24622 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Laboratory Personnel

Management Demonstration Project;

Department of the Air Force

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice of intent to implement

demonstration project.

SUMMARY: Title VI of the Civil Service

Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 4703, authorizes

the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) to conduct demonstration

projects that experiment with new and

different personnel management

concepts to determine whether such

changes in personnel policy or

procedures would result in improved

Federal personnel management.

Public Law 103–337, October 5, 1994,

permits the Department of Defense

(DoD), with the approval of the OPM, to

carry out personnel demonstration

projects generally similar to the China

Lake demonstration project at DoD

Science and Technology (S&T)

reinvention laboratories. The Air Force

is proposing one demonstration project

to cover its four S&T reinvention

laboratories: Armstrong, Phillips, Rome,

and Wright.

DATES: To be considered, written

comments must be submitted on or

before July 15, 1996; public hearings

will be scheduled as follows:

1. Tuesday, June 18, 1996, 10:00 a.m.

in Rome, New York,

2. Friday, June 21, 1996, 10:00 a.m. in

Dayton, Ohio,

3. Wednesday, June 26, 1996, 10:00

a.m. in San Antonio, Texas, and

4. Thursday, June 27, 1996, 10:00 a.m.

in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At the

time of the hearings, interested persons

or organizations may present their

written or oral comments on the

proposed demonstration project. The

hearings will be informal. However,

anyone wishing to testify should contact

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, and state the

hearing location, so that OPM can plan

the hearings and provide sufficient time

for all interested persons and

organizations to be heard. Priority will

be given to those on the schedule, with

others speaking in any remaining

available time. Each speaker’s

presentation will be limited to ten

minutes. Written comments may be

submitted to supplement oral testimony

during the public comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Fidelma A. Donahue, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,

NW., Room 7460, Washington, DC

20415; public hearings will be held at

the following locations:

1. Rome—Griffiss Business and

Technology Park Theater, Building 439,

Kirtland Drive, Rome, New York,

2. Dayton—Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base Theater, 1239 Chestnut

Street, Kittyhawk Area, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio,

3. San Antonio—Building 578, Room

218–221, 7909 Lindbergh Drive, Brooks

Air Force Base, Texas,

4. Albuquerque—Phillips Laboratory

Conference Center, Building 201,

Conference Room 7a, 1750 Kirtland

Drive, SE, Kirtland Air Force Base, New

Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1)

On proposed demonstration project:

Wendy B. Campbell, HQ AFMC/ST,

4375 Chidlaw Road, Suite 6, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, OH 45433–

5006, 513–257–1910; (2) On proposed

demonstration project and public

hearings: Fidelma A. Donahue, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 7460, Washington,

DC 20415, 202–606–1138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since

1966, at least 19 studies of Department

of Defense (DoD) laboratories have been

conducted on laboratory quality and

personnel. Almost all of these studies

have recommended improvements in

civilian personnel policy, organization,

and management. The proposed project

involves simplified job classifications,

pay banding, a contribution-based

compensation system, streamlined

hiring processes, and modified

Reduction-in-Force (RIF) procedures.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Office of Personnel Management.

James B. King,

Director.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction

A. Purpose

B. Problems with the Present System

C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits

D. Participating Organizations

E. Participating Employees

F. Project Design

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities

B. Broadbanding

C. Classification

D. Contribution-based Compensation

System

E. Contribution-based Reduction in Pay or

Removal Actions

F. Voluntary Emeritus Corps

G. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF)

Procedures

IV. Training

V. Conversion

VI. Project Duration

VII. Evaluation Plan

VIII. Demonstration Project Costs

IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation

I. Executive Summary

The project was designed by the

Department of the Air Force, with

participation of and review by the

Department of Defense (DoD) and the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The purpose of the project is to achieve

the best workforce for the laboratory

mission, adjust the workforce for

change, and improve workforce quality.

The project framework addresses all

aspects of the human resources life

cycle model. There are three major areas

of change: (a) laboratory-controlled

rapid hiring; (b) a contribution- based

compensation system; and (c) a

streamlined removal process.

Initially, the project will cover only

Scientists and Engineers (S&Es)

assigned to the laboratories. A decision

point has been programmed for the end

of the second year of the demonstration

to determine whether or not to expand

coverage to other occupational groups

within the laboratory. In the event of

expansion to non-S&E employees, full

approval of the expansion plan will be

obtained by AF, DoD, and OPM.

Cost neutrality is a basic requirement

of the project. Extensive evaluation of

the project will be performed by both

the OPM and Air Force. The Air Force

has programmed a decision point 5

years into the project for continuance,

modification, or rejection of the

demonstration initiatives.

II. Introduction

A. Purpose

The purpose of the project is to

demonstrate that the effectiveness of

Department of Defense (DoD)

laboratories can be enhanced by

allowing greater managerial control over

personnel functions and, at the same

time, expanding the opportunities

available to employees through a more

responsive and flexible personnel

system. The quality of DoD laboratories,

their people, and products has been

under intense scrutiny in recent years.

The perceived deterioration of quality is

believed to be due, in substantial part,

to the erosion of control which line

managers have over their human

resources. This demonstration, in its

entirety, attempts to provide managers,

at the lowest practical level, the

authority, control, and flexibility

needed to achieve quality laboratories

and quality products.

B. Problems With the Present System

Air Force laboratory products

contribute to the readiness of U.S.

forces. To do this, laboratories must
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24623

acquire enthusiastic, innovative, highly

educated scientists and engineers to

meet their mission. They must be able

to compete with the private sector for

the best talent and be able to make job

offers in a timely manner with the

attendant bonuses and incentives to

attract topnotch researchers. Today,

industry laboratories can make an offer

of employment and two counteroffers to

a promising new hire before the

government can get the first offer on the

table. When filling vacancies internally,

managers are forced into employee

choices based not on research expertise,

but on career program membership or

special placement programs. Currently,

jobs are described using a cumbersome

classification system that is overly

complex and specialized. This hampers

a manager’s ability to shape the

workforce and match the positions

while making best use of the employees.

Managers must be given local control of

positions and their classification to

move both their employees and

vacancies freely within their

organization to other lines of research

when business or technology demands.

These issues work together to hamper

supervisors in all areas of human

resource management. Hiring

restrictions and overly complex job

classifications, coupled with poor tools

for rewarding and motivating employees

and a system that does not assist

managers in removing poor performers

builds stagnation in the workforce and

wastes valuable time.

C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits

This project is expected to

demonstrate that a human resource

system tailored to the mission and need

of the laboratory will result in: (a)

increased quality in the science and

engineering workforce and the

laboratory products they produce; (b)

increased timeliness of key personnel

processes; (c) trended workforce data

that reveals increased retention of

‘‘excellent contributors’’ and separation

rates of ‘‘poor contributors’’; and (d)

increased customer satisfaction with the

laboratory and its products by those Air

Force and DoD customers they service.

The Air Force demonstration program

builds on the successful features of

demonstration projects at China Lake

and the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST). These

demonstration projects have produced

impressive statistics on the job

satisfaction for their employees versus

that for the federal workforce in general.

Therefore, in addition to the expected

benefits mentioned above, the AF

demonstration expects to find more

satisfied employees on many aspects of

the demonstration including pay equity,

classification accuracy, and fairness of

performance management A full range

of measures will be collected during

project evaluation (section VII).

D. Participating Organizations

The four Air Force Materiel Command

(AFMC) laboratory directors/

commanders are located as follows:

Armstrong Laboratory—Brooks AFB,

Texas

Phillips Laboratory—Kirtland AFB, New

Mexico

Rome Laboratory—Rome, New York

Wright Laboratory—Wright-Patterson

AFB, Ohio

Scientists and Engineers (S&Es)

assigned to the laboratories work at the

locations shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—S&E DUTY LOCATIONS BY

LABORATORY (AS OF 31 DEC. 95)

Laboratory Duty location S&Es

Armstrong Aberdeen Proving

Ground, MD.

3

Brooks AFB, TX ......... 167

San Diego, CA ........... 1

Tyndall AFB, FL ......... 27

Williams AFB, AZ ....... 14

Wright-Patterson AFB,

OH.

97

Phillips ....... Edwards AFB, CA ...... 120

Hanscom AFB, MA ..... 188

Kirtland AFB, NM ....... 246

Malabar, FL ................ 1

Maui Island, HI ........... 1

Sunspot, NM ............... 5

Rome ......... Rome, NY ................... 424

Hanscom AFB, MA ..... 82

Wright ........ Eglin AFB, FL ............. 177

Kelly AFB, TX ............. 5

McClellan AFB, CA .... 10

Robins AFB, GA ......... 4

Tyndall AFB, FL ......... 12

Wright-Patterson AFB,

OH.

1207

E. Participating Employees

In determining the scope of the

demonstration project, primary

considerations were given to the

number and diversity of occupations

within the laboratories and the need for

adequate development and testing of the

Contribution-based Compensation

System (CCS). Additionally, current

DoD human resource management

design goals and priorities for the entire

civilian workforce were considered.

While the intent of this project is to

provide the laboratory directors/

commanders with increased control and

accountability for their total workforce,

the decision was made to initially

restrict development efforts to General

Schedule (GS/GM) positions within the

scientific and engineering specialties.

Research Medical Officers (GS–0602)

have been excluded from the project

because of special pay provisions for

their occupation which exceed the

upper limits of the proposed

broadbanding. The series to be included

in the project are identified in Table 2.

TABLE 2.—SERIES INCLUDED IN THE

AIR FORCE DEMONSTRATION PROPOSAL (AS OF 31 DEC. 95)

0180 Psychology

0190 General Anthropology

0401 General Biological Science

0403 Microbiology

0413 Physiology

0414 Entomology

0415 Toxicology

0665 Speech Pathology & Audiology

0701 Veterinary Medical Science

0801 General Engineering

0803 Safety Engineering

0804 Fire Protection Engineering

0806 Materials Engineering

0807 Landscape Architecture

0808 Architecture

0810 Civil Engineering

0819 Environmental Engineering

0830 Mechanical Engineering

0840 Nuclear Engineering

0850 Electrical Engineering

0854 Computer Engineering

0855 Electronics Engineering

0858 Biomedical Engineering

0861 Aerospace Engineering

0892 Ceramic Engineering

0893 Chemical Engineering

0896 Industrial Engineering

1301 General Physical Science

1306 Health Physics

1310 Physics

1313 Geophysics

1320 Chemistry

1321 Metallurgy

1330 Astronomy & Space Science

1340 Meteorology

1370 Cartography

1515 Operations Research

1520 Mathematics

1529 Mathematical Statistician

1530 Statistician

1550 Computer Science

Other non-S&E positions may be

phased in during the course of the

project. A decision point for expanded

employee coverage has been

programmed for the end of the second

year of the demonstration project. In the

event of expansion to non-S&E

employees, full approval of the

expansion plan will be obtained by AF,

DoD, and OPM.

Current demographics and union

representation for the S&E positions are

shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.—S&E DEMOGRAPHICS AND

UNION REPRESENTATION (AS OF 31

DEC. 95)

GS/GM 13 and Above ...................... 1965
24624 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

TABLE 3.—S&E DEMOGRAPHICS AND

UNION REPRESENTATION (AS OF 31

DEC. 95)—Continued

GS–12 and below ............................. 826

Total ........................................... 2791

Occupational series .......................... 41

Duty location ..................................... 17

Veterans ............................................ 1 19.78

Union Representation:

NFFE:

Eglin AFB, Florida ..................... 145

Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts 233

Tyndall AFB, Florida .................. 33

IFPTE:

McClellan AFB, California ......... 9

1Percent.

Of the 2,791 scientists and engineers

assigned to the laboratories, 420 are

represented by labor unions. Employees

at Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, are

represented by the National Federation

of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local

1384. Employees at Eglin AFB, Florida,

are represented by NFFE Local 1940.

Employees at Tyndall AFB, Florida, are

represented by NFFE Local 1113.

Employees at McClellan AFB,

California, are represented by the

International Federation of Professional

and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local

330. Union representatives have been

separately notified about the project.

The Air Force is proceeding to fulfill its

obligation to consult or negotiate with

the unions, as appropriate, in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4703(f).

F. Project Design

In August 1994, a special action ‘‘tiger

team’’ was formed by the Director of

Science and Technology for Air Force

Materiel Command in response to the

proposed DoD legislation allowing

reinvention laboratories to conduct

personnel demonstrations. The team

was chartered to take full opportunity of

this legislation and try to develop

solutions that would solve many of the

laboratory personnel issues that have

been so prevalent and well documented.

The team composition included current

managers from the four Air Force

laboratories, retired and current

laboratory directors, and subject matter

experts from civilian personnel and

manpower. This team developed 27

initiatives which together represented

sweeping changes in the entire

spectrum of human resource

management for the laboratories.

Several initiatives were designed to

assist the laboratories in hiring and

placing the best people to fulfill mission

requirements. Others focused on

developing, motivating, and equitably

compensating employees based on their

contribution to the mission. Initiatives

to effectively manage workforce

turnover and maintain organizational

excellence were also developed. These

27 initiatives were endorsed and

accepted in total by the laboratory

directors/commanders.

After the authorizing legislation

passed, a project office with four

employees was established in

September 1994. Under the guidance of

the Director of Science and Technology,

the office was charged with further

developing the demonstration concept

and bringing it to implementation. As a

first task, the project office asked the

four laboratories and the civilian

personnel offices that service them for

volunteers to staff six Integrated Product

Teams (IPTs). Sixty civilian managers

and employees from all laboratories in

most geographic locations and from

appropriate base level personnel offices

came together and have worked for 9

months to develop the detailed concept

and implementation for each initiative.

After thorough study, the original 27

initiatives were reduced to 20. Seven of

the original initiatives appear herein.

The remainder are under either DoD or

Air Force regulation, and waivers are

being sought at those levels.

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities

1. Hiring Authority

A candidate’s basic eligibility will be

determined using OPM’s ‘‘Qualification

Standards Handbook For General

Schedule Positions.’’ Broadband level I

minimum eligibility requirements will

be the GS–07 qualifications. Broadband

level II minimum eligibility

requirements will be the GS–12

qualifications. Broadband levels III and

IV are single-grade broadband levels and

will mirror the minimum qualifications

for the respective General Schedule

grades of 14 and 15. Selective placement

factors may be established in

accordance with the OPM Qualification

Handbook when judged to be critical to

successful job performance. These

factors will be communicated to all

candidates for particular position

vacancies and must be met for basic

eligibility.

The demonstration project will

include an Advanced Degree

Employment Program which provides a

vehicle for rapid employment of

individuals with master’s and/or

doctoral degrees in science and

engineering fields into positions for

which there is a positive education

requirement in those fields. The Air

Force will identify some measure of

academic excellence that candidates

with advanced degrees must have

attained to be eligible for this

employment program. The project will

also include an Outstanding Scholar in

Science and Engineering employment

program which will allow

noncompetitive appointment at the

equivalent of the GS–7 level. This will

allow rapid hiring of those who receive

an undergraduate degree in a qualifying

scientific or engineering curriculum

with an overall grade point average of

3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale, or who are

in the top 10% of their graduating class.

This program is patterned after the

Outstanding Scholar authority for

appointing to non-S&E entry-level

professional and administrative

occupations. The Outstanding Scholar

authority was provided by a courtapproved consent decree in Luevano v.

Newman.

These hiring authorities are necessary

because S&E positions in Air Force

laboratories will continue to be shortage

occupations as they are involved in

highly specialized areas of technology

that require job-specific skills in short

supply. The Advanced Degree

Employment Program applies to both

initial appointment and in-service

placement actions. The program is used

to determine eligibility for applicable

broadband level I and II positions of

persons who have completed (or expect

to complete within 9 months) all the

requirements for a master’s or doctoral

degree from an accredited college or

university in a curriculum that is

qualifying for the position to be filled.

The use of the Superior Academic

Achievement and Advanced Degree

Employment Programs will allow the

selecting supervisor to accomplish

Equal Employment Opportunity

objectives while ensuring a high quality

workforce.

In the proposed system, as with the

current system, the individual manager

will decide whether to fill a position

from among internal candidates or to

recruit from outside the Air Force. If the

decision is made to recruit new

appointments from outside the Federal

government, candidates will be

evaluated using the following method.

The selecting supervisor will develop

written job-related ranking criteria.

Candidates who meet the basic

eligibility will be separated into two

groups based on the appropriateness of

their experience or education relating to

the position being filled. Candidates

with superior qualifications will be

placed in Group A, all others will be

placed in Group B. Within each group,

veterans preference will be applied by

placing all preference eligibles ahead of

non-preference eligibles. Numerical

scores will not be assigned. Selection
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24625

will be made from among candidates in

Group A. Candidates in Group B may

only be selected when there are no

candidates in Group A.

Preference in employment will be

given to qualified applicants who meet

one of the veterans preference eligibility

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 2108, provided they

are equally qualified for the vacant

position.

2. Appointment Authority

Under the demonstration project,

there will be two appointment options:

regular career and contingent. The

career-conditional appointment

authority will not be used under the

demonstration project. Regular career

appointments will continue to use

existing authorities and entitlements,

and employees will serve a probationary

period. Contingent appointments will

use the existing term appointment

authority which includes a limit of 4

years and most benefits. This contingent

appointment is designed to attract high

quality new scientists and post-doctoral

students who may wish to choose an Air

Force laboratory experience for a few

years, accruing some portable retirement

and receiving benefits during this

tenure.

3. Extended Probationary Period

A new employee needs to

demonstrate adequate contribution

during all cycles of a research effort for

a laboratory manager to render a

thorough evaluation. The current 1 year

probationary period will be extended to

3 years for all newly hired regular career

employees. The purpose of extending

the probationary period is to allow

supervisors an adequate period of time

to fully evaluate an employee’s

contribution and conduct.

Aside from extending the time period,

all other features of the current

probationary period are retained

including the potential to remove an

employee without providing the full

substantive and procedural rights

afforded a non-probationary employee.

Any employee appointed prior to the

implementation date will not be

affected. The 3 year probation will

apply to non-status hires. That is, it will

apply only to new hires or those who do

not have reemployment or reinstatement

rights. Air Force Palace Knight and

Senior Knight appointments must

complete 3 years of directly supervised

employment in the laboratory to

complete the probationary period (i.e.,

time spent at school does not count

towards fulfilling the probationary

period requirement).

Probationary employees will be

terminated when the employee fails to

demonstrate proper conduct, technical

competency, and/or adequate

contribution for continued employment.

When a laboratory decides to terminate

an employee serving a probationary

period because their work contribution

or conduct during this period fails to

demonstrate their fitness or

qualifications for continued

employment, it shall terminate their

services by written notification of the

reasons for separation and the effective

date of the action. The information in

the notice as to why the employee is

being terminated shall, as a minimum,

consist of the laboratory’s conclusions

as to the inadequacies of their

contribution or conduct.

B. Broadbanding

The proposed broadbanding system

will replace the current General

Schedule (GS) structure. Currently, the

15 grades of the General Schedule are

used to classify positions and, therefore,

to set pay. The General Schedule covers

all white collar work—administrative,

technical, clerical, and professional.

This system will initially cover only

scientific and engineering (S&E)

positions in the Air Force laboratories.

Scientific and Professional (ST) and

Senior Executive Service (SES)

employees are not covered.

The broadband levels are designed to

enhance pay progression and to allow

for more competitive recruitment of

quality candidates at differing rates

within the appropriate broadband

level(s). Competitive promotions will be

less frequent and movement through the

broadband levels will be a more

seamless process than today’s

procedure. Like the previous broadband

systems used at China Lake and the

National Institute of Science and

Technology (NIST), advancement

within the system is contingent on

merit.

There will be four broadband levels in

the proposed system, labeled I, II, III,

and IV. They will include the current

grades of GS–7 through GS/GM–15.

These are the grades in which the S&E

employees in the Air Force laboratories

are found. Broadband level I includes

the current GS–7 through GS–11; level

II, GS–12 and GS/GM–13; level III, GS/

GM–14; and level IV, GS/GM–15.

Comparison to the GS grades was useful

in setting the upper and lower dollar

limits of the broadband levels; however,

once the employees are moved into the

demonstration project, General

Schedule grades will no longer apply.

The titles associated with each

broadband level are as follows:

Level/Title(s)

I Associate—(Electronics Engineer,

Chemist, etc.)

II Title of Appropriate Series

(Physicist, Biologist, etc.) or

Supervisory—(Nuclear Engineer, etc.)

III Senior—(Mathematician, Computer

Scientist, etc.) or Supervisory

Senior—(Physical Scientist, etc.)

IV Principal—(Microbiologist,

Psychologist, etc.) or Supervisory

Principal—(Aerospace Engineer, etc.)

Generally, employees will be

converted into the broadband level

which includes their current GS/GM

grade. Each employee is assured an

initial place in the system without loss

of pay. As the rates of the General

Schedule are increased due to general

pay increases, the minimum and

maximum rates of the four broadband

levels will also move up. Individual

employees receive pay increases based

on their assessments under the

Contribution-based Compensation

System. Since pay progression through

the levels depends on merit, there will

be no scheduled Within-Grade Increases

(WGIs) for employees once the

broadbanding system is in place.

Special Salary Rates will no longer be

applicable to demonstration project

employees. All employees will be

eligible for the future locality pay

increases of their geographical area.

Newly hired personnel entering the

system will be employed at a level

consistent with the expected

contribution of the position and

individual basic qualifications for the

level, as determined by rating against

qualification standards. Salaries of

individual candidates will be based on

academic qualifications and experience.

In addition to the flexibilities available

under the broadbanding system, the

authorities for retention, recruitment,

and relocation payments granted under

the Federal Employees’ Pay

Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) can

also be used.

Employees who leave the Air Force

broadbanding system to accept federal

employment in the traditional Civil

Service system will have their pay set

by the gaining activity. Where a

broadband level includes a single GS

grade, the employees are considered to

have attained the grade commensurate

with the broadband level they are

leaving. Where broadband levels

include multiple grades, employees are

considered to have progressed to the

next higher grade within that broadband

level when they have been in the level

for 1 year and their salary equals or

exceeds the minimum salary of the

higher grade. For employees who are
24626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

entitled to a special rate upon return to

the General Schedule, the

demonstration project locality rate must

equal or exceed the minimum special

rate of the higher grade. Refer to section

V for information concerning

conversion to and from the

demonstration project.

The use of broadbanding provides a

stronger link between pay and

contribution to the mission of the

laboratory. It is simpler, less time

consuming, and less costly to maintain.

In addition, such a system is more easily

understood by managers and employees,

is easily delegated to managers,

coincides with recognized career paths,

and complements the other personnel

management aspects of the

demonstration project.

C. Classification

1. Occupational Series

The present General Schedule

classification system has 434

occupational series which are divided

into 22 groups. The Air Force

laboratories currently have scientific

and engineering (S&E) positions in 41

series which fall into 7 groups. The

occupational series, which frequently

provide well-recognized disciplines

with which employees wish to be

identified, will be maintained. This will

facilitate movement of personnel into

and out of the proposed demonstration.

Other scientific and engineering series

may be added to the project as the need

for new professional skills emerges

within the laboratory environment.

2. Classification Standards

The present system of OPM

classification standards will be used for

the identification of proper series and

occupational titles of positions within

the demonstration project. References in

the position classification standards to

grade criteria will not be used as part of

the demonstration project. Rather, the

CCS broadband level descriptors will be

used for the purpose of broadband level

determination. Under the proposed

system, each broadband level is

represented by a set of level descriptors.

Based on a yearly assessment of the

employee’s level of contribution to the

organization in relation to these

descriptors, the broadband level and

salary are reviewed and appropriately

adjusted. This eliminates the need for

the use of grading criteria in the OPM

classification standards.

The broadband level descriptors are:

Level I Descriptors

Technical Problem Solving: Conducts inhouse technical activities and/or may

provide contract technical direction with

guidance from supervisor or higher level

scientist or engineer. Works closely with

peers in collectively solving problems of

moderate complexity, involving limited

variables, precedents established in related

projects, and minor adaptations to wellestablished methods and techniques.

Recognized within own organization for

technical ability in assigned areas.

Communications/Reporting: Provides data

and written analysis for input to scientific

papers, journal articles, and reports and/or

assists in preparing contractual documents

and/or reviews technical reports; work is

acknowledged in team publications.

Effectively presents technical results of own

studies, tasks, or contract results. Material is

presented either orally or in writing, within

own organization or to limited external

contacts. Conducts these activities under

guidance of supervisor and/or team leader.

Corporate Resource Management: May

coordinate elements of in-house work units

or assist in managing a scientific or support

contract. Uses personal and assigned

resources efficiently under guidance of

supervisor or team leader. As an

understanding of organizational activities,

policies, and objectives is gained,

participates in team planning.

Technology Transition/Technology

Transfer: Participates as a team member in

demonstrating technology and in interacting

with internal/external customers. With

guidance, contributes to technical content of

partnerships for technology transition and/or

transfer (Advanced Technology

Demonstrations, Memorandums of

Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project

Reliance, Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements, and other dual-use

vehicles). Seeks out and uses relevant outside

technologies in assigned projects.

R&D Business Development: As a team

member communicates with customers to

understand customer requirements. By

maintaining currency in area of expertise,

contributes as a team member to new

program development. May technically

participate in writing proposals to establish

new business opportunities.

Cooperation and Supervision: Contributes

to all aspects of teams’ responsibilities. May

technically guide or mentor less experienced

personnel on limited aspects of scientific or

engineering efforts. Receives close guidance

from supervisor and/or higher level scientist

or engineer. Performs duties in a

professional, responsive, and cooperative

manner in accordance with established

policies and procedures.

Level II Descriptors

Technical Problem Solving: Conducts inhouse technical activities and/or provides

contract technical direction to programs of

moderate size and complexity with minimal

oversight. Contributes technical ideas and

conceives and defines solutions to technical

problems of moderate size or complexity.

Recognized internally and externally by

peers, both in governmental and industrial

activities, for technical expertise.

Communications/Reporting: Writes or is

major contributing author on scientific

papers, journal articles, or reports and/or

prepares contract documents and reviews

reports pertaining to area of technical

expertise. May assist in filing innovation

disclosures, inventions, and patents.

Effectively prepares and presents own and/or

team technical results. Communicates work

to varied laboratory, scientific, industry, and

other government audiences. May prepare

and present presentations on critical program

for use at higher levels with some guidance.

Corporate Resource Management: Manages

all aspects of technically complex in-house

work units or one or more contractual efforts

in assigned program area. Effectively plans

and controls all assigned resources. Makes

and meets time and budget estimates on

assigned projects or takes appropriate

corrective action. Participates in

organizational or strategic planning at team

level, taking cognizance of complementary

projects elsewhere to ensure optimal use of

resources.

Technology Transition/Technology

Transfer: Develops demonstrations and

interacts independently with internal/

external customers. As a team member,

implements partnerships for transition and/

or transfer of technology (Advanced

Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums

of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/

Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements, and other dual-use

vehicles). Evaluates and incorporates

appropriate outside technology in individual

or team activities.

R&D Business Development: Initiates

meetings and interactions with customers to

understand customer needs. Generates key

ideas for program development based on

understanding of technology and customer

needs. Demonstrates expertise to internal/

external customers. Contributes technically

to proposal preparation and marketing to

establish new business opportunities.

Cooperation and Supervision: Contributes

as a technical task or team leader; is sought

out for expertise by peers; and participates in

mentoring of team members. May guide on a

daily basis, technical, programmatic, and

administrative efforts of individuals or team

members. May recommend selection or may

select staff and/or team members. Assists in

the development and training of individuals

or team members. May participate in position

and performance management. Receives

general guidance in terms of policies,

program objectives, and/or funding issues

from supervisor and/or higher level scientist

or engineer. Discusses novel concepts and

significant departures from previous

practices with supervisor or team leader.

Level III Descriptors

Technical Problem Solving: Conducts and/

or directs technical activities and/or assists

higher levels on challenging and innovative

projects or technical program development

with only broad guidance. Develops

solutions to diverse, complex problems

involving various functional areas and

disciplines. Conducts and/or directs large

programs in technically complex areas.

Recognized within the laboratory, service,

DoD, industry, and academia for technical

expertise and has established professional

reputation in national technical community.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24627

Communications/Reporting: Lead author

on major scientific papers, refereed journal

articles, and reports and/or prepares and

reviews contract documents and reviews

reports of others pertaining to overall

program. May document or file inventions,

patents, and innovation disclosures relevant

to subject area. Prepares and presents

technical and/or financial and programmatic

briefings and documentation for team,

organization, or technical area. Prepares and

delivers presentations for major projects and

technology areas to scientific and/or

government audiences. Reviews oral

presentation of others. Communication and

reporting functions conducted with minimal

higher level oversight.

Corporate Resource Management: Defines

program strategy and resource allocations for

in- house and/or contractual programs. For

assigned technical areas, conducts program

planning, coordination, and/or

documentation (master plans, roadmaps,

Joint Director of Lab/Reliance, etc.).

Advocates to laboratory and/or higher

headquarters on budgetary and programmatic

issues for resources. Based on knowledge of

analytical and evaluative methods and

techniques, participates in strategic planning

at branch and/or division level. Considers

and consults on technical programs of other

organizations working in the field to ensure

optimal use of resources.

Technology Transition/Technology

Transfer: Develops customer base and

expands opportunities for technology

transition and transfer. Leads or serves as key

technical member of teams implementing

partnerships for transition or transfer of

technology (Advanced Technology

Demonstrations, Memorandums of

Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project

Reliance, Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements, and other dual-use

vehicles). Ensures incorporation of outside

technology within laboratory programs.

R&D Business Development: Works to

establish customer alliances and translates

customer needs to programs in a particular

technical area. Develops feasible research

strategies and/or business strategies for new

technical activities. Seeks joint program

coalitions with other agencies and funding

opportunities from outside organizations.

Pursues near-term business opportunities

through proposals.

Cooperation and Supervision: Is sought out

for consultation and mentors team members.

Guides the research, technical and/or

programmatic, and administrative efforts of

individuals or teams with accountability for

focus and quality. Recommends selection or

selects staff and/or team members. Supports

development and training of subordinates

and/or team members. Participates in

position and performance management.

Receives only broad policy and

administrative guidance from supervisor,

such as initiation and curtailment of

programs.

Level IV Descriptors

Technical Problem Solving: Independently

defines, leads, and manages the most

challenging and innovative complex

technical activities/programs consistent with

general guidance or independently directs

overall R&D program. Conceives and

develops creative solutions to the most

complex problems requiring highly

specialized areas of technical expertise.

Recognized within the laboratory, service,

DoD, and other agencies for broad technical

area expertise and has established

professional reputation in the national and

international technical community.

Communications/Reporting: Lead or sole

author on scientific papers, refereed journal

articles, reports, or review articles which are

recognized as major advances or resolutions

in the technical area and/or reviews and

approves reporting of all technical products

of mission area. May exploit innovations

which normally lead to inventions,

disclosures, and patents. Prepares and

presents technical and/or financial and

programmatic briefings and documentation

for breadth of programs at or above own

level. As subject matter expert, prepares and

delivers invited or contributed presentations,

papers at national or international

conferences on technical area, or gives policy

level briefings. Singularly responsible for

overall quality and timeliness of technical/

scientific/ programmatic reports and

presentations of group and self.

Corporate Resource Management: Defines

technology area strategy and resource

allocations for in-house and contractual

programs. For multiple technical areas,

conducts overall program planning and

coordination, and/or program documentation

(master plans, roadmaps, Joint Director of

Labs/Project Reliance, etc.). Advocates to

command, service, and agency levels on

budgetary and programmatic issues for

resources. Utilizing advanced analytical and

evaluative methods and techniques, leads

strategic planning and prioritization

processes. Develops strategy to leverage

resources from other agencies and ensures

equitable distribution and appropriate use of

internal resources.

Technology Transition/Technology

Transfer: Organizes, leads, and markets

overall technology transition and transfer

activities for organization at senior

management levels. Leads in formulation and

oversight of Advanced Technology

Demonstrations, Memorandums of

Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project

Reliance, Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements, and other dual-use

vehicles. Creates an environment that

encourages widespread exploitation of both

national and international technologies.

R&D Business Development: Works with

the senior management level to stimulate

development of customer alliances for

several technical areas. Generates strategic

research and/or business objectives for core

technical areas. Recognizes warfighting

trends, relates business opportunities, and

convinces laboratory management to develop

and/or acquire expertise and commit funds.

Secures business opportunities supporting

long-term mission relevancy through targeted

proposals and processes.

Cooperation and Supervision: Establishes

team charters and develops future team

leaders and supervisors. Leads and manages

all aspects of subordinates’ or team members’

efforts with complete accountability for

mission and programmatic success.

Recommends selection or selects staff, team

leaders, and team members; fosters

development and training of supervisory and

non-supervisory individuals. Directs or

recommends position and performance

management. Works within the framework of

agency policies, mission objectives, and time

and funding limitations.

3. Classification Authority

Laboratory directors/commanders will

have delegated classification authority

and may, in turn, redelegate this

authority no lower than two

management levels below the director/

commander. Classification approval,

however, must be exercised at least one

management level above the first level

supervisor of the employee or position

under review. Supervisors at the lower

levels will provide classification

recommendations. Personnel specialists

will provide on-going consultation and

guidance to managers and supervisors

throughout the classification process.

4. Statement of Duties and Experience

(SDE)

Under the proposed classification

system, the automated Statement of

Duties and Experience (SDE) will

replace the current AF Form 1378,

Civilian Personnel Position Description.

The SDE will include a description of

job-specific information, reference the

CCS broadband level descriptors for the

assigned broadband level, and provide

data element information pertinent to

the job. Laboratory supervisors will

follow a computer assisted process to

produce the SDE. The objectives in

developing the new SDE are to: (a)

simplify the descriptions and the

preparation process through

automation, (b) make the SDE specific to

the employee, and (c) make the SDE a

more useful tool for other functions of

personnel management, e.g., recruiting,

reduction-in-force, assessment of

contribution, and employee

development.

5. Skill Codes

The Air Force uses skill code sets

within the Defense Civilian Personnel

Data System (DCPDS) as a means to

reflect duties of current positions and

employees’ previous experiences. Each

code represents a specialization within

the occupation. Specializations are

those described in classification or

qualification standards and those agreed

upon by functional managers and

personnel specialists to be important to

staffing patterns and career paths. These

codes are used to refer candidates for

employment with the Air Force,

placement of current employees into
24628 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

other positions, and selection for

training under competitive procedures.

To facilitate the movement of personnel

into and out of the demonstration

project, the current Air Force system of

skills coding will continue to be used.

Laboratory supervisors will select

appropriate skill code sets to describe

the work of each employee through the

automated SDE process.

6. Classification Process

The SDE is accomplished by

completion of the following steps

utilizing an automated system:

(a) The supervisor enters, by typing

free-form, the organizational location,

SDE number, and the employee’s name.

From the menu, the supervisor selects

the appropriate occupational series and

title, the level descriptors corresponding

to the broadband level that is most

commensurate with an employee’s

anticipated level of contribution, the

CCS job category, the functional

classification code, and the supervisory

level. The supervisor then fills in the

blanks in a standard statement relating

to the level of certification and

functional area for the Acquisition

Professional Development Program

(APDP).

(b) The supervisor creates a brief

description of job-specific information

by typing free-form at the appropriate

point. From a menu, the supervisor will

choose statements pertaining to physical

requirements; knowledges, skills, and

abilities required to perform the work;

and special licenses or certifications

needed (other than APDP). Based on the

supervisory level code selected above,

the system will produce mandatory

statements pertaining to affirmative

employment, safety, and security

programs. The system will also produce

a statement pertaining to positive

education requirements, or their

equivalencies, based on the

occupational series selected.

(c) The supervisor selects up to three

skill code sets from the listing provided

which are appropriate to the job. From

the menu, the supervisor also selects the

position sensitivity; Fair Labor

Standards Act (FLSA) status; drug

testing requirements; emergency

essential and key position information;

the career program to which the

position belongs; the bargaining unit

status code; and the contribution factor

weights which apply to the job category

previously selected. This information,

along with the supervisory level and the

competitive level code, constitutes the

SDE addendum. These data elements

will be maintained as a separate page of

the SDE (i.e., an addendum) as this

information can change frequently. By

maintaining this information as an

addendum, the need to create and

classify a new SDE each time one of

these elements must be updated is

alleviated.

(d) The supervisor accomplishes the

SDE with a recommended classification,

then signs and dates the document. The

SDE is sent to the individual in the

organization with delegated

classification authority for approval and

classification, which is indicated by that

person signing and dating the SDE.

The computer assisted system will

incorporate definitions for the CCS job

categories, supervisory levels, all S&E

occupational series, as well as their

corresponding skill code sets and the

functional classification codes. The

functional classification codes are those

currently found in the OPM

‘‘Introduction to the Classification

Standards’’ which define certain kinds

of activities, e.g., research, development,

test and evaluation, etc. The FLSA

status selection must be in accordance

with OPM guidance. Throughout the

above process, manpower analysts and

personnel specialists will be available to

advise laboratory management.

D. Contribution-based Compensation

System

1. Overview

The purpose of the Contributionbased Compensation System (CCS) is to

provide an effective, efficient, and

flexible method for assessing,

compensating, and managing the

laboratory S&E workforce. It is essential

for the development of a highly

productive workforce and to provide

management, at the lowest practical

level, the authority, control, and

flexibility needed to achieve quality

laboratories and quality products. CCS

allows for more employee involvement

in the assessment process, increases

communication between supervisor and

employee, promotes a clear

accountability of contribution,

facilitates employee career progression,

provides an understandable basis for

salary changes, and delinks awards from

the annual assessment process. Funds

previously allocated for performancebased awards will be reserved for

distribution under a separate laboratory

awards program.

CCS is a contribution-based

assessment system that goes beyond a

performance-based rating system. That

is, it measures the employee’s

contribution to the organization rather

than how well the employee performed

a job as defined by a performance plan;

one which may represent a lower level

of responsibility and expectation based

on the employee’s previous

performance. CCS promotes proactive

salary adjustment decisions to be made

on the basis of an individual’s overall

contribution to the organization.

Contribution is measured by factors,

each of which is relevant to the success

of an Research and Development (R&D)

laboratory. Six factors have been

developed for evaluating the yearly

contribution of S&E personnel covered

by this initiative: Technical Problem

Solving, Communications/Reporting,

Corporate Resource Management,

Technology Transition/Technology

Transfer, R&D Business Development,

and Cooperation and Supervision.

Each factor has four levels of

increasing contribution corresponding

to the four broadband levels. These

factors use the same descriptors as those

presented under classification (section

III C). Under classification, for example,

only level I descriptors are applied for

each of the six factors for a level I

employee. For the CCS assessment

process, the six factors are presented

with all four levels of contribution to

better assist supervisor assessment.

Therefore, for classification, the factors

are sorted first by level and then by

factor as shown in section III C 2. For

the CCS assessment process, the level

descriptors are sorted first by factor and

then by level as shown below.

Level Descriptor Key elements

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I ........... Conducts in-house technical activities and/or may provide contract technical direction

with guidance from supervisor or higher level scientist or engineer.

Scope of Project/Level of Impact.

Works closely with peers in collectively solving problems of moderate complexity, involving limited variables, precedents established in related projects, and minor adaptations to well-established methods and techniques.Technical Complexity/Creativity.

Recognized within own organization for technical ability in assigned areas ..................... Recognition
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24629

Level Descriptor Key elements

II .......... Conducts in-house technical activities and/or provides contract technical direction to

programs of moderate size and complexity with minimal oversight.

Scope of Project/Level of Impact.

Contributes technical ideas and conceives and defines solutions to technical problems

of moderate size or complexity.

Technical Complexity/Creativity.

Recognized internally and externally by peers, both in governmental and industrial activities, for technical expertise.Recognition

III ......... Conducts and/or directs technical activities and/or assists higher levels on challenging

and innovative projects or technical program development with only broad guidance.

Scope of Project/Level of Impact.

Develops solutions to diverse, complex problems involving various functional areas and

disciplines. Conducts and/or directs large programs in technically complex areas.

Technical Complexity/Creativity.

Recognized within the laboratory, service, DoD, industry, and academia for technical

expertise and has established professional reputation in national technical community.

Recognition

IV ......... Independently defines, leads, and manages the most challenging and innovative complex technical activities/programs consistent with general guidance or independently

directs overall R&D program.

Scope of Project/Level of Impact.

Conceives and develops creative solutions to the most complex problems requiring

highly specialized areas of technical expertise.

Technical Complexity/Creativity.

Recognized within the laboratory, service, DoD, and other agencies for broad technical

area expertise and has established professional reputation in the national and international technical community.

Recognition

FACTOR 2: COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING

I ........... Provides data and written analysis for input to scientific papers, journal articles, and reports and/or assists in preparing contractural documents and/or reviews technical reports; work is acknowledged in team publications.Written and Oral.

Effectively presents technical results of own studies, tasks, or contract results ............... Breadth of Responsibility.

Material is presented either orally or in writing, within own organization or to limited external contacts.Level/Diversity of Audiences.

Conducts these activities under guidance of supervisor and/or team leader .................... Oversight Required.

II .......... Writes or is major contributing author on scientific papers, journal articles, or reports

and/or prepares contract documents and reviews reports pertaining to area of technical expertise. May assist in filing innovation disclosures, inventions, and patents.

Written and Oral.

Effectively prepares and presents own and/or team technical results ............................... Breadth of Responsibility.

Communicates work to varied laboratory, scientific, industry, and other government audiences.Level/Diversity of Audiences.

May prepare and present presentations on critical program for use at higher levels with

some guidance.

Oversight Required.

III ......... Lead author on major scientific papers, refereed journal articles, and reports and/or prepares and reviews contract documents and reviews reports of others pertaining to

overall program. May document or file inventions, patents, and innovation disclosures

relevant to subject area.

Written and Oral.

Prepares and presents technical and/or financial and programmatic briefings and documentation for team, organization, or technical area.Breadth of Responsibility.

Prepares and delivers presentations for major projects and technology areas to scientific and/or government audiences.Level/Diversity of Audiences.

Reviews oral presentation of others. Communication and reporting functions conducted

with minimal higher level oversight.

Oversight Required.

IV ......... Lead or sole author on scientific papers, refereed journal articles, or review articles

which are recognized as major advances or resolutions in the technical area and/or

reviews and approves reporting of all technical products of mission area. May exploit

innovations which normally lead to inventions, disclosures, and patents.

Written and Oral.

Prepares and presents technical and/or financial and programmatic briefings and documentation for breadth of programs at or above own level.Breadth of Responsibility.

As subject matter expert, prepares and delivers invited or contributed presentations, papers at national or international conferences on technical area, or gives policy level

briefings.

Level/Diversity of Audiences.

Singularly responsible for overall quality and timeliness of technical/scientific/programmatic reports and presentations of group and self.Oversight Required.

FACTOR 3: CORPORATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

I ........... May coordinate elements of in-house work units or assist in managing a scientific or

support contract.

In-House/Contract Managing.

Uses personal and assigned resources efficiently under guidance of supervisor or team

leader.

Size & Complexity.

As an understanding of organizational activities, policies, and objectives is gained, participates in team planning.Make/Buy/Rely.

II .......... Manages all aspects of technically complex in-house work units or one or more contractual efforts in assigned program area.In-House/Contract Managing.

Effectively plans and controls all assigned resources. Makes and meets time and budget estimates on assigned projects or takes appropriate corrective action.Size & Complexity.

Participates in organizational or strategic planning at team level, taking cognizance of

complementary projects elsewhere to ensure optimal use of resources.

Make/Buy/Rely.
24630 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

Level Descriptor Key elements

III ......... Defines program strategy and resource allocations for in-house and/or contractual programs.In-House/Contract Managing.

For assigned technical areas, conducts program planning, coordination, and/or documentation (master plans, roadmaps, Joint Director of Lab/Reliance, etc.). Advocates

to laboratory and/or higher headquarters on budgetary and programmatic issues for

resources.

Size & Complexity.

Based on knowledge of analytical and evaluative methods and techniques, participates

in strategic planning at branch and/or division level. Considers and consults on technical programs of other organizations working in the field to ensure optimal use of resources.

Make/Buy/Rely.

IV ......... Defines technology area strategy and resource allocations for in-house and contractual

programs.

In-House/Contract Managing.

For multiple technical areas, conducts overall program planning and coordination, and/

or program documentation (master plans, roadmaps, Joint Director of Labs/Project

Reliance, etc.). Advocates to command, service, and agency levels on budgetary and

programmatic issues for resources.

Size & Complexity.

Utilizing advanced analytical and evaluative methods and techniques, leads strategic

planning and prioritization processes. Develops strategy to leverage resources from

other agencies and ensures equitable distribution and appropriate use of internal resources.

Make/Buy/Rely.

FACTOR 4: TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

I ........... Participates as a team member in demonstrating technology and in interacting with internal/external customers.Customer Interaction Level.

With guidance, contributes to technical content of partnerships for technology transition

and/or transfer (Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).

Partnership/Level of Independence.

Seeks out and uses relevant outside technologies in assigned projects ........................... Leveraging Outside Technology.

II .......... Develops demonstrations and interacts independently with internal/external customers Customer Interaction Level.

As a team member, implements partnerships for transition and/or transfer of technology

(Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).

Partnership/Level of Independence.

Evaluates and incorporates appropriate outside technology in individual or team activities..Leveraging Outside Technology.

III ......... Develops customer base and expands opportunities for technology transition and transfer.Customer Interaction Level.

Leads or serves as key technical member of teams implementing partnerships for transition or transfer of technology (Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles).Partnership/Level of Independence.

Ensures incorporation of outside technology within laboratory programs .......................... Leveraging Outside Technology.

IV ......... Organizes, leads, and markets overall technology transition and transfer activities for organization at senior management levels.Customer Interaction Level.

Leads in formulation and oversight of Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Memorandums of Understanding, Joint Director of Labs/Project Reliance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and other dual-use vehicles.Partnership/Level of Independence.

Creates an environment that encourages widespread exploitation of both national and

international technologies.

Leveraging Outside Technology.

FACTOR 5: R&D BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

I ........... As a team member communicates with customers to understand customer requirements.Customer Interaction level.

By maintaining currency in area of expertise, contributes as a team member to new

program development.

Knowledge and Level of Planning.

May technically participate in writing proposals to establish new business opportunities Knowledge of Market & Success in Getting

Funds.

II .......... Initiates meetings and interactions with customers to understand customer needs .......... Customer Interaction Level.

Generates key ideas for program development based on understanding of technology

and customer needs. Demonstrates expertise to internal/external customers.

Knowledge and Level of Planning.

Contributes technically to proposal preparation and marketing to establish new business

opportunities.

Knowledge of Market & Success in Getting

Funds.

III ......... Works to establish customer alliances and translates customer needs to programs in a

particular technical area.

Customer Interaction Level.

Develops feasible research strategies and/or business strategies for new technical activities.Knowledge and Level of Planning.

Seeks joint program coalitions with other agencies and funding opportunities from outside organizations. Pursues near-term business opportunities through proposals.Knowledge of Market & Success in Getting

Funds.

IV ......... Works with the senior management level to stimulate development of customer alliances for several technical areas.Customer Interaction Level.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24631

Level Descriptor Key elements

Generates strategic research and/or business objectives for core technical areas. Recognizes war-fighting trends, relates business opportunities, and convinces laboratory

management to develop and/or acquire expertise and commit funds.

Knowledge and Level of Planning.

Secures business opportunities supporting long-term mission relevancy through targeted proposals and processes..Knowledge of Market & Success in Getting

Funds.

FACTOR 6: COOPERATION AND SUPERVISION

I ........... Contributes to all aspects of teams’ responsibilities ........................................................... Team Role.

May technically guide or mentor less experienced personnel on limited aspects of scientific or engineering efforts.Breadth of Influence.

Receives close guidance from supervisor and/or higher level scientist or engineer. Performs duties in a professional, responsive, and cooperative manner in accordance

with established policies and procedures.

Supervision & Guidance Received.

II .......... Contributes as a technical task or team leader; is sought out for expertise by peers; and

participates in mentoring of team members.

Team Role.

May guide on a daily basis, technical, programmatic, and administrative efforts of individuals or team members.Breadth of Influence.

May recommend selection or may select staff and/or team members. Assists in the development and training of individuals or team members. May participate in position

and performance management.

Supervision & Subordinate Development.

Receives general guidance in terms of policies, program objectives, and/or funding issues from supervisor and/or higher level scientist or engineer. Discusses novel concepts and significant departures from previous practices with supervisor or team leader.Supervision & Guidance Received.

III ......... Is sought out for consultation and mentors team members ............................................... Team Role.

Guides the research, technical and/or programmatic, and administrative efforts of individuals or teams with accountability for focus and quality.Breadth of Influence.

Recommends selection or selects staff and/or team members. Supports development

and training of subordinates and/or team members. Participates in position and performance management.

Supervision & Subordinate Development.

Receives only broad policy and administrative guidance from supervisor, such as initiation and curtailment of programs.Supervision & Guidance Received.

IV ......... Establishes team charters and develops future team leaders and supervisors ................ Team Role.

Leads and manages all aspects of subordinates’ or team members’ efforts with complete accountability for mission and programmatic success.Breadth of Influence.

Recommdends selection or selects staff, team leaders, and team members; fosters development and training of supervisory and non-supervisory individuals. Directs or recommends position and performance management.Supervision & Subordinate Development.

Works within the framework of agency policies, mission objectives, and time and funding limitations.Supervision & Guidance Received.

The assessment process (section III D

3) begins with employee input which

provides an opportunity to state the

accomplishments and level of

contribution perceived. To determine

the employee’s yearly contribution, the

six factors will then be assessed by the

immediate supervisor. For each factor,

the supervisor places the employee’s

contribution at a particular level. If the

contribution level for a factor is at the

lowest level of level I, a score of 1.0 is

assigned. Higher levels of contribution

are assigned scores increasing in 0.1

increments up to 4.9. A factor score of

0.0 can be assigned if the employee’s

contribution does not demonstrate a

minimum level I contribution. Under

CCS, immediate supervisors will work

with other supervisors in a group setting

to render final scores. Weights may be

applied to the six factors for different

job categories of S&Es (section III D 7).

CCS will also incorporate a midyear

feedback session.

Employees within organizations are

placed into pay pools (section III D 4).

Salary adjustments, i.e., decisions to

give or withhold salary increases,

(section III D 5) are based on the

relationship between contribution

scores and present salaries. The

maximum available pay rate under this

demonstration will be the rate for GS–

15/Step-10. Decisions for broadband

movement (section III D 6) are also

based on this relationship.

Cost neutrality is assured within each

pay pool by limiting the total of salary

increases to the funds available to the

pay pool, based on what would have

been available in the General Schedule

system from general pay increases, step

increases, and promotions. No changes

will be made to locality pay under the

demonstration project.

2. The ‘‘Standard Pay Line’’ (SPL)

The relationship between each CCS

score and the appropriate salary rate is

expressed mathematically as a line. All

S&Es entering the system will initially

have their salary lie close to this

‘‘standard pay line’’ (SPL). Because

employees enter the demonstration from

a grade and step system, an initial

correlation generally exists between

their former GS/GM grade and step and

the CCS scores appropriate for that

broadband level. For example, level II

consists of GS–12s and GS/GM–13s;

GS–12/Step- 1 closely aligns to a CCS

score of 2.0, GS–12/Step-2 correlates

with a CCS score of 2.05,..., GS/GM–13/

Step-1 relates to a CCS score of 2.5,...,

and GS/GM–13/Step-10 to a CCS score

of 2.95. This is shown in Figure 1 for the

four-level broadband system where the

salary of each GS grade/step is plotted

on the Y-axis. Although the data are not

continuous, there is a linear trend. Each

of these data points was weighted by the

actual calendar year 1995 (CY95)

population data for the demonstration

laboratories. Using a least squares error
24632 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

analysis, the best straight line fit to this weighted data was determined and is

shown in Figure 1.

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

FIGURE 1—CCS RELATIONSHIP

BILLING CODE 6325–01–C

Equation of the Standard Pay Line

(without locality) for CY95

COMPENSATION =

$13,572+$15,415×CCS SCORE

The SPL defined in Figure 1 is tied to

the basic GS pay scale for CY95. The

SPL for CY96 was calculated from the

SPL for CY95 and the general increase

(G) given to GS employees in January

1996. The equation for the CY96 SPL is:

COMPENSATION = $13,843 + $15,723

× CCS SCORE. The CY97 SPL will be

the CY96 SPL increased by the ‘‘G’’ for

CY97. Continuing this calculation of

SPL will maintain the same

relationships between the basic GS payscale and the SPL in the demonstration

project. Locality salary adjustments are

not included in the SPL.

Rails were constructed at + and - 0.3

CCS around the SPL. These rails create

an area in which nearly 100% of

employees initially entering the

demonstration will be included. A few

may fall below the lower rail, but no

employee will enter the demonstration

above the upper rail. The area

encompassed by the rails denotes the

acceptable contribution and

compensation relationship. Future CCS

assessments will likely alter an

employee’s position relative to these

rails.

3. The CCS Assessment Process

The annual assessment cycle begins

on 1 October and ends on 30 September

of the following year. At the beginning

of the annual assessment period, the

broadband level descriptors and weights

(section III D 7) will be provided to

employees so that they know the basis

on which their contribution will be

assessed. A midyear review, in the

March to April time frame, will discuss

the employee’s contributions to-date

and the employee’s professional

development. At the end of the

assessment period, employees will

summarize their contributions in each

factor for their immediate supervisor.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24633

The supervisor will determine initial

CCS scores using the employee input

and the supervisor’s assessment of the

overall contribution to the laboratory

mission. For each factor, the supervisor

places the employee’s contribution at a

particular level (I, II, III, or IV). If the

contribution for a factor is at the lowest

end of a level, a score of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,

or 4.0 is assigned. Greater contributions

in each level are assigned scores

increasing in 0.1 increments up to 1.9,

2.9, 3.9, or 4.9. A factor score of 0.0 can

be assigned if the employee does not

demonstrate a minimum level I

contribution. Factor scores are then

averaged to give a total CCS score.

The immediate supervisors (for

instance, branch chiefs) and the next

level supervisors (for instance, division

chiefs) for a pay pool then meet as a

group to review and discuss all

proposed employee assessments and

adjust individual CCS scores, if

necessary. Giving authority to the group

of managers to make minor score

adjustments ensures contributions will

have been assessed and measured

similarly for all employees. Once the

scores have been finalized, the results

and any training and/or career

development needs will be discussed

with the individual employees. Pay

adjustments will be made on the basis

of this CCS assessment and the

employee’s current salary. Pay

adjustments are subject to a few payout

rules discussed in section III D 5. Final

pay determinations will be made at a

management level above the group of

supervisors who rendered final CCS

assessments. CCS scores, however,

cannot be changed by managerial levels

above the original group of supervisors.

Decisions for any broadband level

changes (section III D 6) will be

submitted to at least one level of

management higher than the group of

supervisors (for instance, directorate

chief) for approval. Pay adjustments and

broadband level changes will then be

documented by SF–50, Notification of

Personnel Action.

4. Pay Pools

Pay pool structure is under the

authority of the laboratory directors/

commanders. The following minimal

guidelines, however, will apply: (a) a

pay pool is based on the organizational

structure and should include a range of

S&E salaries and contribution levels; (b)

a pay pool must be large enough to

constitute a reasonable statistical

sample, i.e., 35 or more; (c) a pay pool

must be large enough to encompass a

second level of supervision since the

CCS process uses a group of supervisors

in the pay pool to determine

assessments and recommend salary

adjustments; and (d) the pay pool

manager (for instance, a division chief

or directorate chief) holds yearly pay

adjustment authority. Pay pool

managers’ pay determinations, however,

may still be subject to higher

management review.

The amount of money available for

salary increases within a pay pool is

determined by the general increase (G)

and money that would have been

available for step increases and

promotions (I). The latter will be set at

2.4% upon implementing the

demonstration and is considered

adjustable to ensure cost neutrality over

the life of the demonstration. The

amount of ‘‘I’’ to be included in the pay

pool will be computed based on the

salaries of employees in the pay pool as

of 30 September each year.

5. Salary Adjustment Guidelines

After the initial assignment into the

CCS system, employees’ yearly

contributions will be determined by the

CCS process described above, and their

CCS scores versus their current salaries

will be plotted on a graph along with

the SPL (see Figure 2). The position of

those points relative to the SPL gives a

relative measure (δY/Y) of the degree of

over- or under-compensation for the

employees. This permits all employees

within a pay pool to be rank-ordered by

δY/Y, from the most under-compensated

employee to most over-compensated.

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P
24634 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

BILLING CODE 6525–01–C

In general, those employees who fall

below the SPL (indicating undercompensation, for example, employee X

in Figure 2) should expect to receive

greater salary increases than those who

fall above the line (indicating overcompensation, for example, employee

Z). Over time, people will migrate closer

to the standard pay line and receive a

salary appropriate to their level of

contribution. The following are more

specific guidelines: (a) Those who fall

above the upper rail (for example,

employee Z) will be given an increase

ranging from zero to a maximum of ‘‘G’’;

(b) Those who fall within the rails (for

example, employee Y) will be given a

minimum of ‘‘G’’; and (c) Those who fall

below the lower rail (for example,

employee X) will be given at least their

base pay times ‘‘G’’ plus the percentage

of funds set aside for step increases and

promotions which will no longer take

place (I). Should an employee’s CCS

assessment fall on either rail, it will be

considered to be within the rails.

Initially, the value of ‘‘I’’ will be

2.4%; the percentage, however, may be

changed to ensure cost neutrality. Each

pay pool manager will set the necessary

guidelines for the gradation of pay

adjustments in the pay pool within

these general rules. Decisions made will

be standard and consistent within the

pay pool, be fair and equitable to all

stakeholders, maintain cost neutrality,

and be subject to review. The maximum

available pay rate under this

demonstration will be the rate for GS–

15/Step-10.

6. Movement Between Broadband

Levels

It is the intent of the demonstration

project to have S&E career growth be

accomplished through unrestricted

movement through the broadband levels

based on contribution and salary.

Movement through the broadband levels

will be determined by contribution and

salary following the CCS payout

calculation. Resulting changes in

broadband levels are not accompanied

by tradition promotion dollars, but

rather, they will be documented as a

change in title, change in broadband

level, and reaccomplishment of a

Statement of Duties and Experiences

(SDE) (section III C 6). The terms

Promotion and Demotion will not be

used in connection with the CCS

process. Rather, these terms will be

reserved for competitive placement and

adverse actions.

Broadband levels are derived from an

initial grouping of one or more GS

grades. Salary overlap between adjacent

levels is desirable for broadband level
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24635

movement. It is more convenient,

however, to redefine these overlaps (that

is, the top and bottom salary ranges of

the broadband levels which produce the

overlaps) in terms of the SPL.

Specifically, the salary overlap between

two levels is defined by the salaries at

¥ to + 0.2 CCS around the whole

number score defining the boundary

between the contribution levels. For

example, the maximum salary for level

II would be that salary from the SPL

corresponding to a CCS score of 3.2.

Likewise, the minimum salary for level

III would be the salary from the SPL

corresponding to a CCS score of 2.8.

This definition provides a salary overlap

between broadband levels that is

consistent and similar to salary overlaps

in the GS schedule.

Figure 3 shows the salary overlap

areas between broadband contribution

levels. These salary overlap areas are

divided into three zones designated as

CL (consideration for change to lower

level), CH (consideration for change to

higher level), and E (eligible for change

to higher or lower level). All the E zones

have the same width, 0.4 CCS, and

height. The E zone is described as the

box formed by the intersection of the

integer + and - 0.2 CCS lines and the

SPL.

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

BILLING CODE 6325–01–C

The E zones serve to stabilize the

movement between adjacent broadband

levels. This allows for annual

fluctuations in contribution scores for

people near the top or bottom of a level,

without creating the need for repeated

changes of their titles. An employee

whose contribution score falls within an

E zone is eligible for a change in

broadband level (with the associated

title change), but one should not be

given unless the supervisor has a

compelling reason to advance or reduce

the employee’s level. Under normal

circumstances, pay adjustments under

CCS will follow contribution scores.

Those who consistently achieve

increased contribution assessments will

progress through their broadband level

and will find their salary climbing into

the corresponding CH zone. Once the

employee’s CCS score is demonstrated

to be consistently within the CH zone,

the employee should be moved to the

higher broadband level unless the

supervisor has a compelling reason not

to request the change. Conversely,

regression through the broadband levels

works the same way in the opposite

direction. Those who consistently

receive decreasing contribution

assessments will regress through their

broadband level and would not have

been receiving any salary adjustments

greater than ‘‘G.’’ They will find that the

CL zone at the bottom of their current

broadband level will catch up with their

current salary. Once the employee’s CCS

score is demonstrated to be consistently

within the CL zone, the employee

should be moved to the lower
24636 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

broadband level unless the supervisor

has a compelling reason not to request

the change. Compelling reasons for

retaining broadband levels in the

presence of a consistent assessment in

the CH or CL range must be documented

in writing and provided to the

employee. If an employee moves totally

above the CH zone or below the CL

zone, the employee will be changed in

broadband level without supervisory

action.

At the present time, high-grade

controls within the agency restrict

movement between broadband level II

and broadband level III. A separate triservice initiative to replace these

controls with other management

measures is currently under review by

the Department of Defense. Until the

high-grade controls are lifted,

demonstration project employees will

not be able to advance from broadband

level II to broadband level III unless a

high-grade authorization is available. To

accommodate this, level II employees

whose salary adjustment would place

them above the CH zone for level II in

organizations where high-grade

authorizations are unavailable will

receive permanent adjustments to basic

salary up to an amount equivalent to the

top of broadband level II. Any

additional amount granted under CCS

will be paid as a one-time bonus

payment from pay pool funds. This

pattern of payout will continue until

high-grade authorizations become

available.

Movement under CCS happens once a

year. Under the demonstration project,

managers are provided greater flexibility

in assigning duties by moving

employees between positions within

their broadband level. If, throughout the

year, there are vacancies at higher levels

(typically supervisory positions),

employees may be considered for

promotion to those positions according

to the demonstration project

competitive promotion procedures

approved by the Air Force.

Demonstration employees selected for

positions at a higher broadband level

will receive the minimum of the new

broadband level or their existing salary,

whichever is greater. Under the

approved competitive promotion

procedures, the selecting official may

consider candidates from any source

based on viable and supportable job

related merit-based methodology.

Similarly, if there is sufficient cause, an

employee may be demoted to a lower

level position according to the

contribution-based reduction in pay or

removal procedures discussed in section

III E or the existing procedures related

to disciplinary actions.

7. Weights

Employees under the demonstration

will be assigned to one of five job

categories:

(a) Supervisor, primary function is to

supervise other employees;

(b) Plans & Programs S&E, primary

function is to formulate plans and

policies to further the organizational

mission;

(c) Program Manager, primary

function is to run/direct research and

development (R&D) programs;

(d) Support S&E, primary function is

to support the research efforts of the

laboratory; and

(e) Bench-Level S&E, primary

function is to perform R&D within the

mission focus of the laboratory.

Laboratory directors/commanders will

have the authority to determine if

varying weights should be applied to

the six CCS factors based on these job

categories. As an example, Technical

Problem Solving may be more heavily

weighted for Bench-Level S&Es than the

factor of Technology Transition/

Technology Transfer.

The authority to use weights and the

authority to set weights may be

delegated below the laboratory director/

commander. But, weights must be the

same for all employees in a particular

job category in a pay pool. This ensures

that a fair comparison of employees is

made, without having the weights

tailored to specific individuals. The

overall CCS score is determined by

multiplying the score for each factor by

the weight, adding the results, and then

dividing by the sum of the weights.

This demonstration project, in part, is

predicated on the belief that the

continued success and viability of the

laboratories depends on all employees

seeking to contribute in each of the

areas defined by the six factors. Making

all employees accountable for all factors

shifts organizational values in new

directions. For this reason, no factor can

be given a weight of zero. Laboratory

directors/commanders should annually

review the weightings for the various

job categories to see if they can be

increased toward a weighting of 1.0 to

encourage and allow employees to raise

their CCS contribution assessment by

contributing in a broader range of

activities. Contribution in all six factors

is important to ensure both the overall

success of DoD laboratories and

individual S&E career growth. Hence,

the weights should be reviewed

frequently, and an effort made to move

away from them in later years of the

demonstration.

Other guidelines for setting weights

for the six factors are: (a) Weights may

be assigned any value, in increments of

0.1, from 0.1 to 1.0; (b) At least three

factors must have a weight of 1.0; and

(c) No more than one factor can have a

weight of less than 0.5. For all six

factors, therefore, the weights must sum

from 4.1 to 6.0.

8. Voluntary Pay Reduction and Pay

Raise Declination

A provision exists today for an

employee to request a change to lower

grade. If that request is totally the

employee’s choice, then the employee’s

salary is lowered accordingly. Although

the rationale behind such a voluntary

request varies, under CCS a voluntary

request for a pay reduction or a

voluntary declination of a pay raise

would effectively put an overcompensated employee’s pay closer to

or below the standard pay line. Since an

objective of CCS is to properly

compensate employees for their

contribution, the granting of such

requests is consistent with this goal.

Under normal circumstances, all

employees should be encouraged to

advance their careers through increasing

contribution rather than trying to be

under-compensated at a fixed level of

contribution.

To handle these special

circumstances, employees must submit

a request for voluntary pay reduction or

pay raise declination during the 30-day

period immediately following the

annual payout, and show reasons for the

request. All actions will be

appropriately documented.

9. Implementation Schedule

The 1996 employee annual appraisal

will be done according to Air Force

performance plan rules in effect at the

time of the 1996 close-out. The 1997

appraisal cycle will also begin but is not

anticipated to be completed due to the

implementation schedule of this

demonstration project. The first

assessment cycle under CCS will

commence the day the demonstration is

implemented and run through 30

September 1997. The first CCS payout

will be given in the traditional first full

pay period in calendar year 1998.

10. CCS Grievance Procedures

An employee may grieve the

assessment received under CCS.

Nonbargaining unit employees, and

bargaining unit employees covered by a

negotiated grievance procedure which

does not permit grievances over

performance ratings, must file

assessment grievances under

administrative grievance procedures.

Bargaining unit employees, whose

negotiated grievance procedures cover
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24637

performance rating grievances, must file

assessment grievances under those

negotiated procedures.

E. Contribution-based Reduction in Pay

or Removal Actions

This section applies to reduction in

pay or removal of demonstration project

employees based solely on inadequate

contribution. Adverse actions

procedures under 5 CFR 752 remain

unchanged.

When an employee’s contribution

plots in the area above the upper rail of

the SPL (section III D 3) the employee

is considered to be in the Automatic

Attention Zone (AAZ). In this case, the

supervisor has two options. The first is

to take no action but to document this

decision in a memorandum for record.

A copy of this memorandum will be

provided to the employee and to higher

levels of management. The second

option is to inform the employee, in

writing, that unless the contribution

increases to, and is sustained at, a

higher level, the employee may be

reduced in pay or removed.

These provisions also apply to an

employee whose contribution

deteriorates during the year. In such

instances, the group of supervisors who

meet during the CCS assessment process

may reconvene any time during the year

to review the circumstances warranting

the recommendation to take further

action on the employee.

The supervisor will afford the

employee a reasonable opportunity (a

minimum of 60 days) to demonstrate

increased contribution commensurate

with the duties and responsibilities of

the employee’s position. As part of the

employee’s opportunity to demonstrate

increased contribution, the laboratory

will offer assistance to the employee.

Once an employee has been afforded

a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate

increased contribution, the laboratory

may propose a reduction in pay or

removal action. If the employee’s

contribution increases to a higher level

and is again determined to deteriorate in

any area within 2 years from the

beginning of the opportunity period, the

laboratory may initiate reduction in pay

or removal with no additional

opportunity to improve. If an employee

has contributed appropriately for 2

years from the beginning of an

opportunity period and the employee’s

overall contribution once again

declines, the laboratory will afford the

employee an additional opportunity to

demonstrate increased contribution

before determining whether or not to

propose a reduction in pay or removal.

An employee whose reduction in pay

or removal is proposed is entitled to a

30 day advance notice of the proposed

action that identifies specific instances

of inadequate contribution by the

employee on which the action is based.

The laboratory may extend this advance

notice for a period not to exceed an

additional 30 days. The laboratory will

afford the employee a reasonable time to

answer the laboratory’s notice of

proposed action orally and/or in

writing.

A decision to reduce in pay or remove

an employee for inadequate

contribution may be based only on those

instances of inadequate contribution

that occurred during the 2 year period

ending on the date of issuance of the

advance notice of proposed action. The

laboratory will issue written notice of its

decision to the employee at or before the

time the action will be effective. Such

notice will specify the instances of

inadequate contribution by the

employee on which the action is based

and will inform the employee of any

applicable appeal or grievance rights.

The laboratory will preserve all

relevant documentation concerning a

reduction in pay or removal which is

based on inadequate contribution and

make it available for review by the

affected employee or designated

representative. At a minimum, the

laboratory’s records will consist of a

copy of the notice of proposed action;

the written answer of the employee or

a summary thereof when the employee

makes an oral reply; and the written

notice of decision and the reasons

therefore, along with any supporting

material including documentation

regarding the opportunity afforded the

employee to demonstrate increased

contribution.

When the action is not taken because

of contribution improvement by the

employee during the notice period, the

employee is not reduced in pay or

removed, and the employee’s

contribution continues to be deemed

adequate for 2 years from the date of the

advanced written notice, any entry or

other notation of the proposed action

will be removed from all laboratory

records relating to the employee.

F. Voluntary Emeritus Corps

Under the demonstration project,

laboratory directors/commanders will

have the authority to offer retired or

separated employees voluntary

assignments in the laboratories. This

authority will include employees who

have retired or separated from Federal

service, including those who have

accepted a buy-out. The voluntary

emeritus corps will ensure continued

quality research while reducing the

overall salary line by allowing higher

paid employees to accept retirement

incentives with the opportunity to

retain a presence in the scientific

community. The program will be of

most benefit during manpower

reductions as senior S&Es could accept

retirement and return to provide

valuable on-the-job training or

mentoring to less experienced

employees.

To be accepted into the emeritus

corps, a volunteer must be

recommended by laboratory managers to

the laboratory director/commander.

Everyone who applies is not entitled to

a volunatry assignment. The laboratory

director/commander must clearly

document the decision process for each

applicant (whether accepted or rejected)

and retain the documentation

throughout the assignment.

Documentation of rejections will be

maintained for 2 years.

To encourage participation, the

volunteer’s federal retirement pay

(whether military or civilian) will not be

affected while serving in a voluntary

capacity.

Volunteers will not be permitted to

monitor contracts on behalf of the

government or to participate on any

contracts where a conflict of interest

exists.

An agreement will be established

between the volunteer, the laboratory

director/commander, and the Civilian

Personnel Flight. The agreement must

be finalized in advance and shall

include as a minimum:

(a) a statement that the voluntary

assignment does not constitute an

appointment in the civil service and is

without compensation,

(b) the volunteer waives any and all

claims against the Government because

of the voluntary assignment except for

purposes of on-the-job injury

compensation as provided in 5 U.S.C.

8101(1)(B),

(c) volunteer’s work schedule,

(d) length of agreement (defined by

length of project or time defined by

weeks, months, or years),

(e) support provided by the laboratory

(travel, administrative, office space,

supplies),

(f) a one page SDE,

(g) a provision that states no

additional time will be added to a

volunteer’s retirement credit as a result

of being a member of the voluntary

emeritus corps,

(h) a provision allowing either party

to void the agreement with 10 working

days written notice, and

(i) the level of security access required

(any security clearance required by the

assignment will be managed by the
24638 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

laboratory while the volunteer is a

member of the emeritus corps).

G. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF)

Procedures

Reduction-in-force is not the vehicle

for addressing contribution/disciplinary

problems properly addressed under

section III E or 5 U.S.C. 75, Adverse

Actions. When there is a requirement to

reduce the size of the laboratory

workforce due to a lack of funds, lack

of work, or other reason specified in 5

CFR 351.201, demonstration project

employees will be identified for

reduction using the following

procedures. A separate competitive area will be

established by geographic location for

all laboratory personnel included in the

demonstration project. The revised RIF

procedures apply to all regular career

S&Es (including those who have not

completed their probationary period). Each laboratory shall establish

competitive levels consisting of all

positions in a competitive area which

are in the same broadband level and

occupational family and which are

similar enough that the incumbent of

one position could succeed in the new

position without any loss of

productivity beyond that normally

expected in the orientation of any new,

but fully qualified, employee. The

laboratory directors/commanders, or

their designee, will observe and

participate with the appropriate Civilian

Personnel representative in all

placement actions. Competing employees shall be ranked

on a retention register on the basis of

their annual CCS assessment (∆X),

veterans preference, and length of

service. The ∆X is determined by

plotting an individual’s annual CCS

score and present salary as a point on

a graph and computing the difference

between the position of that point and

the contribution point on the SPL for

the employee’s salary rate. This is

computed by actual CCS score minus

expected SPL point for that salary rate

and may result in positive, zero, or

negative ∆X. This ∆X replaces the

annual performance rating in the RIF

definition and is the primary factor in

determining an employee’s retention

standing. The retention order will be as follows:

(a) All regular career employees,

including those employees who have

not completed a probationary period,

will be listed on the retention register

based on an individual’s ∆X consisting

of an average of the three most recent

CCS assessments of record. The

employees will then be divided into

three categories: (1) above the upper rail

(a ∆X less than ¥0.30), (2) within the

two rails (a ∆X equal to or greater than

¥0.30 and less than or equal to +0.30),

and (3) below the lower rail (a ∆X

greater than +0.30).

(b) All employees within each of these

three categories will tie for the purposes

of RIF. Ties will be broken by using an

employee’s veterans preference for RIF

(i.e., 30 percent disabled veterans will

be listed first, followed by other

veterans, and all non-veterans will be

listed last).

(c) Ties within this latter category will

be broken based on Service

Computation Date (SCD). No additional

credit will be added to the SCD based

on the CCS annual assessments.

Until the first CCS assessment is given

under the demonstration project,

traditional RIF rules will be followed.

Should a RIF occur between the first

and second CCS assessment dates,

employees will have their SCD adjusted

based on the employee’s two most

recent annual performance ratings of

record received during the 3-year period

prior to implementation of the

demonstration project. Effective with

the second CCS assessment date, no

credit will be given for ratings received

outside the demonstration project.

One objective of the demonstration

project is to ensure lower ranked

contributors are the first to be RIFed

while continuing to preserve Veterans

Preference. After 3 years of evaluating

CCS and the revised RIF process, a

decision will be made whether or not to

continue the RIF process described

above or to consider alternatives.

Employees serving under a contingent

appointment will not have a right to

compete for retention in RIF.

Accordingly, these employees will be

listed at the bottom of the appropriate

retention register and must be separated

before any regular career employees can

be released from the competitive level.

To provide adequate time to

determine employee retention standing,

the laboratory will establish a cutoff

date—a minimum of 30 calendar days

prior to the issuance of RIF notices—

after which no new CCS assessments

will be put on record and used for

purposes of RIF. When a cutoff date is

used, employees will receive their ∆X

for the three most recent CCS

assessments received during the 4 year

period prior to the cutoff date.

To be creditable for purposes of RIF,

an assessment must have been issued to

the employee, with all appropriate

reviews and signatures, and must be on

record (e.g., the assessment is available

for use by the office responsible for

establishing retention registers).

An employee who has received fewer

than three annual CCS assessments of

record shall be ranked based on any

actual assessment(s) received and the

required number of assumed

assessment(s) of 0.0 ∆X (the

contribution factor for their current

salary as defined by the SPL).

An employee who has received a

written decision under the contributionbased actions provision of the

demonstration described in section III E

competes under RIF from the position to

which the employee will be or has been

demoted.

Assignment rights for employees

identified for release from a competitive

level will be determined in the

following order: (a) Vacant positions—

assignment may be made to any

available vacant position in the

competitive area; then (b) Trumping—

an employee with a higher retention

standing displaces another employee in

another competitive level in the same

broadband level. Trumping replaces the

bumping and retreat action under the

traditional RIF system.

Each competing employee is entitled

to a specific written notice at least 60

full calendar days before the effective

date of release when a significant

number of employees will be separated.

An employee is entitled to a second

written notice, as appropriate, at least

60 full calendar days if the agency

decides to take an action more severe

than first specified.

IV. Training

An extensive training program is

planned for support personnel and

every employee in the demonstration

project including managers, supervisors,

and S&Es. Training will be tailored to fit

the requirements of every employee

included and will fully address

employee concerns to ensure everyone

has a comprehensive understanding of

the program and to emphasize the

benefits to employees. In addition,

leadership training will be provided to

all managers and supervisors as the new

system places more responsibility and

decision making authority on their

shoulders.

Using an existing task order contract

through Armstrong Laboratory, the

training packages will be developed to

encompass all aspects of the project and

validated prior to training the

workforce. Specifically, training is being

developed for the following groups of

employees:

(a) lab S&Es included in the

demonstration,

(b) civilian and military supervisors

and managers, and

(c) administrative support personnel,

civilian personnel offices, civilian pay

offices, and HQ AFMC and center
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24639

personnel who must understand

laboratory operations under the

demonstration.

Training requirements will vary from

an overview of the new system; to a

more detailed package for laboratory

S&Es; to very specific instructions for

both civilian and military supervisors,

managers, and others who provide

personnel and payroll support.

Base level training personnel will

provide local training management,

facilities, and support to laboratory

directors/commanders. Contract training

personnel will be utilized where organic

capabilities are not available or not

economically feasible. The training will

begin, and be completed, within the 90

days prior to implementation.

V. Conversion

A. Conversion to the Demonstration

Project

Initial entry into the demonstration

project for covered employees will be

accomplished through a full employee

protection approach that ensures each

employee an initial place in the

appropriate broadband level without

loss of pay. An automatic conversion

from current GS/GM grade and step into

the new broadband system will be

accomplished. Special Salary Rates will

no longer be applicable to

demonstration project employees. All

employees will be eligible for the future

locality pay increases of their

geographical area. Employees on Special

Salary Rates at the time of conversion

will receive a new basic pay rate

computed by dividing their highest

adjusted basic pay (i.e., special pay rate

or, if higher, the locality rate) by the

locality pay factor for their area. A full

locality adjustment will then be added

to the new basic pay rate. Adverse

action and pay retention provisions will

not apply to the conversion process as

there will be no change in total salary.

Employees who enter the demonstration

project later by lateral reassignment or

transfer will be subject to parallel pay

conversion rules.

B. Conversion Back to the Former

System

In the event the project ends, a

conversion back to the former (regular)

Federal civil service system will be

required. All employees in a broadband

level corresponding to a single General

Schedule (GS) grade will be converted

to that grade. Employees in a multiple

grade broadband level will be

considered to have attained the next

higher grade when they have been in the

level at least 1 year and their salary

equals or exceeds the minimum salary

of the higher grade. For employees who

are entitled to a special rate upon return

to the General Schedule, the

demonstration project locality rate must

equal or exceed the minimum special

rate of the higher grade. To set GS pay

upon conversion, an employee’s

demonstration project locality rate

would be converted (prior to leaving the

project) to the highest General Schedule

rate range (i.e., locality rate range or

special rate range) applicable to the

employee. If the employee’s rate falls

between the fixed rates for the

applicable range, it will be raised to the

next higher rate. The employee’s GS

basic rate (excluding special rates or

locality payments) would then be

derived based on the grade and step

associated with this converted rate.

Employees who leave the demonstration

project and return to the General

Schedule pay system via reassignment,

promotion, demotion, or transfer are

subject to parallel pay conversion rules

to determine the converted GS rates

under the demonstration project to be

used in applying GS pay administration

rules (e.g., promotion rule or maximum

payable rate rule) in setting pay at the

gaining agency.

VI. Project Duration

Public Law 103–337 removed any

mandatory expiration date for this

demonstration. The project evaluation

plan adequately addresses how each

intervention will be comprehensively

evaluated for at least the first 5 years of

the demonstration. Major changes and

modifications to the interventions can

be made through announcement in the

Federal Register and would be made if

formative evaluation data warranted. At

the 5 year point, the entire

demonstration will be reexamined for

either: (a) permanent implementation,

(b) change and another 3–5 year test

period, or (c) expiration.

VII. Evaluation Plan

Authorizing legislation mandates

evaluation of the demonstration project

to assess the merits of project outcomes

and to evaluate the feasibility of

applications to other federal

organizations. A comprehensive and

methodologically rigorous evaluation of

the personnel system changes will be

carried out. The overall evaluation

consists of two components—external

and internal evaluation. Both

components will be overseen by the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

to benefit from their extensive

experience evaluating demonstration

projects. Further, OPM will serve in the

role of external evaluator to ensure the

integrity of the evaluation process,

outcomes, and interpretation of results.

Their external evaluation will be

supplemented by an internal evaluation

to be accomplished by the staff of the

USAF laboratories. Selected parts of the

evaluation will be completed using

contractor support; the contractor(s) will

be well qualified and experienced with

demonstrated expertise in performing

relevant support functions.

Essential elements of the evaluation

plan are set forth below. The

demonstration project is a complex

experiment to be conducted in a

dynamic environment over several

years. Modifications and refinements to

the evaluation plan will be made as

required by mid-course project changes.

All additions, deletions, and

refinements to the current plan will be

fully documented and explained as part

of the evaluation reporting process.

The main purpose of the evaluation is

to determine the effectiveness of the

personnel system changes described by

the individual interventions. Every

effort will be made to establish direct

cause-and-effect relationships between

the interventions and effectiveness

criteria. An ancillary objective is to

assess the effects of the interventions on

improved organizational performance.

An indirect causal link is hypothesized

between the personnel system changes

and improved organizational

effectiveness, e.g., improved laboratory

performance, mission accomplishment,

and customer satisfaction. The current

personnel management system with its

many rigid rules and regulations often is

perceived as a barrier to mission

accomplishment. Together, the

demonstration project initiatives are

intended to remove some of those

barriers, and, therefore, are expected to

contribute to improved laboratory

performance.

The evaluation effort will be

accomplished in four distinct phases:

(a) Design phase—includes

development of the evaluation model,

selection of experimental and

comparison sites, and collection of

baseline data prior to implementation;

(b) Implementation phase—includes

actual project implementation and

monitoring of the degree and support of

implementation to assure that each of

the project interventions has been

operationalized as originally conceived;

(c) Formative evaluation phase—

includes data collection and analysis for

5 years for purposes of evaluating the

effects of the interventions. Periodic

reports and annual summaries will be

prepared to document the findings; and

(d) Summative evaluation phase—

focuses on summary evaluation and

overall assessment of the project’s
24640 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

impact, including presentation of

conclusions and final recommendations

upon completion of the project.

A quasi-experimental design with preand post-implementation comparisons

will be employed. Baseline measures

will be taken prior to project

implementation. Then, repeated

measurements will be taken postimplementation, throughout the

formative evaluation phase, to allow

longitudinal comparisons.

Scientific and engineering personnel

at all USAF laboratory sites constitute

the experimental group, leaving no

laboratory site that can be used to form

a permanent, equivalent ‘‘no treatment’’

control group. A control group is

defined as consisting of employees

managed under the traditional Civil

Service system.

Provisions are being made to address

the lack of a control group by collecting

data from other non-equivalent sites for

comparison purposes. Options being

explored are:

(a) Use Army and Navy laboratories as

temporary control groups. These

laboratories are eligible to conduct

personnel demonstration projects under

the authorizing legislation, and most, if

not all, are planning their own projects.

Until their projects are approved, the

employees could serve as short-term

controls.

(b) Construct a composite comparison

group from laboratories in civilian

federal agencies, with occupational and

other workforce demographics

comparable to those of the USAF

laboratories.

An additional feature of the design

calls for comparisons of trends relative

to those for prior demonstration projects

now operating under non-traditional

personnel systems, including the

National Institutes for Standards and

Technology (NIST) and Naval

laboratories (Naval Warfare Center and

Naval Ocean Systems Center). A

retrospective analysis will be conducted

to compare historic data from prior

projects with that obtained from the

USAF laboratories on common

measures collected at equivalent points

during the implementation and

formative evaluation phases.

As shown in Figure 4, a general

evaluation model has been developed

which postulates: (a) specific

intermediate effects of each individual

intervention, and (b) ultimate effects of

the combined interventions on

organizational performance.

Intermediate, intended outcomes are

those changes, as a result of the

experimental interventions, which

contribute to achieving the ultimate

goals. Further, efforts will be made to

assess unintended effects, that is,

unanticipated impacts that may be

positive or negative in nature. Any

changes can have unintended outcomes,

and those proposed for the

demonstration project are no exception.

The evaluation methods and measures

will be comprehensive in design in

order to capture unintended results.

Moreover, as the results of the

intervention evaluation are being

interpreted and conclusions are being

drawn, consideration will be given to

the context in which the demonstration

project is occurring. Much of the context

cannot be controlled, but contextual

events will be identified and considered

in the evaluation as potential

intervening variables.

The effectiveness of each intervention

and the project as a whole in meeting

stated objectives will be addressed using

a multi-method approach. Some

methods will be unobtrusive in that

they do not require reactions or inputs

from employees or managers. These

methods include analysis of archival

workforce data and personnel office

data, review of logs maintained by site

historians documenting contextual

events, and organizational records of

scientific and engineering products and

research study progress reports. Other

methods such as structured interviews,

focus groups, and attitude surveys will

be used to collect the perceptions of

laboratory managers and supervisors, as

well as customers.

The specific measures to be collected

using the different methods will be

deduced from the goals and objectives

stated for each intervention. Both

quantitative and qualitative measures

will be obtained. Most of the potential

measures can be grouped around three

major effectiveness criteria: speed, cost,

and quality. Collectively, the

intermediate outcomes of the

interventions are hypothesized to lead

to human resource management

improvements, as reflected by

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and

quality. The same three criteria apply to

ultimate outcomes indicating

organizational performance.

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24641

BILLING CODE 6325–01–C

VIII. Demonstration Project Costs

A. Step Buy-Ins

Under the current pay structure,

employees progress through their

assigned grade in step increments. Since

this system is being replaced under the

demonstration project, employees will

be awarded that portion of the next

higher step they have completed up

until the effective date of

implementation. As under the current

system, supervisors will be able to

withhold these partial step increases if

the employee’s performance falls below

fully successful.

The 1996 annual appraisal will be

closed on the normal close-out date of

June 30, 1996. The first formal CCS

assessment cycle will begin on the

effective date of implementation of the

demonstration and will end on

September 30, 1997. The general

increase to employee’s base pay in

January 1997 will be handled under

existing procedures. The first CCS pay

adjustments will be made during the

first full pay period of CY98. Future

CCS pay adjustments will be effective

the beginning of the first full pay period

of subsequent calendar years.

Rules governing Within-Grade

Increases (WGI) under the current Air

Force performance plan will continue in

effect until the implementation date.

Adjustments to the employees base

salary for WGI equity will be computed

effective the date of implementation to

coincide with the beginning of the first

formal CCS assessment cycle. WGI

equity will be acknowledged by

increasing base salaries by a prorated

share based upon the number of days an

employee has completed towards the

next higher step. Employees at step 10

on the date of implementation will not

be eligible for WGI equity adjustments

since they are already at the top of the

step scale.

B. Cost Neutrality

The demonstration project is required

to be cost neutral. A baseline will be

established at the start of the project and

salary expenditures will be tracked

yearly. Implementation costs, including

the step buy-in costs detailed above,

will not be included in the cost

neutrality evaluations.

Special Salary Rates will no longer be

applicable to demonstration project

employees. The only factor in the pay

equation which varies from the current

system is the allowance for step

increases and promotions, denoted by

‘‘I.’’ The 15 year demonstration project

at China Lake has demonstrated this

number to average 2.4% per year. This

figure has been further validated by

OPM. By limiting annual CCS based pay

increases to the general increases (G)

plus 2.4% should, by definition,

maintain cost neutrality under CCS. If

through the project evaluation process it

is determined that cost neutrality is not

being maintained, the ‘‘I’’ rate will be

adjusted to a rate which will provide for

cost neutrality within 3 years.

C. Personnel Policy Boards

It is being recommended that each

laboratory establish a Personnel Policy

Board that would consist of the senior

civilian in each directorate within the

laboratory and be chaired by the

laboratory executive director. The board

would be tasked with the following:

(a) Overseeing the civilian pay budget,

(b) Addressing issues associated with

two separate pay systems (CCS and GS)

during the first phase of the

demonstration project,

(c) Determining the composition of

the CCS pay pools in accordance with

the established guidelines,

(d) Reviewing operation of the

laboratory CCS pay pools,

(e) Providing guidance to pay pool

managers,

(f) Administering funds to CCS pay

pool managers,

(g) Integrating CCS with the freemarket model,

(h) Reviewing hiring and promotion

salaries,

(i) Addressing Manage to Budget

(MTB) issues to include the tracking of

average salaries, and
24642 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

10Waiver required only to the extent that the

project conflicts with pertinent provision of law

and regulation.

(j) Monitoring award pool distribution

by organization and by S&E versus nonS&E.

Should the laboratory elect not to

establish a Personnel Policy Board, the

charter of an existing group within each

laboratory must be modified to include

the duties detailed above.

D. Developmental Costs

Costs associated with the

development of the demonstration

system include software automation,

training, and project evaluation. All

funding will be provided through the

Air Force Science and Technology

budget. The projected annual expenses

for each area is summarized in Table 4.

Project evaluation costs will continue

for at least the first 5 years and may

continue beyond.

TABLE 4.—PROJECTED DEVELOPMENTAL COSTS

[Then year dollars in thousands]

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Training ....................................................................................................................................................... $170 $100 $50

Project Eval ................................................................................................................................................. 20 200 150 $150 $150

Automation .................................................................................................................................................. .......... 150 100 .......... ..........

Data Systems ............................................................................................................................................. .......... 260 .......... .......... ..........

Totals ................................................................................................................................................... 190 710 300 150 150

IX. Required Waivers to Law and

Regulation 10

A. Waivers to Title 5, United States

Code

Chapter 31, Section 3111: Acceptance of

volunteer service.

Chapter 33: Examination; selection;

placement.

Chapter 35, Sections 3501–3502:

Related to retention preference.

Chapter 43, Sections 4301–4305:

Related to performance appraisal.

Chapter 51, Sections 5101–5102 and

Sections 5104–5107: Related to

classification standards and grading.

Chapter 53, Sections 5301; 5302 (8) and

(9); 5303; 5304 (only to the extent

necessary to allow demonstration

project employees to be treated as

General Schedule employees and to

allow basic rates of pay under the

demonstration to be treated as

scheduled rates of basic pay); 5305;

5331–5336; and 5361–5366: Related

to special pay; pay rates and systems;

grade and pay retention.

Chapter 55, Section 5545 (d): Related to

hazardous duty premium pay (only to

the extent necessary to allow

demonstration project employees to

be treated as General Schedule

employees).

Chapter 57, Sections 5753, 5754, and

5755: Related to recruitment,

relocation, and retention payments;

supervisory differential (only to the

extent necessary to allow employees

and positions under the

demonstration project to be treated as

employees and positions under the

General Schedule).

Chapter 75, Sections 7512 (3): Related to

adverse action (but only to the extent

necessary to exclude reductions in

broadband level not accompanied by

a reduction in pay) and 7512 (4):

Related to adverse action (but only to

the extent necessary to exclude

conversions from a General Schedule

special rate to demonstration project

pay that do not result in a reduction

in the employee’s total rate of pay).

B. Waivers to Title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations

Part 300, Sections 300.601 through

300.605: Time-in-grade restrictions.

Part 308, Sections 308.101 through

308.103: Volunteer service.

Part 315, Sections 315.801 and 315.802:

Probationary period.

Part 334, Section 334.102 : Temporary

assignment of employees outside

agency.

Part 340: Other than full-time career

employment.

Part 351, Sections 351.203; 351.403;

351.501; 351.504; 351.701; 351.801;

and 351.805: Related to retention

preference.

Part 430, Subpart A and Subpart B:

Performance management;

performance appraisal.

Part 432, Sections 432.103 through

432.105: Performance-based

reduction-in-grade and removal

actions.

Part 511, Subpart A, Subpart B, and

Subpart F, sections 511.601 through

511.612: Classification within the

General Schedule.

Part 530, Subpart C: Special salary rates.

Part 531, Subpart B, Subpart D, Subpart

E, and Subpart F: Determining rate of

pay; within-grade increases; quality

step increases; locality payments

(only to the extent necessary to allow

demonstration project employees to

be treated as General Schedule

employees and to allow basic rates of

pay under the demonstration project

to be treated as scheduled rates of

basic pay).

Part 536, Subpart A, Subpart B, and

Subpart C: Grade and pay retention.

Part 550, Sections 550.902: Hazard Pay,

definition of ‘‘employee’’ (only to the

extent necessary to allow

demonstration project employees to

be treated as General Schedule

employees).

Part 575, Sections 575.102 (a)(1),

575.202 (a)(1), 575.302 (a)(1), and

Subpart D: Recruitment and

relocation bonuses; retention

allowances; supervisory differentials

(only to the extent necessary to allow

employees and positions under the

demonstration project to be treated as

employees and positions under the

General Schedule positions).

Part 752, Sections 752.401 (a)(3):

Reduction in grade and pay (but only

to the extent necessary to exclude

reductions in broadband level not

accompanied by a reduction in pay)

and 752.401 (a)(4) (but only to the

extent necessary to exclude

conversions from a General Schedule

special rate to demonstration project

pay that do not result in a reduction

in the employee’s total rate of pay).

[FR Doc. 96–12131 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P