Part II
Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)
Notices
Page 68447-68475
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr24de09-45
Page 68447
Part II
Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel Management
Demonstration Project, Department of the Army, Army Research,
Development and Engineering Command, Natick Soldier Research,
Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC); Notice
Page 68448
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel
Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Army, Army
Research, Development and Engineering Command, Natick Soldier Research,
Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC)
AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian
Personnel Policy), (DUSD (CPP)), Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Notice of approval of a demonstration project final plan.
SUMMARY: Section 342(b) of Public Law 103-337, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct personnel demonstration projects at
Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories designated as Science and
Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs). The above-cited legislation authorizes DoD to conduct demonstration projects to determine whether a specified change in personnel management policies or procedures would result in improved Federal personnel management.
Section 1107 of Public Law 110-181 as amended by section 1109 of Public
Law 110-417 requires the Secretary of Defense to execute a process and plan to employ the Department's personnel management demonstration project authorities found in title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4703 at the STRLs enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 9902(c)(2) as re-designated in section 1105 of Public Law 111-84 and 73 Federal Register (FR) 73248 to enhance the performance of these laboratories. The NSRDEC is listed as one of the designated STRLs.
DATES: Implementation of this demonstration project will begin no earlier than February 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NSRDEC: Ms. Karen Sullivan, Natick Soldier Research, Development and
Engineering Center, (RDNS-BOW), Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, (508) 233-4479.
DoD: Ms. Betty A. Duffield, CPMS-PSSC, Suite B-200, 1400 Key Boulevard,
Arlington, VA 22209-5144
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background
Since 1966, many 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. Pursuant to the authority provided in section 342(b) of Public Law 103-337, as amended, a number of DoD STRL personnel demonstration projects were approved.
These projects are ``generally similar in nature'' to the Department of
Navy's ``China Lake'' Personnel Demonstration Project. The terminology,
``generally similar in nature,'' does not imply an emulation of various features, but rather implies a similar opportunity and authority to develop personnel flexibilities that significantly increase the decision authority of laboratory commanders and/or directors.
This demonstration project involves: (1) Two appointment authorities (permanent and modified term); (2) extended probationary period for newly hired engineering and science employees; (3) pay banding; (4) streamlined delegated examining; (5) modified reduction- in-force (RIF) procedures; (6) simplified job classification; (7) a pay-for-performance based appraisal system; (8) academic degree and certificate training; (9) sabbaticals; and (10) a Voluntary Emeritus
Corps. 2. Overview
DoD published notice in 73 FR 73248, December 2, 2008, that pursuant to subsection 1107(c) of Public Law 110-181 the three STRLs listed in 5 U.S.C. 9902(c)(2) as re-designated in section 1105 of
Public Law 111-84 not having personnel demonstration projects may adopt any of the flexibilities of the other laboratories listed in subsection 9902(c)(2) as re-designated in section 1105 of Public Law 111-84 and further provided notice of the proposed adoption of an existing STRL demonstration project by two centers under the United States (U.S.)
Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM): Edgewood
Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) and NSRDEC. The notice indicated that these two centers intended to adopt the STRL Personnel Management
Demonstration project designed by the U.S. Army Communications-
Electronics Command, Research, Development, and Engineering organizations (a reorganization changed this designation to the U. S.
Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering
Center (CERDEC)). Relative to NSRDEC's intent to adopt the CERDEC demonstration project, DoD received written comments from 5 individuals, including a union official, during the public comment period which ended on January 2, 2009. In addition, one individual provided comments after the close of the comment period. All comments were carefully considered. The comments received after the close of the comment period are not included in the summary below, but were discussed with the individual who provided the comments.
The following summary addresses the pertinent comments received, provides responses, and notes resultant changes to the original CERDEC project plan published in 66 FR 54872, October 30, 2001. Several commenters addressed more than one topic and each topic was counted separately. Thus, the total number of comments exceeds the number of individuals cited above.
-
Miscellaneous
Four miscellaneous comments were received.
Comments: Two commenters provided favorable comments on the expected benefits to NSRDEC as a result of the demonstration project and on the value of pay banding to retain and reward high performers.
Two other comments reflected the need to make revisions and other adjustments in the document to reflect NSRDEC and its workforce and to make other updates for legal and regulatory changes that have occurred.
Response: A number of changes were made to include NSRDEC as the name of the organization, its organizational and workforce information, approval authorities, and technical modifications to conform to changes in the law and governing regulations. In addition, some sections have been reformatted for clarity and to improve readability. Throughout the document changes have been made to clarify and provide consistent use of pay terminology. Minor revisions have been made to Appendix C,
Performance Elements, to be consistent with the descriptions currently in use by CERDEC.
-
Pay Bands
Two comments were received concerning pay bands.
Comments: One commenter advised that reconsideration be given to initial placement of all GS-14 engineers and scientists to the
Engineering and Scientist (E&S) (DB) Pay Band IV and requested clarification of how any subsequent conversions for GS-14 E&S positions will be handled. Another comment suggested that the number of Pay Band
V positions be expanded to permit a certain number or percent at each
STRL since the current limited number has already been allocated to other organizations which would preclude NSRDEC from using this flexibility.
Page 68449
Response: We have carefully considered these comments. With regard to placement of GS-14 E&S, language has been changed in III.A.1. and added in III.A.2. to reflect that upon conversion NSRDEC employees in the E&S family at grade GS-14 will be assigned to Pay Band IV.
In response to the second comment, the use of Pay Band V has proven to be beneficial in recruiting and retaining highly-qualified senior scientific technical managers in those STRL personnel demonstration projects that have such positions. The limited number of such positions makes it difficult to meet the requirements of all the STRLs who wish to use this flexibility. The DoD is currently reviewing all Pay Band V positions. No change is proposed in the number of Pay Band V positions pending the completion of the DoD review.
-
Pay for Performance
Five comments were received related to the pay-for-performance system.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that performance and pay related decisions of supervisors could be personality-driven and that employees did not have sufficient trust in their supervisors to increase the authority of supervisors to make pay-related decisions.
Another commenter expressed concern that pay for performance will undermine organizational performance. The commenter has not been able to identify performance management experts that support rating/ranking of employees. The commenter emphasized the importance of assuring that performance objectives provide a consistent level of challenge and urged adding a level of employee oversight for balance. Another commenter considered that the proposed system is no less subjective than the present system. Finally, another commenter was concerned that adoption of the demonstration project pay-for-performance system would adversely affect mobilized reservists and guardsmen.
Response: As cited by the commenter, a recent Merit Systems
Protection Board survey suggests that, across the Federal government, a number of survey respondents lack trust that their supervisors will treat them fairly. Workforce support is crucial to the success of the demonstration project, and a concerted effort will be made to build trust and confidence in the demonstration project. On-going communication with the workforce is eliciting their opinions. A cross- section of employees participate in a Workforce Advisory Group and are actively involved in identifying training needs and developing operating procedures. Training in the pay-for-performance system and other aspects of the demonstration project will be mandatory for all supervisors. The use of a structured reconciliation process to determine performance payouts will facilitate enhancing fairness and consistency. The process provides for raters to conduct a review, comparing preliminary scores and building consensus to achieve consistent ratings across the pay pool. Finally, perceived fairness of the appraisal process has been identified as an area for evaluation and will be included in surveys of the workforce and focus group discussions with employees. An annual report with a thorough review and analysis of the pay-for-performance cycle will be published to assist in providing greater transparency. Active outreach combined with the structured reconciliation process and transparency will help to build the trust necessary for successful implementation.
Improving organizational effectiveness is the driving goal supporting implementation of the laboratory personnel demonstration project. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in its independent evaluation of STRL personnel demonstration projects, found a limited but positive impact of implementation of a demonstration project on laboratory effectiveness. All STRL demonstration projects include a pay-for-performance system as a means to achieve improved organizational effectiveness. Though there are difficulties with performance reviews, such reviews are a mainstream practice, commonplace within the private, non-profit and public sectors.
Performance appraisal is specifically required by 5 U.S.C. chapter 43.
Demonstration projects build on this requirement by increasing the link between pay and performance. Survey results indicate that, after implementation of a demonstration project, many more respondents agree that pay raises depend on performance. The pay-for-performance system is an integral component of a demonstration project's more flexible and responsive human resources system. The design of the NSRDEC pay-for- performance system will increase and improve communication between the supervisor and the rater during the rating cycle, provide for alignment of performance objectives with organizational goals and objectives, and use features such as a workforce survey to gauge the effectiveness and level of support for pay for performance.
There is a need to assure an appropriate level of challenge in performance objectives across the NSRDEC organization. In the current system, preparing performance objectives has traditionally been a matter between the rater and the employee. Some efforts have been made to review objectives within an individual directorate and training has been provided on what is a ``good'' objective. The demonstration project will serve to improve consistency across the organization. All supervisors will have mandatory pay-for-performance training that will include writing performance objectives. The NSRDEC Workforce Advisory
Group has taken a key interest in improving performance objectives and will help to develop sample performance objectives. The sample objectives will be linked to occupational family and pay band. At the start of the first performance cycle, the raters within a pay pool and the pay pool manager will review and provide feedback on performance objectives. The pay pool manager will review the objectives and weights assigned to employees within the pay pool to verify consistency and appropriateness. These efforts should significantly improve consistency and equity in performance expectations within NSRDEC.
Some level of subjectivity is inherent in performance appraisal systems. Additional features of the pay-for-performance system will serve to facilitate understanding of performance expectations and to limit bias and favoritism. Improved communication throughout the rating cycle serves to help build a common understanding of performance expectations and to make progress toward achieving those expectations.
This, plus the structured, thorough review process, improves the likelihood for consistency and equity in the ratings. Major design features of the rating system are intended to overcome perceptions of favoritism and limited differentiation among ratings. The automated
``Performance Evaluation Tool'' helps assure that objectives are in place on a timely basis, accomplishments are recorded, and communication related to performance is on-going. The pay-for- performance system uses standard performance elements and performance benchmarks to evaluate employee performance that supports the mission, allows managers to make meaningful performance distinctions, considers current pay in making performance-based pay decisions and provides information to employees about the results of the appraisal process and pay decisions. At
Page 68450
the end of the rating period, employees provide their accomplishments.
Following the initial scoring of each employee, raters in an organizational unit along with their next level of supervision meet to ensure consistency and equity of the ratings. Through discussion and consensus building, consistent and equitable ratings are determined based on similar level of performance, level of work and level of base pay. This improves upon the current performance appraisal system where there are only brief performance standards described for the fully successful level and rating is typically done by a supervisor with review and approval by a senior rater.
Finally, adoption of the demonstration project and its pay-for- performance system must meet the requirements of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Operating procedures will provide a mechanism for mobilized employees to receive a presumed performance rating of record that will permit base pay increases and/or bonuses. As is done under other pay-for-performance systems, operating procedures will require use of the most recent or average rating or record over a specified period, use of modality ratings or other mechanism to assure that mobilized employees who are unable to be rated receive the base pay increases that could have been received except for the mobilization.
-
Pay Pool Funding
Two comments were received related to pay pool funding.
Comments: A commenter recommended revising the pay pool percentage factor to be a minimum of 2.0 percent for base pay funding and 1 percent for bonus. Another commenter recommended that locality pay not be included in the pay pool funding.
Response: The recommendation to set a minimum of 2 percent for the base and 1 percent for the bonus has been accepted. The general pay increase (including locality pay) is not included in the pay pool funding.
-
Extraordinary Achievement Award
Two comments were received related to the Extraordinary Achievement
Recognition.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Extraordinary
Achievement Recognition language be moved to a separate section since it is considered after and separate from the pay pool payout process.
The same commenter also proposed that the Extraordinary Achievement
Recognition language be revised to allow for bonus as an alternative to granting a base pay increase since capped employees would be precluded from receiving this recognition.
Response: While an Extraordinary Achievement Recognition is considered after the pay pool payout process, it is not entirely separate from the process itself. Following the performance evaluation process, the pay pool manager is the agent who requests permission from the Personnel Management Board to grant a base pay increase higher than the one generated by the compensation formula for that employee.
However, senior management is in agreement that a separate paragraph would clarify the intent and process for the Extraordinary Achievement
Recognition and has moved the provision to a separate paragraph in
III.C.9. ``Base Pay Increases and Bonuses''.
As to the second comment, language has been added to the new section at III.C.9., referenced above, allowing for the option to grant either a base pay increase and/or a bonus as an Extraordinary
Achievement Recognition. This permits employees whose base pay is at the maximum of their pay band to receive this recognition.
-
Pay
Three comments were received related to pay setting.
Comments: One commenter suggested relieving pay compression by providing additional waivers to permit full locality payment, changing supervisory/team leader pay adjustments and pay differentials to provide up to 10 percent for team leaders, and providing a pay increase of up to a defined amount when a person moves to a position of greater responsibility (reassignment) within the same pay band.
Response: There is concern that individuals whose base pay is at the higher end of the GS-15 base pay range do not receive their full locality pay. This situation also occurs within the demonstration project since both DB IV and DE IV are linked to a range of GS base pay with a cap equivalent to the GS-15, step 10, base pay rate. However, increasing the maximum base pay for GS-15 equivalent pay bands will create a compensation imbalance with individuals in Scientific and
Professional and Senior Executive Service positions. This locality cap issue is being examined at higher levels; therefore no change is proposed.
The suggestion to increase the maximum for team leader base pay adjustments and differentials from 5 percent to 10 percent was considered. However, the decision was made to retain a distinction in the amount of adjustment or differential that could be provided for team leaders versus supervisors.
Finally consideration was given to permitting a base pay increase upon reassignment. Since broad pay bands include positions of varying complexity and responsibility, a base pay increase would provide incentive to encourage employees to accept positions of greater responsibility in the same pay band. Therefore, language has been added at III.F.5. to address this issue and to define ``reassignment'' in
III.E.2. A reassignment may be effected without a change in base pay.
However, a base pay increase may be granted where a reassignment significantly increases the complexity, responsibility, authority or for other compelling reasons. Such an increase is subject to the specific rules established by the Personnel Management Board.
-
Awards
One comment was received related to incentive awards.
Comment: One commenter suggested use of an employee oversight board as a means to achieve consistency across the NSRDEC in the use of incentive awards.
Response: Awards (such as the traditional 5 U.S.C. special act, on- the-spot, and time-off) are not linked to the pay-for-performance system and will continue as a means to reward individuals and groups for their achievements and as an incentive for superior performance.
Review and assessment of the use of these awards will continue following current practice.
-
Promotion
Comment: One comment was received related to the minimum performance score required for promotion eligibility.
Response: One commenter suggested lowering the minimum performance score required for eligibility for promotion. The FR requires a performance score of 30 or higher for promotion eligibility. But, scores of 10 and higher are acceptable, with scores of 21 and higher earning a performance payout. Setting a minimum score of 30 for promotion sets the requirement higher than the score for a performance payout and may discourage the use of scores in the 21 to 29 range.
Accordingly, a score of 21 is set as the minimum requirement for promotion.
-
Period
One comment was received related to probationary periods.
Page 68451
Comment: One commenter advised that a recent court decision limited the intent of the extended probationary period.
Response: The extended probationary period applies to newly hired engineers and scientists. Its purpose is to allow the supervisor a sufficient period of time to fully evaluate an employee's performance and conduct. The extended probationary period of up to three years allows supervisors sufficient time to properly, objectively and completely evaluate an employee's performance and conduct. Probationary employees whose conduct and/or performance is unsatisfactory may be terminated in accordance with the procedures in 5 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 315. However, a recent court decision has extended adverse action procedural and substantive protections to individuals defined as employees without regard to whether the individuals are serving a probationary period. To permit termination during the probationary period without using adverse action procedures, waivers have been added under IX. Required Waivers to Law and
Regulation to allow for up to a three-year probationary period and to remove from the definition of employee, except for those with veterans' preference, those serving a probationary period under an initial appointment who do not have veterans' preference
-
-
Reduction in Force
One comment was received related to reduction in force.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the implementation of a laboratory demonstration project for NSRDEC would result in separate competitive areas for employees who work at various installations co- located with NSRDEC at the Natick Soldier Systems Center (NSSC).
Response: The implementation of a demonstration project at NSRDEC will not affect the determination of separate competitive areas for the distinct organizations located at NSSC. To the extent that the organizations located at NSSC are distinct organizations with separate command structures, there would be separate competitive areas in the event of a RIF in one of these organizations.
-
Conversion
One comment was received related to conversion of interns into the demonstration project.
Comment: One commenter recommended that conversion of interns into the demonstration project occur when the employees reach their full performance level for their GS position.
Response: Interns typically receive several career promotions prior to reaching their full performance level. Average base pay for performance payouts may not provide increases as substantial as career promotions under the GS. Delaying conversion into the demonstration project pay bands until an intern reaches full performance level will assure that the intern's base pay is commensurate with the full performance level base pay. Therefore, the language at II.E. has been revised to reflect that interns will not convert into demonstration pay bands until they reach their full performance level. 3. Access to Flexibilities of Other STRLs
Flexibilities published in this Federal Register shall be available for use by all STRLs listed in section 9902(c)(2) of title 5, United
States Code, if they wish to adopt them in accordance with DoD
Instruction 1400.37; pages 73248 to 73252 of volume 73, Federal
Register; and the fulfilling of any collective bargaining obligations.
Dated: December 17, 2009.
Patricia Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Table of Contents
-
Executive Summary
-
Introduction
-
-
Purpose
-
Problems With the Present System
-
Changes Required/Expected Benefits
-
Participating Organizations
-
Participating Employees and Union Representation
-
Project Design
-
Personnel Management Board
-
Personnel System Changes
-
-
Pay Banding
-
Classification
-
Pay for Performance
-
Hiring Authority
-
Internal Placement
-
Pay Setting
-
Employee Development
-
Reduction-in-Force Procedures
-
Implementation Training
-
Conversion
-
-
Conversion to the Demonstration Project
-
Conversion Out of the Demonstration Project
-
Personnel Administration
-
Automation
-
Experimentation and Revision
-
Project Duration
-
Evaluation Plan
-
-
Overview
-
Evaluation Model
-
Evaluation
-
Method of Data Collection
-
Demonstration Project Costs
-
-
Cost Discipline
-
Developmental Costs
-
Required Waivers to Law and Regulation
-
-
Waivers To Title 5 U.S.C.
-
Waivers To Title 5 CFR
Appendix A: NSRDEC Employees by Duty Locations
Appendix B: Occupational Series by Occupational family
Appendix C: Performance Elements
Appendix D: Intervention Model
-
Executive Summary
This project adopts with some modifications the STRL personnel management demonstration project, designed by the U.S. Army
Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), Research, Development and
Engineering (RDE) organizations, with participation and review by the
Department of the Army (DA) and DoD to the U.S. Army RDECOM, NSRDEC.
After implementation of the CECOM RDE demonstration project, CECOM reorganized. Its laboratory, the Communications-Electronics Research,
Development, and Engineering Center (CERDEC), was realigned under
RDECOM. At the same time, the NSRDEC was also realigned under RDECOM.
The NSRDEC includes the NSRDEC organization at the Natick Soldier
Systems Center site, NSRDEC employees matrixed to Program/Project/
Product Management Offices (e.g., PM-Force Sustainment Systems, and PM-
Clothing and Individual Equipment) as well as NSRDEC employees with duty stations at other sites.
The NSRDEC, located at Natick Soldier Systems Center (SSC) in
Natick, Massachusetts, conducts research, technology development, testing and integration aimed at maximizing the individual soldier's survivability, sustainability, mobility, combat effectiveness and quality of life by treating the soldier as a system. The NSRDEC major product lines are: rations, clothing, equipment, shelters, airdrop systems, and soldier systems support items. The core capabilities of the NSRDEC are centered on the technologies required by the soldier and soldier support systems, to include biotechnology, anthropometry, biomechanics, consumer research, textiles, fibers and materials, food science, aerodynamics, and modeling and simulation. Integration of these technologies remains the primary focus for modernizing the future soldier, as well as Warrior Systems. The NSRDEC goal is simple:
``Provide America's soldiers with the best equipment in the world.'' To achieve this goal, the NSRDEC organization must be able to hire, retain and continually motivate enthusiastic, innovative, and highly-educated scientists and engineers, supported by skilled business management and administrative
Page 68452
professionals as well as a skilled administrative and technical support staff.
The goal of the project is to enhance the quality and professionalism of the NSRDEC workforce through improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the human resource system. The project interventions will strive to achieve the best workforce for the mission, adjust the workforce for change, and improve workforce satisfaction. This demonstration project extends the CERDEC demonstration project to NSRDEC. The CERDEC project was built on the concepts, and uses much of the same language, as the demonstration projects developed by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), the
Navy's ``China Lake,'' and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). The results of the project will be evaluated within 5 years of implementation.
-
Introduction
-
-
Purpose
The purpose of the project is to demonstrate that the effectiveness of DoD STRLs can be enhanced by expanding opportunities available to employees and by allowing greater managerial control over personnel functions through a more responsive and flexible personnel system.
Federal laboratories need more efficient, cost effective, and timely processes and methods to acquire and retain a highly creative, productive, educated, and trained workforce. This project, in its entirety, attempts to improve employees' opportunities and provide managers, at the lowest practical level, the authority, control, and flexibility needed to achieve the highest quality organization and hold them accountable for the proper exercise of this authority within the framework of an improved personnel management system.
Many aspects of a demonstration project are experimental.
Modifications may be made from time to time as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. The provisions of this project plan will not be modified, or extended to individuals or groups of employees not included in the project plan without the approval of the ODUSD(CPP). The provisions of
DoDI 1400.37, are to be followed for any modifications, adoptions, or changes to this demonstration project plan.
-
Problems With the Present System
The current Civil Service General Schedule (GS) system has existed in essentially the same form since the 1920's. Work is classified into one of fifteen overlapping pay ranges that correspond with the fifteen grades. Base pay is set at one of those fifteen grades and the ten interim steps within each grade. The Classification Act of 1949 rigidly defines types of work by occupational series and grade, with very precise qualifications for each job. This system does not quickly or easily respond to new ways of designing work and changes in the work itself.
The performance management model that has existed since the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act has come under extreme criticism.
Employees frequently report there is inadequate communication of performance expectations and feedback on performance. There are perceived inaccuracies in performance ratings with general agreement that the ratings are inflated and often unevenly distributed by grade, occupation and geographic location.
The need to change the current hiring system is essential as NSRDEC must be able to recruit and retain scientific, engineering, acquisition, skilled technical, and other professional, administrative and support employees. The NSRDEC 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 high quality employees.
Finally, current limitations on training, retraining and otherwise developing employees make it difficult to correct skill imbalances and to prepare current employees for new lines of work to meet changing missions and emerging technologies.
-
Changes Required/Expected Benefits
The primary benefit expected from this demonstration project is greater organizational effectiveness through increased employee satisfaction. The long-standing Department of the Navy ``China Lake'' and NIST demonstration projects have produced impressive statistics on increased job satisfaction and quality of employees versus that for the
Federal workforce in general. This project will demonstrate that a human resource system tailored to the mission and needs of the NSRDEC workforce will facilitate:
(1) Increased quality in the workforce and resultant products,
(2) Increased timeliness of key personnel processes,
(3) Increased retention of ``excellent performers,''
(4) Increased success in recruitment of personnel with critical skills,
(5) Increased management authority and accountability,
(6) Increased satisfaction of customers, and
(7) Increased workforce satisfaction with the personnel management system.
An evaluation model was developed for the Director of Defense,
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) in conjunction with STRLs, service representatives, and OPM. The model will measure the effectiveness of this demonstration project, as modified in this plan, and will be used to measure the results of specific personnel system changes.
-
Participating Organizations
NSRDEC is comprised of the NSRDEC at the Natick Soldier System
Center, Natick, Massachusetts, NSRDEC employees matrixed to Program
Management offices, and NSRDEC employees geographically dispersed at the locations shown in Appendix A. It should be noted that some sites currently employ fewer than 10 people and that the sites may change should NSRDEC reorganize or realign. Successor organizations will continue coverage in the demonstration project.
-
Participating Employees and Union Representation
This demonstration project will cover approximately 700 NSRDEC civilian employees under title 5 U.S.C. in the occupations listed in
Appendix B. The project plan does not cover members of the Senior
Executive Service (SES), Scientific and Professional (ST) employees,
Federal Wage System (FWS) employees, employees presently covered by the
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS), DA and Army
Command centrally funded interns and students employed under the
Student Career Experience Program (SCEP). Employees on temporary appointments will not be covered by the demonstration project.
Department of Army, Army Command centrally funded, and local interns (hired prior to implementation of the project) will not be converted to the demonstration project until they reach their full performance level. They will also continue to follow the Total Army
Performance Evaluation System (TAPES) performance appraisal system.
Local interns hired after implementation of the project will be covered by all terms of the demonstration project.
The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) Local
Page 68453
R1-34 represents the majority of NSRDEC employees. Of those employees assigned to NSRDEC, approximately 85 percent are represented by NAGE.
NSRDEC has maintained on-going communication with the Union regarding its intent to pursue approval for a laboratory personnel demonstration project. NSRDEC is continuing to inform the Union, and its Executive
Vice President is participating as a member of the Workforce Advisory
Group. Negotiations will begin after publication of this Federal
Register. NSRDEC will continue to fulfill its obligation to consult and/or negotiate with all labor organizations in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 4703(f) and 7117.
-
Project Design
NSRDEC has been a DoD STRL since June 1995. This status authorized
NSRDEC to participate in all of the STRL initiatives, to include the authority to carry out personnel demonstration projects. NAGE Local R1- 34 actively participated in the development of an earlier personnel demonstration project (PDP). However, as a result of DoD development of a best practices model and the design and implementation of the
National Security Personnel System (NSPS), the proposal was not acted upon. Subsequently, in 2005 the NSRDEC submitted a request to adopt the
CERDEC demonstration project. The CERDEC demonstration project was the most recently approved demonstration project, used an inclusive approach for its design, and benefitted from the experiences of prior
STRL demonstration projects. After the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 provided for full implementation of the personnel demonstration project, the DoD announced NSRDEC's intent to adopt the CERDEC demonstration project in 73 FR 73248, December 2, 2008.
-
Personnel Management Board
NSRDEC has created a Personnel Management Board to oversee and monitor the fair, equitable, and consistent implementation of the provisions of the demonstration project to include establishment of internal controls and accountability. Members of the board are senior leaders appointed by the NSRDEC Director. As needed, ad hoc members will serve in an advisory capacity to the Board.
The board will execute the following:
(1) Determine the composition of the pay-for-performance pay pools in accordance with the guidelines of this proposal and internal procedures;
(2) Review operation of pay pools and provide guidance to pay pool managers;
(3) Oversee disputes in pay pool issues;
(4) Formulate and execute the civilian pay budget;
(5) Manage the awards pools;
(6) Determine hiring and promotion base pay as well as exceptions to pay-for-performance base pay increases;
(7) Conduct classification review and oversight, monitoring and adjusting classification practices and deciding board classification issues;
(8) Approve major changes in position structure;
(9) Address issues associated with multiple pay systems during the demonstration project;
(10) Establish Standard Performance Elements and Benchmarks;
(11) Assess the need for changes to demonstration project procedures and policies;
(12) Review requests for Supervisory/Team Leader Base Pay
Adjustments and provide recommendations to the appropriate Center
Director;
(13) Ensure in-house budget discipline;
(14) Manage the number of employees by occupational family and pay band;
(15) Develop policies and procedures for administering
Developmental Opportunity Programs;
(16) Ensure that all employees are treated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the policies, regulations and guidelines covering this demonstration project; and,
(17) Monitor the evaluation of the project.
-
Personnel System Changes
-
-
Pay Banding
The design of the pay banding system takes advantage of the many reviews performed by DA and DoD. The design has the benefit of being preceded by exhaustive studies of pay banding systems currently practiced in the Federal sector, to include those practiced by the
Navy's ``China Lake'' experiment and NIST. The pay banding system will replace the current GS structure. Currently the fifteen grades of the
GS are used to classify positions and, therefore, to set base pay. The
GS covers all white-collar work--administrative, technical, clerical and professional. Changes in this rigid structure are required to allow flexibility in hiring, developing, retaining, and motivating the workforce. 1. Occupational Families
Occupations with similar characteristics will be grouped together into one of three occupational families with pay band levels designed to facilitate pay progression. Each occupational family will be composed of pay bands corresponding to recognized advancement and career progression expected within the occupations. These pay bands will replace individual grades and will not be the same for each occupational family. Each occupational family will be divided into three to five pay bands with each pay band covering the same pay range now covered by one or more GS grades. Employees track into an occupational family based on their current series as provided in
Appendix B. Upon conversion into the demonstration project, NSRDEC employees are initially assigned to the highest band in which their grade fits. For example, a Management Analyst GS-343-12 in the Business and Technical Family is assigned to Pay Band III as illustrated in
Figure 1. The upper and lower pay rate for base pay of each band is defined by the GS rate for the grade and step as indicated in Figure 1 except for Pay Band V of the Engineering and Science occupational family (refer to III.A.3.). Comparison to the GS grades was used in setting the upper and lower base pay dollar limits of the pay band levels. However, once employees are moved into the demonstration project, GS grades will no longer apply. The current occupations have been examined, and their characteristics and distribution have served as guidelines in the development of the following three occupational families:
E&S (Pay Plan DB): This occupational family includes technical professional positions, such as engineers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, operations research analysts and computer scientists.
Specific course work or educational degrees are required for these occupations. Five bands have been established for the E&S occupational family:
(1) Band I is a student trainee track covering GS-1, step 1 through
GS-4, step 10.
(2) Band II is a developmental track covering GS-5, step 1 through
GS-11, step 10.
(3) Band III * is a full-performance technical track covering GS- 12, step 1 through GS-14, step 10. Some first-level supervisory positions may also be included in this band.
(4) Band IV * includes both senior technical positions along with supervisors-managers covering GS-14, step 1 through GS-15, step 10.
(5) Band V is a senior scientific-technical manager. The pay range is as
Page 68454
follows: minimum base pay is 120 percent of minimum base pay of GS-15; maximum base pay is Level IV of the Executive Schedule (EX IV); and maximum adjusted base pay (adjusted base pay is the base rate plus locality or staffing supplement, as appropriate) is Level III of the
Executive Schedule (EX III).
* Bands III and IV overlap at the end and start points. These two bands have been designed following a feature used by the Navy's ``China
Lake'' project. Upon conversion into the demonstration project, NSRDEC employees in the E&S family currently at grade GS-14 are assigned to
Band IV.
Business & Technical (B&T) (Pay Plan DE): This occupational family includes such positions as program acquisition specialists, equipment specialists, engineering and electronics technicians, finance, accounting, administrative, and management analysis. Employees in these positions may or may not require specific course work or educational degrees. Four bands have been established for the B&T occupational family:
(1) Band I is a student trainee track covering GS-1, step 1 through
GS-4, step 10.
(2) Band II is a developmental track covering GS-5, step 1 through
GS-11, step 10.
(3) Band III is a full performance track covering GS-12, step 1 through GS-13, step 10.
(4) Band IV is a senior technical/manager track covering GS-14, step 1 through GS-15, step 10.
General Support (GEN) (Pay Plan DK): This occupational family is composed of positions for which specific course work or educational degree is not required. Clerical work usually involves the processing and maintenance of records. Assistant work requires knowledge of methods and procedures within a specific administrative area. This family includes such positions as secretaries, office automation clerks, and budget/program/computer assistants. Three bands have been established for the GEN occupational family:
(1) Band I includes entry-level positions covering GS-1, step 1 through GS-4, step 10.
(2) Band II includes full-performance positions covering GS-5, step 1 through GS-8, step 10.
(3) Band III includes senior technicians/assistants/secretaries covering GS-9 step 1 through step 10. 2. Pay Band Design
The pay bands for the occupational families and how they relate to the current GS framework are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1--Pay Band Chart
Equivalent GS grades
Occupational family
I
II
III
IV
V
E&S.............................. GS-01--GS-04
GS-05--GS-11
GS-12--GS-14
GS-14--GS-15
>GS-15
Business & Technical............. GS-01--GS-04
GS-05--GS-11
GS-12--GS-13
GS-14--GS-15
.............................
General Support.................. GS-01--GS-04
GS-05--GS-08
GS-9
.............................. .............................
Employees will be converted into the occupational family and pay band that corresponds to their GS/GM series and grade. The Engineering and Science occupational family has an overlapping pay band. GS-14
Engineers and Scientists will convert into Pay Band IV. Each employee converted to the demonstration project is assured, upon conversion, an initial place in the system without loss of pay. New hires will ordinarily be placed at the lowest base pay rate in a pay band.
Exceptional qualifications, specific organizational requirements, or other compelling reasons may lead to a higher entrance base pay within a band. As the rates of the GS are increased due to the annual general pay increases, the upper and lower base pay rates of the pay bands will also increase. Since pay progression through the bands depends directly on performance, there will be no scheduled Within-Grade Increases
(WIGIs) or Quality Step Increases (QSIs) for employees once the pay banding system is in place. Special rate schedules will no longer be applicable to demonstration project employees. Special provisions have been included to ensure no loss of pay upon conversion. (See III. E.9,
Staffing Supplements). 3. Pay Band V
The pay banding plan expands the pay banding concept used at
``China Lake'' and NIST by creating Pay Band V for the Engineering and
Science occupational family. This pay band is designed for Senior
Scientific Technical Managers (SSTM). The current definitions of Senior
Executive Service (SES) and Scientific and Professional (ST) positions do not fully meet the needs of the NSRDEC.
The SES designation is appropriate for executive level managerial positions whose classification exceeds GS-15. The primary competencies of SES positions relate to supervisory and managerial responsibilities.
Positions classified as ST are designed for bench research scientists and engineers. These positions require a very high level of technical expertise and have little or no supervisory responsibilities.
The NSRDEC has positions that may warrant classification above grade GS-15 because of their technical expertise requirements. These positions have characteristics of both SES and ST classifications. Most of these positions are responsible for supervising other GS-15 positions, including lower level supervisors, and non-supervisory engineers and scientists, and in some cases ST positions. The supervisory and managerial requirements exceed those appropriate for ST positions.
Management considers the primary requirement for these positions to be knowledge of and expertise in the specific scientific and technology areas related to the mission of their organizations, rather than the executive leadership qualifications that are characteristic of the SES.
Historically, incumbents of these positions have been recognized within the community as scientific and engineering leaders who possess strong managerial and supervisory abilities. Therefore, although some of these employees have scientific credentials that might compare favorably with
ST criteria, classification of these positions as STs is not an option because the managerial and supervisory responsibilities cannot be ignored.
Pay Band V will apply to a new category of positions designated as
Senior Scientific Technical Managers (SSTM). Positions so designated will include those requiring scientific/engineering technical expertise and full managerial and supervisory authority. Their scientific/ engineering technical expertise and responsibilities warrant classification above the GS-15 level.
Page 68455
Current GS-15 positions will convert into the demonstration project at Pay Band IV. After conversion these positions will be reviewed against established criteria to determine if the positions should be reclassified to Pay Band V. Other positions possibly meeting criteria for designation as SSTM will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The pay range for SSTM positions is: minimum base pay is 120 percent of minimum base pay of GS-15; maximum base pay is Level IV of the
Executive Schedule (EX IV); and maximum adjusted base pay is Level III of the Executive Schedule (EX III).
Vacant SSTM positions will be filled competitively to ensure that selectees are preeminent technical leaders in specialty fields who also possess substantial managerial and supervisory abilities. Panels will be created to assist in filling SSTM positions. Panel members typically will be SES members, ST employees and later those designated as SSTMs.
In addition, General Officers and recognized technical experts from outside the NSRDEC may also serve as appropriate. The panel will apply criteria developed from the OPM Research Grade Evaluation Guide for positions exceeding the GS-15 level and other OPM guidance related to positions exceeding the GS-15 level. The purpose of the panel is to ensure impartiality, breadth of technical expertise and a rigorous and demanding review.
SSTM positions will be subject to limitations imposed by DoD. SSTM positions will be established only in a STRL that employs scientists, engineers, or both. Incumbents of these positions will work primarily in their professional technical capacity on research and development and secondarily will perform managerial or supervisory duties.
The final component of Pay Band V is the management of all Pay Band
V assets. Specifically, this authority will be exercised at the DA level, and includes the following: authority to classify, create, or abolish positions within the limitations imposed by DoD; recruit and reassign employees in this pay band; set pay and appraise performance under this project's pay-for-performance system.
-
Classification 1. Occupational Series
The present GS classification system has over 400 occupational series, which are divided into 23 occupational groupings. NSRDEC currently has positions in approximately 65 occupational series that fall into 14 occupational groupings. All positions listed in Appendix B will be in the classification structure. Provisions will be made for including other occupations in response to changing missions. 2. Classification Standards and Position Descriptions
NSRDEC will use CERDEC's fully automated classification system modeled after the Navy's ``China Lake'' and ARL automated systems. ARL developed a web-based automated classification system that can create standardized, classified position descriptions under the new pay banding system in a matter of minutes. 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. Current OPM position classification standards will not be used to grade positions in this project. However, the grading criteria in those standards will be used as a framework to develop new and simplified standards for the purpose of pay band determinations. The objective is to record the essential criteria for each pay band within each occupational family by stating the characteristics of the work, the responsibilities of the position, and the competencies required.
New position descriptions will replace the current DA job descriptions.
The classification standard for each pay band will serve as an important component in the new position description, which will also include position-specific information, and provide data element information pertinent to the job. The computer-assisted process will produce information necessary for position descriptions. The new descriptions will be easier to prepare, minimize the amount of writing time and make the position description a more useful and accurate tool for other personnel management functions.
Specialty work codes (narrative descriptions) will be used to further differentiate types of work and the competencies required for particular positions within an occupational family and pay band. Each code represents a specialization or type of work within the occupation. 3. Fair Labor Standards Act
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemption and non-exemption determinations will be consistent with criteria found in 5 CFR part 551. All employees are covered by the FLSA unless they meet the criteria for exemption. The duties and responsibilities outlined in the classification standards for each pay band will be compared to the FLSA criteria. As a general rule, the FLSA status can be matched to occupational family and pay band as indicated in Figure 2. For example, positions classified in Pay Band I of the E&S occupational family are typically nonexempt, meaning they are covered by the overtime entitlements prescribed by the FLSA. An exception to this guideline includes supervisors/managers whose primary duty meets the definitions outlined in the OPM GS Supervisory Guide. Therefore, supervisors/ managers in any of the pay bands who meet the foregoing criteria are exempt from the FLSA. Supervisors with classification authority will make the determinations on a case-by-case basis by comparing assigned duties and responsibilities to the classification standards for each pay band and the 5 CFR part 551 FLSA criteria. Additionally, the advice and assistance of the Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, Northeast
Region, Civilian Human Resources Agency Center (CPAC/CHRA) will be obtained in making determinations. The benchmark position descriptions will not be the sole basis for the determination. Basis for exemption will be documented and attached to each position description. Exemption criteria will be narrowly construed and applied only to those employees who clearly meet the spirit of the exemption. Changes will be documented and provided to the CPAC/CHRA.
Figure 2--FLSA Status
Pay bands
Occupational family
I
II
III
IV
V
E&S..................................
N
N/E
E
E
E
B&T..................................
N
N/E
E
E
GEN..................................
N
N
E
N--Non-Exempt from FLSA; E--Exempt from FLSA.
N/E--Exemption status determined on a case-by-case basis.
Note: Although typical exemption status under the various pay bands is shown in the above table, actual FLSA exemption determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. 4. Classification Authority
The NSRDEC Director will have delegated classification authority and may, in turn, re-delegate this authority to appropriate levels.
Position descriptions will be developed to assist managers in exercising delegated position classification authority. Managers will identify the occupational
Page 68456
family, job series, functional code, specialty work code, pay band level, and the appropriate acquisition codes. Personnel specialists will provide ongoing consultation and guidance to managers and supervisors throughout the classification process. These decisions will be documented on the position description. 5. Classification Appeals
Classification appeals under this demonstration project will be processed using the following procedures: An employee may appeal the determination of occupational family, occupational series, position title, and pay band of his/her position at any time. An employee must formally raise the area of concern to supervisors in the immediate chain of command, either verbally or in writing. If the employee is not satisfied with the supervisory response, he/she may then appeal to the
DoD appellate level. Appeal decisions rendered by DoD will be final and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the government. Classification appeals are not accepted on positions which exceed the equivalent of a GS-15 level.
Time periods for cases processed under 5 CFR part 511 apply.
An employee may not appeal the accuracy of the position description, the demonstration project classification criteria, or the pay-setting criteria; the assignment of occupational series to the occupational family; the propriety of a pay schedule; or matters grievable under an administrative or negotiated grievance procedure, or an alternative dispute resolution procedure.
The evaluations of classification appeals under this demonstration project are based upon the demonstration project classification criteria. Case files will be forwarded for adjudication through the
CPAC/CHRA providing personnel service and will include copies of appropriate demonstration project criteria.
-
Pay for Performance 1. Overview
The purpose of the pay-for-performance system is to provide an effective, efficient, and flexible method for assessing, compensating, and managing the NSRDEC 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 a quality organization and meet mission requirements. Pay for performance allows for more employee involvement in the assessment process, strives to increase communication between supervisor and employee, promotes a clear accountability of performance, facilitates employee career progression, and provides an understandable and rational basis for pay changes by linking pay and performance.
The pay-for-performance system uses annual performance payouts that are based on the employee's total performance score rather than within- grade increases, quality step increases, promotions from one grade to another where both grades are now in the same pay band (i.e., there are no within-band promotions) and performance awards. The normal rating period will be one year. The minimum rating period will be 120 days.
Pay-for-performance payouts can be in the form of increases to base pay and/or in the form of bonuses that are not added to base pay but rather are given as a lump sum bonus. Other awards such as special acts, time- off awards, etc., will be retained separately from the pay-for- performance payouts.
The system will have the flexibility to be modified, if necessary, as more experience is gained under the project. 2. Performance Objectives
Performance objectives define a target level of activity, expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared. These objectives will specifically identify what is expected of the employee during the rating period and will typically consist of three to ten results-oriented statements. The employee and his/her supervisor will jointly develop the employee's performance objectives at the beginning of the rating period. These are to be reflective of the employee's duties/responsibilities and pay band along with the mission/organizational goals and priorities. Objectives will be reviewed annually and revised upon changes in pay reflecting increased responsibilities commensurate with pay increases. Use of generic one-size-fits-all objectives will be avoided, as performance objectives are meant to define an individual's specific responsibilities and expected accomplishments. In contrast, performance elements as described in the next paragraph will identify generic performance characteristics, against which the accomplishment of objectives will be measured. As a part of this demonstration project, training focused on overall organizational objectives and the development of performance objectives will be held for both supervisors and employees. Performance objectives may be jointly modified, changed or deleted as appropriate during the rating cycle. As a general rule, performance objectives should only be changed when circumstances outside the employee's control prevent or hamper the accomplishment of the original objectives. It is also appropriate to change objectives when mission or workload shifts occur. 3. Performance Elements
Performance elements define generic performance characteristics that will be used to evaluate the employee's success in accomplishing his/her performance objectives. The use of generic characteristics for scoring purposes helps to ensure comparable scores are assigned while accommodating diverse individual objectives. This pay-for-performance system will utilize those performance elements provided in Appendix C.
All elements are critical. A critical performance element is defined as an attribute of job performance that is of sufficient importance that performance below the minimally acceptable level requires remedial action and may be the basis for removing an employee from his/her position. Non-critical elements will not be used. Each of the performance elements will be assigned a weight, which reflects its importance in accomplishing an individual's performance objectives. A minimum weight is set for each performance element. The sum of the weights for all of the elements must equal 100.
A single set of performance elements will be used for evaluating the annual performance of all NSRDEC personnel covered by this plan.
This set of performance elements may evolve over time, based on experience gained during each rating cycle. This evolution is essential to capture the critical characteristics the organization encourages in its workforce toward meeting individual and organizational objectives.
This is particularly true in an environment where technology and work processes are changing at an increasingly rapid pace. The Personnel
Management Board will annually review the set of performance elements and set them for the entire organization before the beginning of the rating period. The following is an initial set of performance elements along with their minimum weight:
(1) Technical Competence (Minimum Weight: 15%)
(2) Interpersonal Skills (Minimum Weight: 10%)
(3) Management of Time and Resources (Minimum Weight: 15%)
Page 68457
(4) Customer Satisfaction (Minimum Weight: 10%)
(5) Team/Project Leadership (Minimum Weight: 15%)
(6) Supervision/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) (Minimum Weight: 25%)
All employees will be rated against the first four performance elements. Team/Project Leadership is mandatory for team leaders (within this document, team leader refers to non-supervisory team leaders as determined by the OPM GS Leader Grade Evaluation Guide). Supervision/
EEO is mandatory for all managers/supervisors. At the beginning of the rating period, pay pool managers will review the objectives and weights assigned to employees within the pay pool, to verify consistency and appropriateness. 4. Performance Feedback and Formal Ratings
The most effective means of communication is person-to-person discussion between supervisors and employees of requirements, performance goals and desired results. Employees and supervisors alike are expected to actively participate in these discussions for optimum clarity regarding expectations and identify potential obstacles to meeting goals. In addition, employees should explain (to the extent possible) what they need from their supervisor to support goal accomplishment. The timing of these discussions will vary based on the nature of work performed, but will occur at least at the mid-point and end of the rating period. The supervisor and employee will discuss job performance and accomplishments in relation to the performance objectives and elements. At least one review, normally the mid-point review, will be documented as a formal progress review. More frequent, task specific, discussions may be appropriate in some organizations. In cases where work is accomplished by a team, team discussions regarding goals and expectations will be appropriate.
The employee will provide a list of his/her accomplishments to the supervisor at both the mid-point and end of the rating period. An employee may elect to provide self-ratings on the performance elements and/or solicit input from team members, customers, peers, supervisors in other units, subordinates, and other sources which will permit the supervisor to fully evaluate accomplishments during the rating period.
At the end of the rating period, following a review of the employee's accomplishments, the supervisor will rate each of the performance elements by assigning a score between 0 and 50. Benchmark performance standards have been developed that describe the level of performance associated with a score. Using these benchmarks, the supervisor decides where (at any point on a scale of 0 to 50) the performance of the employee fits and assigns an appropriate score. It should be noted that these scores are not discussed with the employee or considered final until all scores are reconciled and approved by the pay pool manager. The element scores will then be multiplied by the element-weighting factor to determine the weighted score expressed to two decimal points. The weighted scores for each element will then be totaled to determine the employee's overall appraisal score and rounded to a whole number as follows: if the digit to the right of the decimal is between five and nine, it should be rounded to the next higher whole number; if the digit to the right of the decimal is between one and four, it should be dropped.
A total score of 10 or above will result in a rating of acceptable.
A total score of 9 or below will result in a rating of unacceptable, and requires the employee be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan
(PIP) immediately or following a temporary assignment. A score of 9 or below in a single element will also result in a rating of unacceptable, and requires the employee be placed on a PIP. A new rating of record will be issued if the employee's performance improves to an acceptable level at the conclusion of the PIP. 5. Unacceptable Performance
Informal employee performance reviews will be a continuous process so that corrective action, to include placing an employee on a PIP, may be taken at any time during the rating cycle. Whenever a supervisor recognizes an employee's performance on one or more performance elements is unacceptable, the supervisor should immediately inform the employee. Efforts will be made to identify the possible reasons for the unacceptable performance. An employee who is on a PIP is not eligible to receive the general pay increase (refer to III.C.13).
As an informal first step, the supervisor and employee may explore a temporary assignment to another unit in the organization. This recognizes that conflicts sometimes occur between a supervisor and an employee, or that an employee may be assigned to a position for which he/she is not suited. The supervisor is under no obligation to explore this option prior to taking more formal action. If the temporary assignment is not possible or has not worked out, and the employee continues to perform at an unacceptable level or has received an unacceptable rating, written notification outlining the unacceptable performance will be provided to the employee. At this point an opportunity to improve will be structured in a PIP. The supervisor will identify the items/actions that need to be corrected or improved, outline required time frames (no less than 30 days) for such improvement, and provide the employee with any available assistance as appropriate. Progress will be monitored during the PIP, and all counseling sessions will be documented.
If the employee's performance is acceptable at the conclusion of the PIP, no further action is necessary. If a PIP ends prior to the end of the annual performance cycle and the employee's performance improves to an acceptable level, the employee is appraised again at the end of the annual performance cycle.
If the employee fails to improve during the PIP, the employee will be given notice of proposed appropriate action. This action can include removal from the Federal service, placement in a lower pay band with a corresponding reduction in pay (demotion), reduction in pay within the same pay band, or change in position or occupational family. For the most part, employees with an unacceptable rating will not be permitted to remain at their current base pay and may be reduced in pay band.
Reductions in base pay within the same pay band or changes to a lower pay band will be accomplished with a minimum of a 5 percent decrease in an employee's base pay.
Note: Nothing in this subsection will preclude action under 5
U.S.C. chapter 75, when appropriate.
All relevant documentation concerning a reduction in pay or removal based on unacceptable performance will be preserved and made available for review by the affected employee or a designated representative. As a minimum, the record will consist of a copy of the notice of proposed personnel action, the employee's written reply, if provided, or a summary when the employee makes an oral reply. Additionally, the record will contain the written notice of decision and the reasons therefore along with any supporting material (including documentation regarding the opportunity afforded the employee to demonstrate improved performance).
If the employee's performance deteriorates to an unacceptable level, in
Page 68458
any element, within two years from the beginning of a PIP, follow-on actions may be initiated with no additional opportunity to improve. If an employee's performance is at an acceptable level for two years from the beginning of the PIP, and performance once again declines to an unacceptable level, the employee will be given an additional opportunity to improve, before management proposes follow-on actions. 6. Reconciliation Process
Following the initial scoring of each employee by the rater, the rating officials in an organizational unit, along with their next level of supervision, will meet to ensure consistency and equity of the ratings. In this step, each employee's performance objectives, accomplishments, preliminary scores and pay are compared. Through discussion and consensus building, consistent and equitable ratings are reached. Managers will not prescribe a distribution of total scores.
The pay pool manager will then chair a final review with the rating officials who report directly to him or her to validate these ratings and resolve any scoring issues. If consensus cannot be reached in this process, the pay pool manager makes all final decisions. After this reconciliation process is complete, scores are finalized. Payouts proceed according to each employee's final score and adjusted base pay.
Upon approval of this plan, implementing procedures and regulations will provide details on this process to employees and supervisors. 7. Pay Pools
NSRDEC employees will be placed into pay pools. Pay pools are combinations of organizational elements (e.g., Directorates, Divisions, and Teams) that are defined for the purpose of determining performance payouts under the pay-for-performance system. The guidelines in the next paragraph are provided for determining pay pools. These guidelines will normally be followed. However, the NSRDEC Director may deviate from the guidelines if there is a compelling need to do so and will document the rationale in writing.
The NSRDEC Director will establish pay pools. Typically, pay pools will have between 35 and 300 employees. A pay pool should be large enough to encompass a reasonable distribution of ratings but not so large as to compromise rating consistency. Supervisory personnel will be placed in a pay pool separate from subordinate non-supervisory personnel. Team leaders classified by the GS Leader Grade Evaluation
Guide will be included in a supervisory pay pool. Those team leaders who have project responsibility but who do not actually lead other workers will be included in a non-supervisory pay pool. Neither the pay pool manager nor supervisors within a pay pool will recommend or set their own individual pay. Decisions regarding the amount of the performance payout are based on the established formal payout calculations.
Funds within a pay pool available for performance payouts are calculated from anticipated pay increases under the existing system and divided into two components, base pay and bonus. The funds within a pay pool used for base pay increases are those that would have been available from within-grade increases, quality step increases and promotions (excluding the costs of promotions still provided under the banding system). This amount will be defined based on historical data and will be set at no less than two percent of total adjusted base pay annually. The funds available to be used for bonus payouts are funded separately within the constraints of the organization's overall award budget. This amount will be defined based on historical data and will be set at no less than one percent of total adjusted base pay annually.
The sum of these two factors is referred to as the pay pool percentage factor. The Personnel Management Board will annually review the pay pool funding and recommend adjustments to the Director to ensure cost discipline over the life of the demonstration project. Cost discipline is assured within each pay pool by limiting the total base pay increase to the funds available, based on what would have been available in the
GS system from within-grade increases, quality step increases and within-band promotions. The Director may reallocate the amount of funds assigned to each pay pool as necessary to ensure equity and to meet unusual circumstances. 8. Performance Payout Determination
The performance payout an employee will receive is based on the total performance score from the pay-for-performance assessment process. An employee will receive a performance payout as a percentage of adjusted base pay. This percentage is based on the number of shares that equates to their final appraisal score. Shares will be awarded on a continuum as follows:
Score = Shares 50 = 3 40 = 2 30 = 1 21 = .1 10-20 = 0
