U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
Classification Appeal and FLSA Programs
Dallas Oversight Division
1100 Commerce Street, Room 4C22
Dallas, TX 75242-9968
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
	Appellant:		[appellants name]
	Agency classification:	Management Directives Specialist
				GS-301-9
	Organization:		[appellants specific organizational
				location]
				National Aeronautics and Space
		    		Administration
				[city, state]
	OPM decision:		GS-301-9
				title at agency discretion
	OPM decision number:	C-0301-09-03
 /s/ Bonnie J. Brandon
 _____________________________
 Bonnie J. Brandon
 Classification Appeals Officer
 July 17, 2001
 _____________________________
 Date
As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is
mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll,
disbursing, and accounting officials of the government. The
agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions
for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure
consistency with this decision. There is no right of further
appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only
under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to
the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section G
(address provided in appendix 4, section H).
 Decision sent to:
[appellant's name and address]
[name and address of appellant's designated
representative]
[servicing human resources office]
Director of Personnel
National Aeronautics and Space
 Administration
Washington, DC 20546
Introduction
The Dallas Oversight Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) accepted a classification appeal from [the
appellant] on April 10, 2001. [The appellant] is a Management
Directives Specialist, GS-301-9, assigned to [an organization] at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
[center, city, state]. The appellant believes that her position
should be classified as Management or Program Analyst, GS-343-15.
We have accepted and decided the appeal under section 5112 of
title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully
reviewed all information furnished by the appellant and her
agency, including the official position description (PD),
[number]. We also conducted a telephone audit with the appellant
and had telephone discussions with the appellant's supervisor,
the Center's chief counsel and his staff, and the Center's
classification and wage officer.
The appellant believes her PD accurately lists her major duties.
However, she believes that the level of knowledge required,
complexity and scope, and supervisory controls as they are
described in her official PD do not accurately reflect the level
and importance of her responsibilities at the Center.
General issues
The appellant indicated that she believes her position should be
at a higher grade level because the Center's employee previously
responsible for directives, issuances, and Privacy Act systems of
records as part of his duties was a GS-15. Additionally, the
appellant states that positions at other NASA centers with duties
and responsibilities similar to hers are graded at GS-13 and
above. By law, we must classify positions by comparing their
current duties and responsibilities to OPM position
classification standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and
5112). Since comparison to the standards is the exclusive method
for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant's
position to others as a basis for deciding her appeal.
Position information
The appellant is responsible for maintaining the Center's
Management Directives and Issuances System on the agencywide NASA
Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library. Her duties
include coordinating the review of new and existing Center
issuances and directives to ensure that they reflect current
agency and Center policy. The appellant provides guidance to
Center personnel on the proper preparation, processing, and
maintenance of directives. She ensures that proposed documents
do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other management
directives in the system. The appellant also reviews proposed
directives for clarity and editorial standards. When directives
are promulgated or revised by NASA headquarters, the appellant
prints the directives from NODIS, determines which Center
organizations may be affected, and routes copies of the
directives to the appropriate organizations for comments. The
appellant consolidates the comments and prepares a recommended
response for signature by the Center Director.
The appellant's duties as the Privacy Act Manager include
oversight for the Center's systems and subsystems of records. By
conducting periodic reviews, she ensures that the systems'
operating plans are implemented in compliance with the Privacy
Act and that appropriate procedures and safeguards are in place
in accordance with agency and Center policy. The appellant
reports the status of the systems to management as required. She
provides information on the Privacy Act, when requested, and
issues periodic notices reminding Center personnel of their
responsibilities under the Privacy Act. The appellant does not
provide legal interpretation on the Act; requests for legal
interpretations are handled by the Center's legal counsel.
Further, the appellant does not respond to external requests for
information covered by the Act. The Public Affairs Officer at
the Center responds to external requests for such information.
Series determination
The Management and Program Analysis Series, GS-343, covers
positions that primarily serve as staff analysts, evaluators, and
advisors to management on the effectiveness and efficiency with
which agencies and their components carry out their assigned
programs and functions. Management and Program Analysts' major
duties include developing and conducting studies and other types
of analyses in order to provide line managers objectively based
information for making decisions on administrative and
programmatic aspects of agency management and operations. The
predominant knowledges required for positions in this series are
of management principles and processes and the analytical and
evaluative methods and techniques for assessing program
development or execution and improving effectiveness and
efficiency.
The GS-301 Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series covers
positions involved in the performance of two-grade interval work
for which no other series is appropriate. This series includes
specialized work which requires analytical ability, judgment,
discretion, and knowledge of a substantial body of administrative
and/or program principles, concepts, policies, and objectives.
The appellant reviews local and headquarters level directives and
issuances to determine which Center organizations may be affected
and for compliance with agency and Center policy and guidelines.
She also analyzes the directives to ensure new or revised
directives do not conflict with existing directives and that
there are no inconsistencies when more than one organization has
made changes to a policy. If inconsistencies are found, the
appellant requests the originating organizations to review and
resolve them. The type and level of analysis conducted by the
appellant does not approach the depth and breadth of analysis
envisioned in the GS-343 Management and Program Analysis Series
where analysts make assessments of a whole program's
effectiveness. Further, the paramount qualification required for
the appellant's position is the procedural knowledge of preparing
a directive or issuance for publication and of NODIS rather than
knowledge of management principles and analytical and evaluative
methods for assessing program effectiveness and efficiency. The
analytical knowledge, the substantive knowledge of the directives
program, and the knowledge of the principles or concepts of
administration required for the appellant's position meet the
criteria for the GS-301 series. Therefore, the appellant's
position is appropriately assigned to the GS-301 series.
Title and guide determination
There are no titles prescribed for positions in the GS-301
series. Agencies may designate the official title of GS-301
positions, consistent with guidelines in the Introduction to the
Position Classification Standards.
The GS-301 standard has no associated grade evaluation criteria.
The Center used the Administrative Analysis Grade Evaluation
Guide (which is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES)
format) and the Primary Standard (the "standard for FES
standards") to evaluate the appellant's work. We agree that the
Guide is appropriate for evaluation of the appellant's work. The
Guide provides grade level criteria for nonsupervisory staff
involved in administrative analytical work. As with the
appellant's position, the work covered by the Guide does not
require specialized educational preparation; however, the work
does require a high degree of analytical skills, the ability to
research problems and issues, and the application of mature
judgment in problem solving.
Grade determination
Under the FES, each factor level description under the nine
factors in a standard describes the minimum characteristics
needed to receive credit for the described level. Therefore, if
a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor level
description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a
lower level. Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria
in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level. Our
evaluation with respect to the nine FES factors in the
Administrative Analysis Grade Evaluation Guide follows.
Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position
This factor is used to measure the nature and extent of
information or facts that the employee must understand to do
acceptable work and the nature and extent of the skills needed to
apply that knowledge.
Positions at Level 1-6 require skill in applying analytical
techniques to identify, consider, and resolve issues or problems
of a procedural or factual nature. Problems or issues deal with
readily observable conditions, written guidelines covering work
methods and procedures, and information of a factual nature.
Included at this level is knowledge of the theory and principles
of management and organization, including administrative
practices and procedures common to organizations such as channels
of communication, routing of correspondence, and filing systems.
In addition to the knowledge required at Level 1-6, assignments
at Level 1-7 require knowledge and skill in applying analytical
and evaluative methods and techniques to issues or studies
concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of programs. This
level includes knowledge of pertinent laws, regulations,
policies, and precedents that affect the use of program and
related support resources (people, money, or equipment) in the
area studied.
Knowledge at Level 1-7 is used to plan, schedule, and conduct
projects and studies to evaluate and recommend ways to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of work operations in a program
or support setting. Assignments require knowledge and skill in
adapting analytical techniques and evaluation criteria to measure
and improve program effectiveness and/or organizational
productivity. An employee at this level applies knowledge in
developing new or modified work methods, organizational
structures, records and files, management processes, or staffing
patterns. An illustration of assignments at this level includes
developing manuals and directives covering the administrative
aspects of field station operations. Such work requires a
thorough knowledge of agency programs, operations, objectives,
and policies along with a comprehensive knowledge of management
and organizational techniques, systems, and procedures.
The appellant must have a thorough knowledge of NODIS and the
Directives Management System. Included in this is an in-depth
knowledge of hypertext mark-up language (html) to facilitate in
the planning, design, implementation, and upkeep of Web pages.
She must also be knowledgeable in Center organizational
structure, programs, and policy. She must be familiar with the
Privacy Act and agency policy and Center systems of records under
the Act. The appellant applies this knowledge in the day-to-day
review of Center and agency directives to analyze and identify
issues and inconsistencies for resolution by the appropriate
organization. The knowledge required for the appellant's
position fully meets Level 1-6.
Level 1-7 is not met. The appellant's position does not require
knowledge and skill in applying analytical and evaluative methods
and techniques to develop new or modified work methods for
organizational use of NODIS, organizational structures, or
management processes for the Directives Management System. The
appellant is not required to plan, schedule, and conduct projects
and studies to evaluate and recommend ways to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of NODIS or the Privacy Act systems
of records. Further, she does not develop manuals and directives
as envisioned for positions at Level 1-7.
We evaluate this factor at Level 1-6 and assign 950 points.
Factor 2, Supervisory controls
This factor covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect
controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee's
responsibility, and the review of completed work. Controls are
exercised by the supervisor in the way assignments are made,
instructions are given to the employee, priorities and deadlines
are set, and objectives and boundaries are defined.
Responsibility of the employee depends upon the extent to which
the employee is expected to develop the sequence and timing of
various aspects of the work and to participate in establishing
priorities and defining objectives.
At Level 2-3, the supervisor assigns specific projects in terms
of issues, organizations, functions, or work processes to be
studied and sets deadlines for completing the work. The
supervisor or higher grade analyst provides assistance on
controversial issues or on the application of qualitative or
quantitative analytical methods to the study of subjects for
which precedent studies are not available. The employee plans,
coordinates, and carries out the successive steps in fact-finding
and analysis of issues necessary to complete each phase of
assigned projects. Work problems are normally resolved by the
employee without reference to the supervisor, in accordance with
the accepted office policies, applicable precedents,
organizational concepts, management theory, and occupational
training. The employee's work is reviewed for conformance with
overall requirements and practicality of recommendations.
At Level 2-4, the employee and supervisor develop a mutually
acceptable work plan. Within the framework of the work plan, the
employee is responsible for planning and organizing the work,
estimating costs, coordinating with staff and line management
personnel, and conducting all phases of the project. This
frequently involves definitive interpretation of regulations and
handling deviations from established procedures. The employee
informs the supervisor of potentially controversial findings,
issues, or problems with widespread impact. Completed projects,
reports, and recommendations are reviewed by the supervisor for
compatibility with organizational goals, guidelines, and
effectiveness in achieving objectives.
The appellant works under the supervision of the [organization's]
Branch Chief. The appellant also has a division lead to whom she
may turn for questions or problems. On a weekly basis, the
Branch Chief meets with the appellant to prioritize the
appellant's work assignments. In the day-to-day performance of
her duties, the appellant plans and conducts step-by-step
analysis and fact-finding in accordance with prescribed policy
and procedures. Work problems are normally resolved by the
appellant using accepted policies, procedures, and precedents.
Any significant problems or deviations from those policies and
procedures are addressed to the appellant's supervisor. As
Privacy Act Manager, the appellant is limited to providing
factual information and references to employees as requested.
Any questions concerning legal interpretations of the Privacy Act
are referred to the Center's chief legal counsel and his staff.
The appellant's oversight duties for Privacy Act systems of
records consist of reviewing the operating plans for those
systems to ensure that they are in compliance with the Act. The
appellant's position meets Level 2-3.
Level 2-4 is not met. The appellant does not plan and organize
work projects, estimate costs, coordinate projects with staff and
line management, and conduct all phases of a project as
envisioned for a position at Level 2-4. In contrast to positions
at that level, the appellant's work does not involve the
definitive interpretation of regulations and study procedures and
the initial application of new methods, for either NODIS or the
Privacy Act systems of records.
We evaluate this factor at Level 2-3 and assign 275 points.
Factor 3, Guidelines
This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment
needed to apply them.
Guidelines at Level 3-3 consist of standard reference material,
texts, and manuals covering application of analytical methods and
techniques and instructions and manuals covering subjects
involved (e.g., procedures, policies, and regulations).
Analytical methods contained in the guidelines are not always
directly applicable to specific work assignments. However,
precedent studies of similar subjects are available for
reference. The employee uses judgment in choosing, interpreting,
or adapting available guidelines to specific issues or subjects
studied. Level 3-3 includes work assignments in which the
subject studied is covered by a wide variety of administrative
regulations and procedural guidelines. In such circumstances,
the employee must use judgment in researching regulations and in
determining the relationship between guidelines and
organizational efficiency or program effectiveness.
At Level 3-4, guidelines consist of general administrative
policies and management and organizational theories that require
considerable adaptation and/or interpretation for application to
issues and problems. Administrative policies and precedent
studies provide a basic outline of the results desired, but they
do not go into detail as to the methods used to accomplish
projects. Administrative guidelines usually cover program goals
and objectives of the employing organization, such as agency
controls on size of the workforce or productivity targets.
Within the context of broad regulatory guidelines, the employee
may refine or develop more specific guidelines such as
implementing regulations.
Similar to Level 3-3, the appellant's work involves systems and
assignments for which established procedures and guidelines
exist. This guidance includes NASA and Center directives,
policies, operating manuals, and the Privacy Act (e.g., NASA
Directives System that includes NASA Policy Directives and NASA
Procedures and Guidelines, [a specific] Center Management
Directives System Manual, [a specific] Center Policy on the
Privacy Act of 1974). The appellant uses judgment to interpret
and adapt these procedures and guidelines to research new and
existing directives for inconsistencies and conflicting
information, to provide factual information on the Privacy Act,
and to ensure that Center systems of records are in compliance
with the Privacy Act. The appellant's position fully meets Level
3-3.
The appellant's position does not meet Level 3-4 in that specific
instructions are provided by agency and Center directives,
policies, and operating manuals. The supervisor also provides a
basic outline that the appellant must use to develop methods to
accomplish projects. The appellant's position does not require
considerable adaptations or interpretations of general
administrative policies for application to issues or problems
studied for the use of the Directives Management System as would
be indicative of a position evaluated at Level 3-4.
We evaluate this factor at Level 3-3 and assign 275 points.
Factor 4, Complexity
This factor covers the nature, number, variety, and intricacy of
tasks, steps, processes, or methods in the work performed; the
difficulty in identifying what needs to be done; and the
difficulty and originality involved in performing the work.
At Level 4-3, the work principally involves dealing with problems
and relationships of a procedural nature rather than the
substance of work operations, issues, or other subjects studied.
The employee analyzes the issues in the assignment, then selects
and applies accepted analytical techniques and trend analysis to
the resolution of procedural problems and conflicting
information. An example of work at this level is the conduct of
management surveys to determine compliance with applicable
regulations and procedures and sound management practices. Such
surveys deal primarily with procedural aspects rather than the
substance of administrative operations.
Level 4-4 work involves gathering information, identifying and
analyzing issues, and developing recommendations to resolve
substantive problems of effectiveness and efficiency of work
operations in a program or program support setting. This is in
addition to improving conditions of a procedural nature which
relate to the efficiency of organizations and workers as
described at Level 4-3. Work envisioned at Level 4-4 includes
studying, analyzing, and developing methods to improve the
accuracy, adequacy, and timeliness of information and systems for
disseminating information about the agency's programs and
workforce at many organizational echelons. Level 4-4 work also
includes providing advice to management on the distribution of
work among positions and organizations and the efficient
utilization of positions and employees in programs and program
support areas.
The appellant's position meets Level 4-3. Her work involves
various duties related to maintenance of the Center's portion of
NODIS, the Management Directives System, and systems of records
covered by the Privacy Act. The appellant also informs Center
employees of their responsibilities under the Act. When the
appellant receives a new or revised Center directive, she
analyzes it to determine which Center organizations may be
affected. She then follows standardized procedures for
soliciting comments from organizations within the Center,
consolidating those comments, and developing a summary of
comments and opinions provided by organizations that may be
affected. The appellant reviews directives and issuances for
adherence to format policy and for clarity of information and
then makes recommendations for improvement to the appropriate
organizations. She also analyzes the directives and issuances to
ensure that they do not have conflicting information or guidance
within them and that they do not conflict with existing policies.
She does not analyze the policy for content or make
recommendations on the subject matter of the directives. The
problems and obstacles the appellant may encounter are of a
procedural nature rather than with the program or policy subject
matter covered by the directives. The appellant also maintains
and updates Center organizational charts and listings; however,
she does not make recommendations regarding staffing requirements
or the organizational structure of the Center.
Unlike employees at Level 4-4, the appellant does not analyze
directives in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of workflow
for programs covered. She addresses any areas of concern to her
supervisor or to the originating organization for resolution.
The complexity of the appellant's work falls short of Level 4-4.
We evaluate this factor at Level 4-3 and assign 150 points.
Factor 5, Scope and effect
This factor assesses the relationship between the nature of work,
i.e., the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment, and the
effect of work products or services both within and outside the
organization.
The purpose of the work at Level 5-3 is to plan and carry out
projects to improve the efficiency and productivity of
organizations and employees in administrative support activities.
The employee identifies, analyzes, and makes recommendations to
resolve conventional problems and situations in workflow, work-
distribution, and/or administration. Work may involve developing
detailed procedures and guidelines to supplement established
administrative regulations or program guidance. Completed
reports and recommendations influence decisions by managers
concerning the internal administrative operations of the
organizations and activities studied. An example of work at this
level is analyzing and evaluating current management and
organizational practices to determine the most efficient way to
organize work within a word processing center, records holding
area, or comparable clerical organization. Another illustration
of work at Level 5-3 involves developing standard procedures for
records management, for example, storing, retrieving, and routing
records and files for local organizations with similar missions
and functions.
At Level 5-4, the purpose of the work is to assess the
productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency of program operations
or to analyze and resolve problems in the staffing,
effectiveness, and efficiency of administrative support and staff
activities. The work involves establishing criteria to measure
and/or predict the attainment of program or organizational goals
and objectives. Work at this level contributes to the
improvement of productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency in
program operations and/or administrative support activities at
different echelons and/or geographical locations within
organizations. For example, work at this level may involve
studying, analyzing, and developing ways to improve the accuracy,
adequacy, timeliness, and validity of data and systems for
disseminating information about the agency's programs to
managers. Other work at this level may include providing advice
on changes to organizational structures, organizational charts,
and mission and function statements to implement reorganizations
or changes in program administration in order to reduce or
eliminate functional overlap among the agency's substantive
programs. Completed work contributes to the effectiveness,
efficiency, and productivity of large organizations within the
agency.
The appellant's primary duty as Directives Manager is to ensure
that clear, properly formatted directives and issuances are
prepared, distributed, and maintained in accordance with policy
and regulations. The directives may be from NASA headquarters or
from organizations within the Center. They may affect a single
organization or program within the Center, a number of Center
organizations or programs, or the Center as a whole. As Privacy
Act Manager, the appellant helps to ensure the privacy of
employee personal information through Centerwide notices on
employee responsibility and by oversight of approximately 20
systems of records covered by the Privacy Act. The appellant's
work facilitates the efficiency and productivity of the Center by
ensuring that policies are current, properly categorized, and
formatted for ready access; do not have conflicting information
or guidelines; and adhere to NASA plain language policy for ease
of reading and understanding. The appellant's position meets
Level 5-3.
Level 5-4 is not met in that the appellant is not required to
assess the productivity, effectiveness, or efficiency of programs
or activities covered by NASA and Center directives. Although
the appellant maintains organizational charts for the Center, she
does not advise on changes to organizational structures, etc., as
illustrated at Level 5-4. The appellant's position does not
approach the scope and effect of the Level 5-4 description.
We evaluate this factor at Level 5-3 and assign 150 points.
Factors 6 and 7, Personal contacts and Purpose of contacts
The Guide combines the point values for these two factors into a
matrix. For this reason, the factors are addressed jointly.
Factor 6 includes face-to-face contacts and telephone and
electronic mail dialogue with persons not in the supervisory
chain. Levels in this factor are based on what is required to
make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with
those contacted, and the setting in which the contacts take
place.
For Level 2, the personal contacts are with employees in the same
agency, but outside the immediate office, or employees and
representatives of private concerns in a moderately structured
setting. For Level 3, personal contacts are with individuals or
groups from outside the employing agency in a moderately
unstructured setting. Typical contacts at this level include the
head of an employing agency or program officials several
managerial levels removed from the employee when such contacts
occur on an ad-hoc basis.
Similar to Level 2, the majority of the appellant's personal
contacts are with employees from organizations within the Center
and the Center's satellite installation at [geographic location],
by telephone, electronic mail, or formal correspondence. In
addition, the appellant regularly interacts with her counterparts
at NASA headquarters. In contrast to Level 3, the appellant has
no significant personal contact with individuals outside NASA in
either a structured or unstructured setting. The appellant's
position has no significant interaction on either a regular or an
ad-hoc basis with high level management officials at the Center
or at NASA headquarters.
We evaluate Factor 6 at Level 2.
For Factor 7, the purpose of personal contacts ranges from
factual exchanges of information to situations involving
significant or controversial issues and differing viewpoints,
goals, or objectives.
At Level b, the purpose of personal contact is to advise managers
on noncontroversial organization or program related issues and
concerns. Contacts typically involve such matters as
identification of decision-making alternatives, appraisals of
success in meeting goals, or recommendations for resolving
administrative problems. At Level c, the purpose is to influence
managers or other officials to accept and implement findings and
recommendations on organizational improvement or program
effectiveness. Positions at Level c may encounter resistance due
to such issues as organizational conflict, competing objectives,
or resource problems.
The purpose of the appellant's personal contacts is to obtain and
exchange information of a factual nature. She also obtains
comments and opinions on NASA and Center policy directives and
Privacy Act issues to consolidate them into a Center response.
The appellant notifies Center organizations when inconsistencies
exist in the organizations' responses to NASA headquarters
directives which she has identified during her analysis as well
as when she has determined new and existing directives and
issuances are in conflict. The purpose of the appellant's
contacts does not exceed Level b. In her capacity as Directives
Manager and Privacy Act Manager, the appellant does not encounter
resistance as the result of organizational conflict, competing
objectives, or resource problems. Her position does not require
her to influence managers or other officials to accept and
implement findings and recommendations on organizational
improvement of program effectiveness as is envisioned at Level c.
We evaluate Factors 6 and 7 at Level 2b and assign 75 points.
Factor 8, Physical demands
This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed
on the employee by the work assignment.
The work is sedentary at Level 8-1. The employee typically sits
comfortably to do the work. However, there may be some walking,
standing, bending, or carrying of light items. No special
physical demands are required to perform the work.
Level 8-2 assignments regularly involve long periods of standing,
bending, and stooping to observe and study work operations in an
industrial, storage, or comparable work area.
The work done by the appellant is primarily sedentary.
We evaluate this factor at Level 8-1 and assign 5 points.
Factor 9, Work environment
This factor considers the risks and discomforts in the employee's
physical surroundings.
At Level 9-1, work is typically performed in an adequately
lighted and climate controlled office. The work may require some
travel.
At Level 9-2, work assignments regularly require visits to
manufacturing, storage, or other industrial areas and involve
moderate risks or discomforts. Protective clothing and gear and
observance of safety precautions are required.
The appellant works in an air conditioned and heated office with
adequate lighting.
We evaluate this factor at Level 9-1 and assign 5 points.
Summary of factor evaluation
Factor 					Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-6 	950
2. Supervisory controls 		2-3 	275
3. Guidelines 				3-3 	275
4. Complexity 				4-3 	150
5. Scope and effect 			5-3 	150
6. and 7. Personal contacts and Purpose
of contacts 				2b 	75
8. Physical demands 			8-1 	5
9. Work environment 			9-1 	5
Total 						1,885
The appellant's position is credited with 1,885 points.
Therefore, in accordance with the grade conversion table of the
Guide, the position is properly graded at GS-9.
Decision
The proper classification of the appellant's position is GS-301-
9, with the title at the discretion of the agency.