Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Army, Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC), 68936-68966 [E9-30479]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68936-68966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30479]



[[Page 68935]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





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, Edgewood Chemical Biological 
Center (ECBC); Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / 
Notices

[[Page 68936]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Edgewood Chemical 
Biological Center (ECBC)

AGENCY: Office of the 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.) 
section 4703 at the STRLs enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 9902(c)(2), as 
redesignated in section 1105, Public Law 111-84, and 73 Federal 
Register (FR) 73248 to enhance the performance of these laboratories. 
The ECBC 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: Edgewood Chemical Biological Center 
ECBC: Ms. Kim Hoffman, U.S. Army ECBC, Directorate of Program 
Integration, Workforce Management Office (RDCB-DPC-W), 5183 Blackhawk 
Road, Building 3330, Room 264, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424.
    DoD: Ms. Betty 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 73 FR 73248 not having personnel demonstration projects at 
this time may adopt any of the flexibilities of the other laboratories 
listed in subsection 9902(c)(2), as redesignated 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): ECBC and Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering 
Center (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 
ECBC's intent to adopt the CERDEC demonstration project, DoD received 
comments from three employees during the public comment period which 
ended on January 2, 2009: Two presented interests on behalf of the 
Unions they represent and the other presented comments on behalf of the 
organization itself. All comments were carefully considered.
    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. Each commenter 
addressed more than one topic and each topic was counted separately. 
Thus, the total number of comments exceeds the number of individuals 
cited above.

A. Pay-for-Performance System

    Ten comments were received that relate to the pay-for-performance 
system.
(1) General
    Comments: Three comments were received concerning the pay-for-
performance system in general as follows: questioned impact to ``good'' 
workers since this system is designed to reward ``very high'' 
performers; asserted that individual performance appears to be more 
critical and questioned impact to teamwork; and expressed concern that 
favoritism could impact employees getting a fair share in payouts from 
pay pools which have a fixed amount of money.
    Response: The demonstration project performance management system 
is designed to provide greater differentiation among performers, as 
opposed to the current Total Army Performance Evaluation System (TAPES) 
which has evolved into most employees being rated at the same level. 
This new approach is based on a pay-for-performance model which allows 
for greater communication between supervisor and employee, promotes 
clearer accountability of performance, facilitates employee career 
progression and provides an understandable and rational basis for pay 
changes by linking pay and performance. Under a pay-for-performance 
appraisal system there is a fixed amount of money for allocation to all 
employees rated. It is expected that higher performing employees earn 
greater rewards than lower performing employees. It is important to 
note that under this demonstration project, no employee who is rated at 
an acceptable level (10 or above on a scale of 0-50) loses base pay. A 
reduction in base pay could only occur if an employee receives an 
unacceptable rating (9 or below on a scale of 0-50) and is the subject 
of an adverse action.
    Pay-for-performance systems are often viewed as increasing 
competition among employees for limited financial

[[Page 68937]]

rewards and are believed to have a negative impact on teamwork. 
However, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in an independent 
evaluation of laboratory demonstration projects analyzed this factor 
and concluded that teamwork had actually improved and that the pay-for-
performance system had no negative effect on teamwork. Furthermore, a 
rigorous review process is an integral part of the demonstration 
project's pay-for-performance system which links base pay and bonus to 
organizational, team and individual performance. Interpersonal skills 
is one of the critical performance elements in every employee's 
performance plan. This element includes such qualities as being an 
effective team player, coordinating actions with others, being 
considerate of differing viewpoints, maintaining effective 
relationships, etc., all of which encourage sustainment of teamwork. 
Lastly, special act and other traditional 5 U.S.C. awards are still 
viable options that can be used to reward groups for exceptional team 
work.
    Major features in the design of the rating system are intended to 
overcome perceptions of favoritism and limited differentiation among 
ratings. Improved communication throughout the rating cycle facilitates 
building a common understanding of performance expectations and 
progress toward achieving those expectations. The automated performance 
management 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 pay in making 
performance-based pay decisions and provides information to employees 
about the results of the appraisal process and pay decision. At the end 
of the rating period, employees submit 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.
    The demonstration project plan includes other means of checks and 
balances that address perceptions of favoritism and bias. A Personnel 
Management Board has been created to provide oversight for the project 
and includes members representing each directorate. 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. 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.
(2) Rating
    Comments: One commenter believes that higher scores are needed each 
year to receive pay increases and questioned whether salary increases 
taper off after a few years. The same commenter questioned whether 
managers will be involved in rating employees they do not have direct 
contact with and whether pay pool managers will be familiar with those 
they are rating.
    Response: Base pay increases and/or bonuses are earned based on an 
employee's total performance score. Scores of 21 or higher earn a 
performance payout. Higher scores are not needed each year to receive a 
base pay increase. Base pay increases can continue to be earned which 
allows progression in base pay up to the maximum base pay rate for the 
employee's pay band. Once an employee reaches the maximum base pay rate 
for their pay band their base pay is ``capped,'' similar to when an 
employee reaches step 10 of their General Schedule (GS) grade. The 
performance payout earned is then converted to bonus. The project plan 
also includes two performance-based rules (midpoint rule and 
significant accomplishment rule) that may affect base pay increases. 
Refer to III.C.10. and III.C.11. for how these rules relate to scores. 
It is important to note that as base pay progresses over time, 
performance expectations also increase and are factored into the 
appraisal process.
    As to the rating process, first-line supervisors initially rate 
their employees. These initial scores are then subject to discussion, 
review and reconciliation and may result in adjustments upward or 
downward. Review of the scores across organizational lines continues at 
succeeding levels up the management chain to the final level of review 
which is the pay pool manager. Participants in the next level 
reconciliation will have full knowledge of their respective preceding 
level's discussions and decisions to represent those employees. Other 
participants may have varying degrees of direct knowledge of an 
employee's performance but will be knowledgeable of the nature of the 
technologies/work being performed. The requirement for raters to 
explain their recommended ratings and the active discussion within the 
group emphasizes to each rater the importance of taking performance 
management earnestly. The process of reconciliation serves to overcome 
variations in expectations from one rater to another, helps to ensure 
that different raters apply the performance benchmarks consistently, 
and resolves variances in what one manager considers exceptional work 
from another who judges it as merely acceptable.
(3) Pay Pools
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the base pay and bonus pay 
pool funding percentage be revised to set a minimum percentage rather 
than ranges. Another commenter questioned how many pay pools would be 
set for the Rock Island site. This same commenter asked who would serve 
as the pay pool manager(s) for the Rock Island site.
    Response: The laboratory considered the recommendation to alter the 
pay pool funding percentage and has amended III.C.7. ``Pay Pools'' to 
define pay pool funding for base pay increases and bonuses at minimum 
levels as opposed to a range of minimum and maximum. The base pay 
increase pool of money will be set at no less than the current minimum 
of 2% and the bonus increase pool of money will be set at no less than 
the current minimum of 1%. Higher amounts may be set within budgetary 
limits.
    With regard to the questions concerning pay pools and pay pool 
manager(s) at one of ECBC's remote sites (Rock Island), the Personnel 
Management Board will annually determine the number of pay pools using 
guidelines such as size, number of supervisory/non-supervisory 
employees participating, etc., and make a recommendation to the 
Technical Director for final approval. Once the pay

[[Page 68938]]

pools have been decided, then the pay pool managers will be named for 
each pay pool by the Personnel Management Board. All employees will be 
informed of their pay pool assignment and designated pay pool manager.
(4) Payout Determinations
    Comments: One commenter questioned how payouts are computed and the 
factors that affect the equation. The same commenter asked whether 
management can decide to not give a base pay increase or bonus for an 
employee's rating and give payouts in the form of all bonus rather than 
a combination of base pay increase and bonus.
    Response: Management cannot arbitrarily decide to not give a pay 
increase or a bonus. An employee's performance payout is based on the 
employee's score, the shares earned for that score, the value of the 
shares and the employee's adjusted base pay. The performance payout is 
calculated based on provisions set forth in the FR Notice and the 
resulting payout is a base pay increase and/or bonus. Scores translate 
into shares and each point above the score of 20 is worth one tenth of 
a share with a maximum score of 50 equaling 3 shares. There is no 
discretion on the amount of shares earned. For example, a score of 32 
earns 1.2 shares. The value of a single share, however, may vary from 
one pay pool to another since it is based on factors relative to 
individual pay pools (such as the number of shares awarded in the pay 
pool, etc.). Figure 3 (III.C.8.) illustrates the formula for computing 
share value. The value of a share is computed after the scores for each 
individual in the pay pool have been finalized. The payout (base pay 
increase/bonus) is calculated by first multiplying the shares earned by 
the share value and multiplying that product by base pay. An adjustment 
is then made to account for locality pay or staffing supplement.
    Payouts are typically a combination of base pay increase and bonus. 
The split is generally determined by the funding in the pay pool (i.e., 
if the pay pool funding is two-thirds base pay and one-third bonus 
funding, then the payout split would be two-thirds base pay increase 
and one-third bonus). For employees at the maximum base pay of their 
band or affected by a performance-based rule, some or all of the payout 
converts to bonus as determined by the end of the band or the specific 
performance rule. The full amount of the base pay increase and bonus 
may also be affected if an employee leaves the demonstration project 
prior to the effective date of the payout. There is some discretion on 
the part of the pay pool manager to shift all or some of an employee's 
bonus portion to base pay increase depending on available unexpended 
base pay funds and other criteria to be established. Any dollar 
increase to an employee's base pay increase will be offset by a 
corresponding decrease in the employee's bonus. Thus, the employee's 
total performance payout is unchanged. Internal operating procedures 
will provide further guidance.

B. Pay

    Nine comments were received related to pay.
(1) General
    Comments: Five comments were received regarding pay in general as 
follows: whether the GS salary tables will be used as a guide and at 
what point an employee's salary is capped; whether employees will 
receive the annual general pay increase; an interest in history of 
employees reaching the top of their pay band since GS employees can 
reach the top of their grade over time; a remark that morale could be 
an issue for careerists who have paid their dues since new employees 
under the demonstration will have greater monetary incentives available 
to them; and a suggestion to relieve pay compression by providing 
additional waivers to permit full locality payment.
    Response: The minimum and maximum rate of base pay for each band 
continues to be linked to the GS rates of pay. The rates are updated 
each year following the general pay increase which typically takes 
place in January. As long as the general pay increase is authorized, 
all employees in the demonstration project who are performing at an 
acceptable level will receive it. Acceptable performance under the 
demonstration project is defined as a total score of 10 or above and 
every performance element scored at 10 or above (on a scale of 0-50). 
If an employee is on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) due to 
unacceptable performance when the general pay increase takes effect, 
he/she will not receive it until such time as the performance improves 
to an acceptable level and remains so for at least 90 days.
    Maximum potential base pay progression depends on the end point of 
the employee's pay band. For example, if the base pay rate range is GS-
12/step 1 to GS-13/step 10, as is the case for DE-III, the employee can 
progress in base pay beyond the GS-12/step 10 base pay rate up to the 
maximum of the GS-13/step 10 base pay rate equivalent based on 
individual performance. Refer to III.A.2. which illustrates the pay 
band structure and the crosswalk to GS grades.
    Under the demonstration project, base pay progression within a pay 
band is directly linked to individual performance. As a result, we can 
not specify a certain number of years it would take to progress from 
the minimum to the maximum of the band. However, progress through the 
band will be one of the areas assessed. As previously stated, employees 
are eligible (based on their performance scores) to receive annual base 
pay increases (unless they have reached the top of their band or are 
impacted by a performance-based rule). Annual base pay increases 
replace the traditional within-grade increases and quality step 
increases. In addition, an employee under the GS system is limited in 
base pay progression to step 10 of their grade. Under the demonstration 
project, however, employees are placed in pay bands which cover a wider 
range of base pay than a single grade (except for DK-III) and 
promotions are required only for movement to a higher band.
    Under the GS pay system, employees must perform at an acceptable 
level and meet length of service requirements in order to be entitled 
to a within-grade increase. The waiting period for a step increase 
changes from one year to two years and then to three years over time, 
totaling eighteen years for normal progression in grade from step 1 to 
step 10. While it is true that most GS employees will reach step 10 of 
their grade given enough time, it is not a guarantee because of the 
performance factor. The demonstration pay-for-performance system 
rewards good performance and as such, it is entirely possible that 
employees in the demonstration project could receive base pay increases 
that are equivalent to or higher than a step increase each year and 
could, therefore, progress in their band faster than they would under 
the GS system.
    Motivating and incentivizing the workforce is one of the objectives 
of the laboratory demonstration project. In fact, in an evaluation of 
laboratory demonstration projects, OPM conducted a pulse survey which 
concluded that motivation levels remained high and that pay 
satisfaction increased in all labs. As previously described, employees 
have the opportunity to advance without competition within a pay band, 
thus eliminating previous promotion requirements and grade limitations. 
While it is true that under the demonstration project pay may be set 
anywhere in the band for newly hired employees, decisions are based on

[[Page 68939]]

the qualifications of the individual, the unique requirements of the 
position and the labor market considerations relative to the 
occupation. Other demonstration projects who are offering higher 
starting base pay for interns, as an example, have seen a significant 
increase in the recruitment of graduates with higher Grade Point 
Averages (GPAs) and are able to recruit at more selective colleges and 
universities. Although the starting base pay is higher than the GS 
counterpart, this is offset by slower pay progression that is dependent 
upon individual performance and tends to be slower than the rapid 
career ladder promotions that occur in the GS system. Consequently, at 
the conclusion of the 18-30 month internship, employees' base pay is 
comparable.
    As to the last comment, 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 for the Engineering and Science (E&S) and the 
Business and Technical (BT) occupational families since Pay Band IV of 
both is 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.
(2) Supervisory Pay
    Comments: One commenter proposed that supervisory/team leader pay 
adjustments and pay differentials be changed to provide up to ten 
percent for team leaders. Another commenter asked whether supervisory 
pay is based on the number of employees supervised.
    Response: The suggestion to increase the maximum for team leader 
pay adjustments and differentials from five percent to ten percent of 
base pay was considered and senior management agreed that this change 
would increase our flexibility to incentivize team leaders when 
warranted. Therefore, language has been added to revise the amount of 
pay adjustments and pay differentials for team leaders from ``up to 
five percent'' to ``up to ten percent'' in III.F.7. ``Supervisory and 
Team Leader Pay Adjustments'' and III.F.8. ``Supervisory/Team Leader 
Pay Differentials.''
    As to the second comment, for a position to be classified as 
supervisory, the individual must spend at least 25 percent of their 
time performing supervisory duties, e.g. assigning/reviewing work, 
evaluating performance, approving leave, etc. Pay is not based on a 
specific number of employees supervised but the number of employees 
supervised may be an influencing factor in determinations related to 
supervisory base pay adjustments and pay differentials. Adjustments and 
differentials will be used selectively, not routinely, to compensate 
supervisors and/or team leaders who meet detailed criteria contained in 
the demonstration project internal operating procedures.
(3) Internal Placement
    Comments: One commenter suggested that a pay increase of up to a 
defined amount should be permitted when a person moves to a position of 
greater responsibility (reassignment) within the same pay band. Another 
commenter inquired how performance payouts are handled for employees on 
temporary assignments/promotions and whether pay increases are 
withdrawn when the temporary assignment/promotion ends.
    Response: 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 specific 
guidelines to be established by the Personnel Management Board.
    With regard to a temporary assignment/promotion, an employee can be 
rated if they are under approved objectives for the position for a 
minimum of 120 days. The payout is calculated using the computations in 
III.C.8. When a temporary promotion is terminated, pay will be 
determined based on the position of record, with appropriate 
adjustments to reflect pay events during the temporary promotion, 
subject to policies established by the Personnel Management Board. 
Those adjustments may not increase the base pay for the position of 
record beyond the applicable pay band maximum base pay. Internal 
operating procedures will provide further guidance.

C. Extraordinary Achievement Recognition

    Two comments were received about 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 
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 the provision has been moved 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. as 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.

D. 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 E&S 
occupational family (DB) Pay Band IV and requested clarification of how 
any subsequent conversions for GS-14 E&S positions will be handled. 
Another comment received 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 ECBC from having this 
flexibility.
    Response: We have carefully considered these comments. With

[[Page 68940]]

regard to placement of GS-14 E&S employees, language has been changed 
in III.A.1. and added in III.A.2. to reflect that upon conversion into 
the demonstration project, E&S employees currently at grade GS-14 will 
be assigned to either Pay Band III or Pay Band IV based on a review of 
the duties and responsibilities of the position as compared to the 
classification criteria.
    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.

E. Probationary Period

    Two comments were received about the extended probationary period.
    Comments: One commenter advised that a recent court decision 
limited the intent of the extended probationary period. The other 
commenter questioned why the probationary period is extended to three 
years and is only applicable to new engineers and scientists.
    Response: The purpose of extending the probationary period is to 
allow supervisors a proper period of time to fully evaluate an 
employee's performance and conduct. It applies to newly hired engineers 
and scientists since this group is often given advanced training during 
their first year on the job, which removes them from the workplace and 
direct observations of their performance. This can minimize the time 
available for the supervisor to determine whether the employee should 
be retained beyond the probationary period.
    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 part 315 of title 5 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). 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.
    If a probationary employee's performance is determined to be 
satisfactory at a point prior to the end of the three-year period, a 
supervisor has the option of ending the probationary period at an 
earlier date, but not before the employee has completed one year of 
continuous service.

F. Conversion

    Two comments were received related to conversion into the 
demonstration project.
    Comments: One commenter inquired whether management can place an 
employee into a lower band upon conversion than where they are under 
the GS system. Another commenter recommended that conversion of interns 
into the demonstration project occur when the employees reach their 
full performance level for their GS position.
    Response: Initial entry into the demonstration project is 
accomplished through a full employee-protection approach that ensures 
initial placement of each employee into a pay band with no loss of pay 
upon conversion. Employees are placed in an occupational family (i.e., 
DB, DE, DK) based upon their occupational series and in a pay band that 
includes their current grade. The GS-14 grade occurs in two bands of 
the E&S occupational family, which are Pay Band III and Pay Band IV. 
The placement of GS-14 employees in the DB family will be decided upon 
a review of the position's duties and responsibilities as compared to 
the demonstration project classification criteria and may occur in 
either DB Pay Band III or DB Pay Band IV. Placement of a GS-14 into DB-
III, however, is not placement in a lower graded position.
    As to the second comment, interns typically receive several career 
promotions prior to reaching their full performance level. Average base 
pay performance payouts may not provide increases as substantial as 
career promotions under the GS. Delaying conversion into the 
demonstration project pay bands until interns reach their full 
performance level will assure that the interns' base pay is 
commensurate with the full performance level base pay rate. Therefore, 
the language at II.E. has been revised to reflect that interns will not 
convert into demonstration project pay bands until they reach their 
full performance level.

G. Classification

    One comment was received concerning classification.
    Comment: One commenter questioned that with the GS system having 
over 400 series and the laboratory demonstration project with only 22, 
how classification of positions will be conducted and who (i.e., 
employees) will be involved in that process.
    Response: OPM series and position titles will continue to be used 
in the demonstration project. Based on the nature of the work, the 
series will be assigned to one of three occupational families. A 
listing of the series assigned to each occupational family for ECBC is 
contained in Appendix B. Demonstration project classification criteria 
will be developed for each occupational family. These classification 
criteria will replace the OPM classification standards and guides for 
purposes of grading. The Technical Director will have classification 
authority and this authority may be re-delegated. As is the case now, 
Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC) specialists will assist the 
classification authority to assure that positions are properly 
classified in accordance with the demonstration project criteria.
    On conversion into the demonstration project, employees will be 
assigned to an occupational family and pay band based on their current 
occupational series and grade. Since there is an overlapping band for 
engineers and scientists at the GS-14 level, the assignment of the pay 
band will be on a case-by-case basis. The classification conversion 
will be performed by the servicing Civilian Personnel Office, and each 
employee will receive a Notification of Personnel Action, Standard Form 
50, documenting the change from GS to the demonstration project. 
Employees will continue to be able to initiate a classification appeal 
as described in the operating procedures.

H. Promotion

    One comment was received related to promotion eligibility.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the minimum score of ``30'' 
to be eligible for a competitive promotion is too high.
    Response: We considered the suggestion to lower the minimum 
performance score of ``30'' required for promotion eligibility. Scores 
of 10 and higher are considered ``acceptable performance'' and scores 
of 21 and

[[Page 68941]]

higher earn 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, the minimum performance score for promotion has been 
changed from ``30'' to ``21'' in III.E.1. ``Promotions.''

I. Reduction in Force (RIF)

    One comment was received regarding RIF.
    Comment: One commenter asked what criteria is used during a RIF.
    Response: Existing RIF procedures will be followed with slight 
modifications. Separate competitive areas will be established for 
demonstration project employees at each geographic location. Within 
each competitive area, competitive levels will be established based on 
the occupational family (DB, DE, DK), pay band, occupational series, 
etc. In order to determine who is affected in a RIF, employees are 
listed in RIF retention order based on tenure group, veterans' 
preference and adjusted length of Federal service, in that sequence. An 
employee's length of service is adjusted by receiving additional years 
of service based on the last three total performance scores during the 
preceding four years (e.g., 48-50 = 10 years, 45-47 = 9 years, and so 
on; refer to II.H.3.). A score below 20 adds no credit for RIF. Under 
the demonstration project, the adjusted service computation date is 
calculated by adding the additional years, not by averaging.

J. Historical Analysis

    Two comments were received concerning demonstration project data 
results.
    Comment: One commenter questioned acceptance of the demonstration 
project in comparison to the GS system beyond anecdotal evidence and 
inquired whether surveys were conducted at other demonstration project 
sites. Another commenter asserted that CERDEC has not presented data 
showing a more effective organization under the demo project.
    Response: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) started 
conducting surveys of STRL personnel demonstration projects as far back 
as 1996 and have several reports, all of which include CERDEC data 
subsequent to its implementation, on their Web site at https://www.opm.gov/aps/about/reports/index.aspx. According to the 2006 report, 
``historic data for past demonstration projects'' * * * ``show support 
grows slowly over time and that it takes at least five years to gain 
the support of two-thirds of the participating employees. Typically, 
support stabilizes at the two-thirds level, and that level is 
considered a benchmark with respect to the change efforts these 
demonstration projects represent.''

K. Miscellaneous Comments

    There were ten comments in this area as follows:
(1) Positive Comment
    One commenter voiced support of the demonstration and remarked that 
the flexibilities afforded will help the Center achieve greater 
effectiveness.
(2) Administrative Changes/Technical Updates
    Two comments were received related to administrative changes and 
technical updates to the Federal Register document.
    Comments: One commenter advised that updates throughout the 
document were needed to reference ECBC rather than CECOM RDE and to 
reflect legal or regulatory changes. The same commenter also suggested 
that the occupational series listing in Appendix B be revised to 
include those series employed at ECBC.
    Response: A number of changes were made to the final Federal 
Register to include ECBC 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 areas have been re-formatted 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.
(3) Resources
    One comment was received regarding staffing requirements for the 
project.
    Comment: One commenter asked what additional staffing requirements 
(personnel, software) are required to implement the project.
    Response: There is currently one civilian who is assigned overall 
demonstration project management responsibility for ECBC. This employee 
is assisted by a part-time contractor. Staffing requirements may be 
adjusted over the course of the project as necessary. Each directorate/
office will continue to process personnel actions through their 
respective human resources analyst. It is expected that various working 
groups beyond the Personnel Management Board will be established to 
contribute to various components and phases of the project.
    As to software, ECBC is planning to adopt an existing automated 
system, developed at Fort Monmouth, NJ. It's a Web-based tool that 
supports development of position descriptions and all actions in 
support of the pay-for-performance rating process. The application 
enables employees to input objectives and record accomplishments, 
raters to score the performance, and higher-level supervisors to review 
employee scores and analyze scoring trends to achieve greater 
consistency across organizational lines.
(4) Reference to the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
    Five comments were received that made reference to NSPS.
    Comment: Two comments cited quotes from publications relating to 
fairness under the NSPS pay-for-performance system. Two comments cited 
quotes from articles and one comment referenced the 2008 National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) concerning inclusion of bargaining 
unit members under NSPS. Management will continue to comply with the 
labor relation provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4703(f) and 7117 concerning 
inclusion of bargaining unit employees.
    With regard to references concerning inclusion of bargaining unit 
members under NSPS, collective bargaining rights are granted under 
Federal law and the demonstration project does not impede those rights. 
ECBC is committed to meeting its bargaining obligation under the law.

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, as redesignated in section 1105 of Public Law 111-84, 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

I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
    A. Purpose
    B. Problems With the Present System
    C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits
    D. Participating Organizations

[[Page 68942]]

    E. Participating Employees and Union Representation
    F. Project Design
    G. Personnel Management Board
III. Personnel System Changes
    A. Pay Banding
    B. Classification
    C. Pay for Performance
    D. Hiring Authority
    E. Internal Placement
    F. Pay Setting
    G. Employee Development
    H. Reduction-in-Force Procedures
IV. Implementation Training
V. Conversion
    A. Conversion to the Demonstration Project
    B. Conversion out of the Demonstration Project
    C. Personnel Administration
    D. Automation
    E. Experimentation and Revision
VI. Project Duration
VII. Evaluation Plan
    A. Overview
    B. Evaluation Model
    C. Evaluation
    D. Method of Data Collection
VIII. Demonstration Project Costs
    A. Cost Discipline
    B. Developmental Costs
IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation
    A. Waivers to title 5, U.S.C.
    B. Waivers to title 5, CFR
Appendix A: ECBC Employees by Duty Locations
Appendix B: Occupational Series by Occupational Family
Appendix C: Performance Elements
Appendix D: Intervention Model

I. Executive Summary

    This project adopts with some modifications the STRL personnel 
management demonstration project, designed by the then named 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. 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 ECBC was 
also realigned under RDECOM. The ECBC includes the ECBC organization at 
the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, employees matrixed to the 
Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical/Biological Defense (JPEO-
CBD) and ECBC employees with duty stations at other sites.
    The ECBC provides integrated science, technology and engineering 
solutions to address chemical and biological vulnerabilities and 
threats. ECBC's core competency is working with chemical and biological 
agents at all stages of the materiel life cycle. ECBC maintains the 
following fundamental capabilities:
    (1) Chemistry and Bioscience of Chemical and Biological Warfare.
    (2) Inhalation Toxicology.
    (3) Aerosol Physics.
    (4) Filtration Sciences.
    (5) Agent Spectroscopy/Algorithm Development.
    (6) Chemical and Biological Testing and Evaluation.
    (7) Chemical and Biological Materiel Acquisition.
    (8) Agent Handling and Surety.
    (9) Chemical Munitions Field Operations.
    In order to sustain these unique capabilities, the ECBC must be 
able to hire, retain and continually motivate enthusiastic, innovative, 
and highly-educated scientists and engineers, supported by skilled 
business management and administrative 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 ECBC 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 ECBC 
mission, adjust the workforce for change, and improve workforce 
satisfaction. This demonstration project extends the CERDEC 
demonstration project to ECBC. The CERDEC project 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 
five years of implementation.

II. Introduction

A. 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.

B. Problems With the Present System

    The current Civil Service 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 ECBC 
must be able to recruit and retain scientific, engineering, acquisition 
support and other professionals and skilled technicians. ECBC 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.

[[Page 68943]]

C. 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 ECBC 
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, Defense, Research 
and Engineering (DDR&E) in conjunction with STRL service 
representatives and the 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.

D. Participating Organizations

    The RDECOM ECBC is comprised of the ECBC at the Edgewood Area of 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, ECBC employees matrixed to JPEO-CBD 
and ECBC employees geographically dispersed at the locations shown in 
Appendix A. It should be noted that some sites currently employ fewer 
than ten people and that the sites may change should ECBC reorganize or 
realign. Successor organizations will continue coverage in the 
demonstration project.

E. Participating Employees and Union Representation

    This demonstration project will cover approximately 1,100 ECBC 
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), Department of 
Army (DA) and Army Command centrally funded interns and students 
employed under the Student Career Experience Program. Employees on 
temporary appointments will not be covered in 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 TAPES 
performance appraisal system. Local interns hired after implementation 
of the project will be covered by all terms of the demonstration 
project.
    The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), Federal 
District 1, Local 178 and the American Federation of Government 
Employees (AFGE) Local 15 represent a majority of ECBC employees. Of 
those employees assigned to ECBC, approximately 87% are represented by 
a labor union.
    To foster union acceptance of ECBC's proposed personnel 
demonstration project, initial discussions with the local NFFE union 
began in May 2006. Later that same month, at ECBC's invitation, the 
NFFE Local 178 participated in a presentation briefed by CERDEC which 
covered the major aspects of their personnel demonstration project 
plan. Subsequent to this meeting, senior leadership for both ECBC and 
NFFE Local 178 had changed. ECBC's new Technical Director continued to 
support the former Director's initiative to adopt a personnel 
demonstration project and committed to the effort. In July 2008, senior 
management arranged for another meeting with NFFE which included the 
new local president and regional representative to re-introduce and 
discuss key features of the project plan.
    In October 2008, ECBC began similar discussions with the AFGE Local 
15. ECBC has maintained on-going communication with the Unions 
regarding its intent to pursue approval for a laboratory personnel 
demonstration project. The unions have received updates as specific 
phases of the project have evolved and have been invited to attend town 
hall meetings and smaller information sessions provided to the 
workforce. ECBC will continue to fulfill its obligation to consult and/
or negotiate with all labor organizations in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
Sections 4703(f) and 7117.

F. Project Design

    The ECBC has been a DOD STRL since June 1995. This status 
authorized ECBC to participate in all of the STRL initiatives, to 
include the authority to carry out personnel demonstration projects. In 
December 2005, RDECOM Headquarters asked ECBC of their intent to pursue 
a personnel demonstration project. In-depth discussions with both 
CERDEC and NSRDEC resulted in an ECBC Laboratory Demonstration decision 
brief to its senior leadership in April 2006. At the conclusion of that 
briefing, ECBC senior leadership voted to move toward adopting CERDEC's 
existing laboratory personnel demonstration project. Subsequently, the 
ECBC 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 providing for full implementation of the personnel 
demonstration project, the DoD announced ECBC's intent to adopt the 
CERDEC demonstration project in 73 FR 73248, December 2, 2008.

G. Personnel Management Board

    ECBC 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 ECBC Technical Director. As needed, ad hoc 
members, (such as labor counsel, human resource representatives, etc.) 
will serve as advisory members 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;

[[Page 68944]]

    (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 all policies, regulations and guidelines 
covering this demonstration project; and
    (17) Monitor the evaluation of the project.

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Pay Banding

    The design of the ECBC 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 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. With the exception of the Engineering and Science Pay Band 
III and IV *, 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 occupational 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 E&S 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:
    Engineering and Science (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.
    (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: Minimum base pay is 120 percent of the 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).

* 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, 
employees in the E&S family currently at grade GS-14 will be assigned 
to either Band III or Band IV based on a review of the duties and 
responsibilities of the position as compared to the classification 
criteria.

    Business & Technical (B&T) (Pay Plan DE): This occupational family 
includes such positions as computer specialists, equipment specialists, 
quality assurance specialists, telecommunications specialists, 
engineering and electronics technicians, procurement coordinators, 
finance, accounting, administrative computing, 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 
degrees are 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.

[[Page 68945]]



                                                                Figure 1--Pay Band Chart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Equivalent GS grades
      Occupational family       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            I                       II                      III                     IV                       V
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&S..