and processes that are flexible and
can operate in harmony with the organization's operational needs and
the financial needs of the larger organization. The costs of project
implementation will be borne by the Divisions/sites.
Costs associated with the development of the Demonstration Project
include software automation, training and project evaluation. All
funding will be provided through the Warfare Centers budget. Training
costs will be approximately $192K per thousand employees. The timing of
the expenditure will be site specific and dependent upon the
implementation schedules. Because automation requirements will be
minimized as a result of system similarities to existing Navy
Demonstration Projects, costs are estimated at $100K for the first two
years of project implementation. Evaluation costs are estimated at
approximately $60K per year.
VII. Project Oversight and Management
Project oversight and management will be carried out by the Warfare
Centers' Executive Group, composed of the Commanders and Technical
Directors of the two Warfare Centers. They will be assisted by the
Demonstration Project Management Office and the Steering Committee.
(See Figure 5)
The Steering Committee, chaired by a senior executive or senior
Navy officer
[[Page 64069]]
appointed by the Executive Group, is comprised of a senior member of
each Division of the Warfare Centers, and a member from the American
Federation of Government Employees, Metal Trades Council, International
Association of Machinists, National Association of Government
Employees, National Federation of Federal Employees, and Fraternal
Order of Police. This group serves as an advisory body to the Executive
Group which makes final decisions on the Demonstration Project proposal
and implementation. The role of the Steering Committee is to aggregate
and analyze incoming data from formal and informal evaluations and make
recommendations. It may also include facilitating information sharing,
mediating impasses, and promotion of partnership roles.
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03DE97.004
BILLING CODE 6325-01-C
Appendix A--Employee/Union Involvement Methodology
From the inception of the Naval Sea Systems Command Warfare
Centers' Personnel Demonstration Project, employee involvement in
crafting the Project Proposal was viewed as essential to producing a
plan that considered the needs of all parties. National union
representatives participated as members of the steering Committee which
developed the Personnel Demonstration Project Proposal and will be
overseeing its implementation. While the process that produced the
Project Proposal was a collaborative one, union participation did not
necessarily constitute full and complete endorsement of all details of
the Proposal.
At the Warfare Centers' various Divisions and sites, employees and
unions are involved through a variety of communications strategies.
Within the Divisions, communications teams composed of a cross section
of the workforce have been formed for the purpose of disseminating
information about the project as well as a focal point for employee
questions. Further, Divisions are establishing groups or committees to
help guide the implementation of the Project throughout the
organization. This model of broad participation is envisioned to
continue throughout the life of the Demonstration Project.
Unions Represented
Dahlgren, VA: American Federation of Government Employees
White Oak, MD: American Federation of Government Employees; Metal
Trades Council
Panama City, FL: National Federation of Federal Employees
Crane, IN: American Federation of Government Employees; Fraternal Order
of Police
Louisville, KY: International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers
Carderock, MD: Metal Trades Council; Federal Firefighters Association
Pattern Maker Association
Annapolis, MD: National Federation of Federal Employees
Philadelphia, PA: Metal Trades Council; Fraternal Order of Police,
International Association of Firefighters
Ft. Lauderdale, FL: American Federation of Government Employees
[[Page 64070]]
Port Hueneme, CA: National Association of Government Employees; Federal
Union of Scientists and Engineers
Indian Head, MD: American Federation of Government Employees;
International Association of Firefighters; International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers
McAlester, OK: American Federation of Government Employees
Keyport, WA: Metal Trades Council
Newport, RI: National Association of Government Employees; Federal
Union of Scientists and Engineers
New London, CT: National Association of Government Employees
Appendix B--Project Evaluation and Oversight
Intervention Impact Model--DOD Lab Demonstration Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intervention and expected effects Measures Data sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. COMPENSATION
a. Broad banding:
Increased organizational Perceived flexibility........... Attitude survey.
flexibility.
Reduced administrative workload, Actual perceived time savings... Personnel office data, PME results,
paperwork reduction. attitude survey.
Advanced in-hire rates.......... Starting salaries of banded v. Workforce data.
non-banded employees.
Slower pay progression at entry Progression of new hires over Workforce data.
levels--increased pay potential. time by band, career path--mean
salaries by band, career path,
demographics.
Increased satisfaction with Employee perceptions of Attitude survey.
advancement. advancement.
Increased pay satisfaction...... Pay satisfaction, internal/ Attitude survey.
external equity.
Improved recruitment............ Offer/acceptance ratios......... Personnel office data.
Percent declinations............
No change in high grade (GS-14) Number/percentage of high grade Workforce data.
distribution. salaries pre/post banding.
b. Conversion buy-in: Employee Employee perceptions of equity, Attitude survey.
acceptance. fairness.
Cost as a percent of payroll.... Workforce data.
2. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
a. Cash awards/bonuses:
Reward/motivate performance..... Perceived motivational power.... Attitude survey.
To support fair and appropriate Amount and number of awards by Workforce data.
distribution of awards. career path, demographics.
Perceived fairness of awards.... Attitude survey.
Satisfaction with monetary Attitude survey.
awards.
b. Performance/contribution based
pay progresson:
Increased pay-performance link.. Perceived pay-performance link.. Attitude survey.
Perceived fairness of ratings Attitude survey.
Improved performance feedback... Satisfaction with ratings....... Attitude survey.
Employee trust in supervisors... Attitude survey
Adequacy of performance feedback Attitude survey.
Decreased turnover of high Turnover by performance rating Workforce data.
performers. category.
Increased turnover of low
performers:
Differential pay progression Pay progression by performance Workforce data.
of high/low performers. rating category, career path.
Alignment of organizational Linkage of performance Performance expectations, strategic
and individual performance expectations to strategic plans/ plans.
expectations and results. goals. Attitude survey/focus groups.
Performance expectations
Perceived involvement
Increased employee Performance management Attitude survey/focus groups.
involvement in performance procedures. Personnel regulations.
planning and assessment.
c. New appraisal process:
Reduced administrative burden... Employee and supervisor Attitude survey.
perception of revised
procedures.
Improved communication.......... Perceived fairness of process... Focus group.
d. Performance development:
Better communication of Feedback and coaching procedures Focus groups.
performance expectations. used. Personnel office data.
Time, funds spent on training by
demographics
Improved satisfaction and Organizational commitment....... Training records.
quality of workforce. Perceived workforce quality Attitude surveys.
Attitude survey.
3. ``WHITE COLLAR'' CLASSIFICATION
a. Improved classification systems
with generic standards:
Reduction in amount of time and Time savings.................... Personnel office data.
paperwork spent on Reduction of paperwork/number of
classification. personnel actions
(classification/promotion)
Ease of use..................... Managers' perceptions of time Attitude survey.
savings, ease of use, improved
ability to recruit.
Improved recruitment of employee Perceived quality of recruits... Focus groups/interviews.
with appropriate skills. GPA's of new hires, education Personnel office date.
levels
[[Page 64071]]
b. Classification authority
delegated to managers:
Increased supervisory authority/ Perceived authority............. Attitude survey.
accountability.
Decreased conflict between Number of classification Personnel records.
management and personnel staff. disputes/appeals pre/post.
Management satisfaction with Attitude survey.
service provided by personnel
office.
No negative impact on internal Internal pay equity............. Attitude survey.
pay equity.
c. Dual career ladder:
Increased flexibility to assign Assignment flexibility.......... Focus groups, surveys.
employees. Sup/non-sup ratios.............. Workforce data.
Improved internal mobility...... Perceived internal mobility..... Attitude survey.
Increased pay equity............ Perceived pay equity............ Attitude survey.
Flatter organization............ Supervisory/non-supervisory Workforce data.
ratios.
Improved quality of supervisory Employee perceptions of quality Attitude survey.
staff. of supervisors.
4. STAFFING/RECRUITMENT
Competitive examining and
categorical grouping:
Improved hiring process......... Management satisfaction with Attitude survey.
hiring process, time to hire,
perceived quality of new hires.
Increased quality of hires...... GPA's of new hires, education Personnel office data (from issue of
levels. Form 52 to referral of candidates).
Increased timeliness............ Time to fill positions.......... Attitude survey.
No negative impact on fairness Candidate/employee satisfaction.
of process, openness to
competition.
5. RIF
Modified RIF:
Prevent loss of high performing Separated employees by Workforce data.
employees with needed skills. demographics, performance. Attitude survey/focus groups.
Contain cost and disruption..... Satisfaction with RIF process... Attitude survey/focus groups.
Cost comparisons of traditional Rightsizing and documenting systems/
v. modified RIF. personnel office/budget data.
Time to conduct RIF
Number of appeals/reinstatements
6. COMBINATION OF ALL INTERVENTIONS
All:
Improved organizational Combination of personnel All data sources.
effectiveness. measures.
Improved management of R&D Employee/Management satisfaction Attitude survey.
workforce.
Improved planning............... Planning procedures............. Strategic planning documents.
Improved cross functional Perceived effectiveness of Attitude survey.
coordination. planning procedures. Organizational charts.
Actual/perceived coordination... Attitude survey.
Increased product success....... Customer satisfaction........... Customer satisfaction surveys.
Cost of innovation.............. Project training/development Demo project office records.
costs (staff salaries, contract Contract documents.
cost).
Training hours per employee)
7. CONTEXT
a. Regionalization:
Reduced servicing ratios/cost... HR servicing ratios............. Attitude survey.
average cost per employee served
No negative impact on service Service quality, timeliness..... Workforce data.
quality. Attitude survey/focus groups.
b. GPRA: Improved organizational Other measures to be developed.. As established.
performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-31625 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
