Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL) Personnel Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Navy (DON), Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR) Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWCWD), 8530-8570 [2011-3094]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Office of the Secretary

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8530-8570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3094]



[[Page 8529]]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 30

February 14, 2011

Part IV





Department of Defense





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







Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL) Personnel 
Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Navy (DON), Naval 
Air System Command (NAVAIR) Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division 
(NAWCAD), and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWCWD); 
Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / 
Notices

[[Page 8530]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL) Personnel 
Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Navy (DON), Naval 
Air System Command (NAVAIR) Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division 
(NAWCAD), and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWCWD)

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian 
Personnel Policy), (DUSD (CPP)), DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995, Public Law (Pub. L.) 103-337 (10 
U.S.C. 2358 note), as amended by section 1109 of NDAA for FY 2000, 
Public Law 106-65, and section 1114 of NDAA for FY 2001, Public Law 
106-398, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct personnel 
demonstration projects at 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 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2010, Public Law 111-84, 123 Stat. 
2486, October 28, 2009, designates additional DoD laboratories as STRLs 
for the purpose of designing and implementing personnel management 
demonstration projects for conversion of employees from the personnel 
system which applied on October 28, 2009. The NAWCAD and the NAWCWD are 
listed in subsection 1105(a) of NDAA for FY 2010 as two of the newly 
designated STRLs. These two STRLs will be the participants in the 
demonstration project proposal described in this Federal Register 
Notice (FRN).

DATES: Implementation of this demonstration project will begin no 
earlier than March 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    NAVAIR: Mr. Richard Cracraft, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons 
Division (NAWCWD), Code 730000D, 1 Administration Circle, Building 
00464, China Lake, CA 93555-6100.
    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. The STRL 
Personnel Management Demonstration Projects involve broad-banded pay 
systems and simplified classification; compensation linked to 
performance, including contribution-based pay; recruitment and staffing 
changes; and enhanced training and development including critical 
skills training, Voluntary Emeritus Corps, and sabbaticals.
    This demonstration project involves: (1) Two appointment 
authorities (permanent and modified term); (2) extended probationary 
period for newly hired employees; (3) pay banding; (4) streamlined 
delegated examining; (5) modified reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures; 
(6) simplified job classification; (7) a mission aligned objectives and 
compensation based appraisal system; (8) market based starting 
salaries; (9) academic degree and certificate training; (10) 
sabbaticals; and (11) a Voluntary Emeritus Corps.

2. Overview

    The covered organizations transitioned to the National Security 
Personnel System (NSPS) late in 2008. Subsequently, section 1113 of 
NDAA for FY 2010, Public Law 111-84,123 Stat. 2486, required all 
employees to exit NSPS by no later than January 1, 2012. Another 
section of NDAA for FY 2010, section 1105, identifies NAWCAD and NAWCWD 
as STRLs and requires them to convert to an STRL demonstration project 
within 18 months of enactment of NDAA for FY 2010. DoD published notice 
in 75 FR 55160, September 9, 2010, that Section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 
2010, Public Law 111-84, 123 Stat. 2486, October 28, 2009, designated 
NAWCAD and NAWCWD as new STRLs in subsection 1105(a) of NDAA for FY 
2010 and further provided notice of the intent of the Naval Air Warfare 
Center (NAWC) to model and implement an STRL Personnel Management 
Demonstration project based on the flexibilities in use by the other 
STRL laboratories and demonstration projects. Relative to NAWC's intent 
to model and implement a new demonstration project, DoD received 
comments from 14 people during the public comment period which ended on 
October 12, 2010. All comments were carefully considered. The following 
summary addresses the pertinent comments received, provides responses, 
and notes resultant changes to the original NAWC project plan published 
in 75 FR 55160, September 9, 2010. Several commenters addressed more 
than one topic and each topic was counted separately. Thus, the total 
number of comments exceeds the number of individual commenters.

A. General Issues

    In reviewing the comment submissions, several recurring themes were 
discerned that spanned multiple sections of the proposed regulation and 
which were not necessarily aimed directly at the substance of the 
proposed regulation. General issues identified included: (1) Requests 
for a return to the former demonstration project (officially identified 
as the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration Project but generally 
recognized as the China Lake Demo, which became a permanent Alternative 
Personnel System); (2) the perceived similarity of some aspects between 
this STRL and the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and the 
rescinding of NSPS; (3) transparency and fairness; and (4) a request 
for the comment period to be extended.
(1) Return to the Former Navy Personnel Management Demonstration 
Project
    Comments: Three comments were received expressing the benefits and 
value of the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration Project and its 
tried and tested positive outcomes. Two of these also asked that it be 
reinstated.
    Response: While there is no question about the value and benefits 
that were realized under the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration 
Project, it is not possible to return to it. NDAA 2010 specifically 
states that NAWCAD and NAWCWD were to exit NSPS and transition to a 
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Demonstration Project and 
that the organizations had 18 months from signature of the NDAA to 
implement this decision.

[[Page 8531]]

(2) Perceived Similarities Between STRL and NSPS
    Comments: Ten commenters made the comparison that this STRL 
demonstration project is similar to or the same as NSPS and will thus 
not be a success.
    Response: The proposed STRL provisions are based on concepts proven 
over more than 25 years for the Navy Demonstration Project and more 
than 10 years by the multiple STRLs in Army, Air Force and Navy who 
have operating demonstration projects. There are both conceptual 
similarities and differences between the NAWC STRL, NSPS, the other 
existing STRL demonstration projects, and the Navy Personnel Management 
Demonstration Project that covered Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command (SPAWAR) organizations as well as NAWCWD for more than 25 
years. For instance, the NAWC STRL has a five-level performance rating 
system, so did the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration Project and 
so does NSPS. The STRL has five occupational families: Scientific and 
Engineering (S&E), S&E Technician, Technical Specialist, Business 
Professional & Program Management, and Administrative Support as did 
the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration Project; NSPS has four: 
Standard Career Group, Scientific and Engineering Career Group, Medical 
Career Group and Investigative and Protective Services Career Group. 
The STRL will have hiring flexibilities that neither the Navy Personnel 
Management Demonstration Project nor NSPS had available. These 
flexibilities, such as the proposed Direct Hire Authority for 
Scientists and Engineers with Advanced Degrees, Distinguished 
Scholastic Achievement Appointment Authority (DSAA) for Scientific and 
Engineering Positions, and Non-Citizen Hiring flexibilities are only 
available to laboratories covered by STRL demonstration projects.
(3) Transparency and Fairness
    Several comments were received that addressed the topics of the 
transparency and fairness of the STRL.
    Comments: Four of the comments spoke to protecting the integrity of 
the STRL and the need for credible unbiased oversight and employee 
protections. Some expressed a concern for the possibility that the STRL 
personnel system for the laboratories could be sub optimized due to 
efforts to reconcile differences with the other personnel systems 
(General Schedule (GS), Interim GS, Federal Wage System (FWS), Senior 
Executive Service (SES), and Scientific and Professional (ST)) in place 
across NAVAIR.
    Response: DoD actively monitors the new STRLs which are also 
subject to periodic evaluations by DoD. Congress maintains oversight 
through a mandatory 5-year report and evaluation of each new STRL as 
well as a mandatory annual report on demonstration project activities. 
Any major changes that are made to the approved regulations require 
notification to the appropriate stakeholders and possible publication 
of a Federal Register Notice (FRN).
(4) Extension of the Comment Period
    Comments: Two commenters asked for an extension to the comment 
period.
    Response: Unfortunately there is no opportunity to extend the 
comment period as the NDAA 2010 requires that the STRL demonstration 
project be implemented and conversion from NSPS occur no later than 18 
months after enactment of NDAA for FY 2010 or by 28 April 2011.

B. Participating Organizations and Employees

    Three comments were received that relate to the definition of the 
organizations participating and the coverage of the STRL.
(1) Definition of the Organizations Participating
    Comments: The section on participating organizations, section D 
should be corrected as it inaccurately identifies each Warfare Center 
site as a `business unit.'
    Response: This correction has been made.
(2) Coverage of the STRL
    Comments: One commenter questioned the organizational coverage of 
the field sites by the STRL and another requested a provision that 
would allow employees to opt out of the STRL. Another commenter 
suggested that STRL positions be filled by former military who had 
successful military careers and that other civilian employees be 
excluded from coverage to avoid impacts on their productivity.
    Response: The NDAA identified NAWCAD and NAWCWD as the 
organizations to be covered by an STRL. Each of these organizations 
includes more than one geographic location. All locations and civilian 
employees covered by NSPS are required by the Congressional mandate to 
convert to the STRL Demonstration Project. Employees covered by other 
personnel systems such as those in health care, medical, intelligence, 
SES, FWS, and ST are excepted from conversion to the Demonstration 
Project. The provisions of the STRL do not apply to any bargaining unit 
employees within NAWCAD or NAWCWD until a mutual agreement is reached 
between the STRL organization and the applicable exclusive 
representative. The obligation to consult and/or negotiate with all 
labor organizations is established by 5 U.S.C. 4703(f) and 7117, as 
applicable.

C. Project Design

    Comments: Three comments were received on this subject. One comment 
requested that the STRL provide for every optional OPM benefit. The 
other two comments request that the STRL provision include medical and 
legal support to employees in the STRL and that medical testing should 
be conducted to identify whether employees have disabilities that 
prevent them from performing successfully under the STRL.
    Response: STRL demonstration projects are prohibited by law from 
making any changes in the areas of employee benefits, employee leave, 
equal employment opportunity, political activity, merit system 
principles, or other prohibited personnel practices.

D. Pay Banding

    There were six comments on the proposed pay banding. Four 
identified the pay bands as being too broad and two addressed the use 
of a supervisory and managerial pay band.
(1) Pay Bands Are Too Broad
    Comments: Four comments noted that the proposed STRL pay bands are 
too broad and will have negative impacts on financial systems and the 
ability to appropriately recognize employees' progression to higher 
levels of work and that the provision for more promotion opportunities 
could be seen as a positive by the workforce. Examples of specific 
comments include: ``Broad pay bands, such as were designed in NSPS and 
seem to be continuing into STRL, cause stabilized rate setting concerns 
and instability in our net operating results. When the salary range of 
the band fluctuates so wildly (salary ranges with a span of $50K or 
more) it is hard to set the rates to minimize the stabilized rate 
variance to any degree of certainty. This presents a problem 
particularly in NWCF facilities where workload can vary by millions 
between those being charged at stabilized rates versus accelerated 
labor. A change in the workforce shifting from assumptions used when 
weighting the stabilized

[[Page 8532]]

rates will cause net operating result gains or losses that have the 
potential to impact future year rates, compounding the problem.''; 
``Thirdly, the STRL paybands are still too broad. While the attempt has 
been made to restructure the NSPS paybands, the lack of built in checks 
and balances for salary control remains unaddressed.'' and ``The last 
point revolves around employee morale. Employees crave promotion 
recognition. Additional bands meet that need. * * * As it is in the 
current STRL pay band proposal, promoting once takes them from a GS 1-4 
pay band to being capable of moving all the way to a GS 11 with only 
one promotion.''
    Response: We concur with these recommendations and have modified 
the pay band levels by adding additional levels within each of the 
occupational families with the exception of the Administrative Support 
family. The number of pay levels within the Supervision & Management 
pay schedule also remains the same. All levels now have a base pay span 
of less than $50,000 and the additional levels provide for more 
promotional opportunities while still meeting the need for broad bands 
to facilitate the ability to quickly move employees to areas of mission 
need when necessary.
(2) Supervisory Pay Bands
    Comments: Two comments were submitted and questioned the utility of 
a supervisory and managerial pay band. They spoke to the blended nature 
of the work of many positions which include both supervisory and non-
supervisory duties with emphasis on the technical workforce in the 
laboratories and the difficulties of drawing distinctions in the value 
of these two elements. One commenter made reference to the former Navy 
Personnel Management (China Lake) Demonstration Project and its 
experience in this area where there was no separate pay schedule for 
supervisory positions.
    Response: The establishment of a separate supervisory pay schedule 
is not incompatible with the STRL and does not define how the 
organization values or compensates different types of work. One of the 
differences between the China Lake demonstration project and the STRL 
is the coverage. The STRL covers two large organizations with multiple 
diverse sites and the flexibilities adopted under the STRL must be 
broad enough to address the needs of each. The China Lake Demo was 
originally designed for and applied to one part of what is today 
NAWCWD. The establishment of a separate pay schedule recognizes the 
differences inherent in supervisory and non-supervisory work but also 
allows flexibility for the organizations to compensate both types of 
positions appropriately.

E. Classification

    Four comments addressed the topic of position classification. Three 
speak to the position series used by the STRL and the other focuses on 
the method of actually creating and assigning pay schedules and pay 
bands to positions.
(1) Occupational Series
    Comments: These comments advocated the use of the established OPM 
series and one of the three also suggested the establishment of a 
single multi-disciplinary series for all supervisory/managerial 
positions covered by the STRL.
    Response: The STRL has adopted the use of Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) standard series and titling practices. This STRL 
demonstration project did not identify supervision and management as a 
separate occupational family because all supervisory/managerial 
positions do not have knowledge, skills, and qualifications 
requirements similar enough to be classed together. Each occupational 
family is built around a body of knowledge and area of expertise, e.g., 
Scientific and Engineering as compared to Business and Program 
Management. Supervision and management, while arguably a body of 
knowledge, is not separate unto itself but rather spans all of the 
occupational families that are identified under the STRL.
(2) Classification Standards and Position Descriptions
    Comments: This comment spoke to the streamlined procedures of the 
China Lake classification system and the ease of application and 
consistency it brought to creating position descriptions.
    Response: The FRN speaks at a high level and the flexibilities as 
proposed allow for the streamlined classification procedures available 
in the former China Lake system while also allowing room for the 
adoption of additional features if desired. The specific system and 
procedures used to create and classify positions will be included in 
internal operating issuances.

F. Mission Aligned Objectives and Compensation

    Eleven comments were submitted on the performance management 
aspects of the STRL. Three addressed the timing of the beginning and 
end of the annual performance cycle. One spoke to employee self 
assessments. One commented on the proposed pay pool process. Five 
expressed thoughts on the performance pay outcomes. The final one 
identified a concern with the proposed request for reconsideration 
regulation.
(1) Annual Performance Cycle Begin and End Dates
    Comments: These comments identified concerns with the current 
performance rating cycle and payout date. The timing of the end of the 
performance cycle to coincide with the end of the financial fiscal year 
has a significant workload impact on employees and the organization. At 
this time of year, the pay pools have to work with estimated salary 
values for the January increase since the official figures are not 
normally published until late November or December. Furthermore, moving 
the cycle dates and payout to a schedule that permitted the payout to 
occur before the holiday period could be desirable from the employees' 
perspective.
    Response: The difficulties presented by the timing of the current 
cycle are recognized and the FRN is purposefully silent on the specific 
timing of the performance period to permit the organizations the 
flexibility of evaluating other options and changing the cycle if 
warranted.
(2) Self Assessments
    Comments: It was recommended that employees have the choice to 
submit written statements of accomplishments at mid-year and end-of-
year performance milestones rather than being required to provide them.
    Response: We concur that there are circumstances which may prohibit 
the submission of written statements and that employees should have a 
choice in this matter. The appropriate changes have been made in the 
relevant section to make the submission of written statements 
permissive rather than required.
(3) Pay Pools
    Comments: The comment questioned the cost/benefit value of the pay 
pool process when the cost of the process is compared to the amount of 
money available to allocate in the payout process.
    Response: The experience of all the demonstration projects is that 
the startup learning curve associated with new performance systems and 
pay pools is fairly steep but it does return to more reasonable levels 
after two or three cycles. This initial investment is more than 
returned in out-year benefits. The demonstration project performance

[[Page 8533]]

system delivers increased focus on what is expected to be accomplished 
and enhanced rewards for those who contribute the most. Pay pools are 
charged primarily with ensuring that the appraisals and ratings 
assigned to each employee are appropriate and rating benchmarks are 
applied consistently across the organization. Establishing this shared 
understanding of the broad benchmarks and their application to specific 
accomplishments is one of the Pay Pool Managers' and Panels' core 
responsibilities and while important, the specific amount of money in 
the pay pool fund is secondary and subordinate to this.
(4) Performance Payout Determination
    Comments: Five comments expressed thoughts in this area. Two spoke 
specifically to the overlapping payout points available for Partial 
Mission Success and Mission Success ratings. One of the two commented 
that 0 payout points for an employee with a Mission Success rating was 
the wrong decision and the other commented that there should be a 
lesser reward for Partial Mission Success vs. Mission Success and 
suggested that the Partial Mission Success should receive one-half of 
any January pay increase as well as 0 payout points. Two spoke to the 
complexity of the proposed payout point computations and one of these 
suggested a fixed dollar value for payout points similar to one of the 
former demonstration projects. The final comment expressed concern with 
the variance in the payout point value that can occur between pay 
pools.
    Response: The Partial Mission Success rating is applicable for 
those situations where less than was needed was accomplished but some 
work was accomplished that did contribute to the mission. There is 
merit in the recommendation to have the payout for this to be at a 
lesser level and other STRL demonstration projects do have this 
flexibility available and consideration may be given to adopting this 
flexibility at a later date.
    The inclusion of the 0 payout points option for Mission Success 
provides the flexibility for the supervisor and pay pool panel to 
appropriately rate and compensate those situations where Mission 
Success has been fully achieved but the employee is already adequately 
compensated for that level of work and neither an increase in salary 
beyond the equivalent of the annual general pay increase or a bonus is 
warranted for the accomplishments for that year. The employee would 
receive the full January general increase authorized for all employees 
so they do not fall behind; but all jobs, no matter what the 
compensation system, reach a plateau where salary growth levels off; 
some at the top of the pay scale and others at different points.
    There is a degree of complexity in the computation of the payout 
point value and it can vary by pay pool due to the factors required for 
the calculation. The design provides for a variable pay point value to 
allow the ratings to be paramount and drive the outcomes rather than be 
limited by the payout. The method chosen to implement this capability 
is one that is similar to a process with which the organization is 
familiar and has applied successfully in the past.
(5) Requests for Reconsideration
    Comments: One commenter spoke to this area pointing out that it is 
not reasonable for a Pay Pool Manager to be the final deciding official 
on requests for reconsideration for those cases where they are also the 
rating official or immediate supervisor.
    Response: Concur that it is not reasonable for a Pay Pool Manager 
to be the final deciding official on requests for reconsideration for 
those cases where they are also the rating official or immediate 
supervisor. The appropriate changes have been made in the relevant 
section to adopt this recommendation.

G. Hiring Authority

    Three comments were submitted on the hiring authorities for the 
STRL. Two requested additional hiring flexibilities: one for 
acquisition workforce jobs and one for re-employed annuitants. The 
second comment spoke to the tension between the need to tailor the 
features of the STRL demonstration project to the specific requirements 
of the proposing organization and the DON's desire to standardize HR 
operations across the component.
(1) Hiring Flexibilities for Re-Employed Annuitants
    Comments: The Naval Air Warfare Center Commanders should have the 
flexibility to approve the re-employment of retired civil service 
employees for purpose of delivering on the mission. The current process 
for hiring re-employed annuitants is lengthy, time-consuming and 
inconsistent with the pressures from the Chief of Naval Operations to 
deliver rapid, capable, warfighting solutions to our men and women in 
uniform.
    Response: There is no question about the loss of intellectual 
capital or the need to be able to draw upon the expertise of those who 
have retired when necessary. These needs can be met following our 
existing processes. While the current process to approve the 
appointment of reemployed annuitants is perceived by some as being 
lengthy and time consuming, it is designed to preserve the interests of 
the Department of the Navy and ensure appointments of this nature are 
made only after very deliberate and careful thought is given to 
workforce requirements, succession planning, alternative sources of 
candidates, and the intent of this hiring flexibility.
(2) Hiring Flexibilities for Acquisition Workforce Positions
    Comments: The comment requests consideration to include direct hire 
authority for 1102 series positions for individuals who possess an 
advanced degree. 1102s are one of the critical occupational series at 
NAWCAD and are also some of the most difficult to fill. Having this 
authority will greatly reduce cycle time and help hire qualified 
candidates in this career field in support of the warfighter.
    Response: There is no question about the critically of the 
acquisition workforce to mission accomplishment or the difficulty in 
finding candidates for these positions; however, the authority being 
requested is essentially already in place under the Expedited Hiring 
Authority for Select Defense Acquisition Workforce Positions and this 
STRL demonstration project will rely on this authority to meet these 
needs.
(3) STRL Flexibilities and Standardized Business Processes
    Comments: One commenter addressed the requirement to follow the 
Department of Navy's common business processes, systems, and tools in 
carrying out hiring authorities and expressed concern that the use of 
common processes and tools designed for the entire Navy is limiting and 
unresponsive to the creative problem solving and unique business 
processes needed to expedite solutions and provide rapid response to 
the war fighter.
    Response: DON's common business processes balance the need for 
flexibility with fiscal constraints, cost of doing business, 
consistency across the Component, Hiring Reform initiatives and 
metrics.

H. Internal Placement

    Three comments were submitted on this topic. One each addressing 
standardized business processes, promotions, and reassignments.

[[Page 8534]]

(1) STRL Flexibilities and Standardized Business Processes
    Comments: The comment is the same as the comment under Hiring 
Authority above.
    Response: The Warfare Centers do need responsive business processes 
that are adaptable to their requirements in acquiring the skills and 
talent needed to react quickly to the needs of the warfighter. DON's 
common business processes will be relied upon to address this need.
(2) Promotions
    Comments: The comment expressed concern about scientific, 
engineering, and/or technical career paths being blocked due to the 
effects of the STRL's proposed demonstration project provisions.
    Response: The comment did not provide any specifics about which 
provisions were of concern or examples of situations where promotion or 
career advancement would be impacted by the STRL Demonstration Project 
so it can only be assumed that the concern relates to the broad pay 
bands. As noted in an earlier section, the pay bands have been modified 
to include additional levels which allow more promotional 
opportunities.
(3) Reassignment
    Comments: One comment received expressed concern on the limit of 5% 
upon reassignment believing it is unduly restrictive and does not allow 
management to use the broad pay band flexibilities and suggests this 
authority be increased up to 10%.
    Response: The STRL Demonstration Project is a mission aligned 
system, moving to a culture where salary increases are driven by 
accomplishments and contributions to achieve the mission and away from 
a longevity and position-based system. Providing flexibility to adjust 
salary up to 5% for a reassignment maintains the distinction between 
reassignment and promotion. This allows management to assign work 
within a broad pay band range. At the same time, it incentivizes 
employees to seek and accept new work assignments, tasks, projects, 
responsibilities, etc., consistent with what would be available in the 
range of work within a pay band, while maintaining a distinction 
between the percentage increases for reassignments and percentage 
increases for promotions. The STRL demonstration project will proceed 
with the 5% increase as proposed.

I. Pay Administration

    Two comments were received addressing this subject. Both are from 
sites that will have GS and STRL covered employees in the same work 
group and each expressed concern about the differing compensation 
outcomes that are inherent in the STRL vs GS and the potential impacts 
these might have.
    Comments: The comments express concern that due to pay banding the 
STRL Demonstration Project will not provide results in base pay 
increases that are equal to those possible under the GS for entry-level 
employees and the perceived disadvantages that control points place on 
the STRL employee.
    Response: Under the STRL Demonstration Project starting salaries 
can be more market sensitive and are not held to step 1 if a higher 
entry salary is appropriate for that occupation. Comparisons of salary 
outcomes were completed to compare STRL pay progression scenarios to 
normal GS scenarios to ensure that there were no unintended outcomes 
for new hires into the STRL as compared to their counterparts in other 
systems and that STRL Mission Success performers would generally 
maintain equity with the other compensation systems. The comparisons 
looked for both unintended negative consequences as well as unintended 
windfall benefits. The principal difference between GS and STRL is that 
GS is longevity based while the STRL Demonstration Project is 
performance based and it is possible for the highest contributors to 
the mission to move forward at a faster pace.
    As noted earlier, no matter what the compensation system, over time 
positions reach a plateau where salary growth levels off; some at the 
top of the pay scale and others at other points.

J. Reduction-in-Force (RIF) Procedures

    Two comments were submitted on the topic of RIF. One addressing 
competitive areas and the other the employee support mechanisms used in 
RIF.
(1) Competitive Areas
    Comments: The current Federal Register notice requires separate 
competitive areas within the STRL workforce by occupational families. 
To allow for greater flexibility within individual geographic 
locations, it is recommended that the language be changed to reflect 
that separate competitive areas may be established within the STRL 
workforce by occupational families.
    Response: We concur with the rationale and need for this authority. 
The appropriate changes have been made in the relevant section to allow 
this flexibility.
(1) Employee Support Mechanisms
    Comments: The comment suggested drawing upon government experience 
with demotions, RIF's, firings, etc., and incorporating the same 
employee support mechanisms into the STRL Demonstration Project.
    Response: The STRL has incorporated broad lessons learned from the 
other STRLs, the Navy Personnel Management Demonstration Project, and 
GS in the areas of RIF with the intent of minimizing what is a very 
impactful and disruptive process for the workforce and the 
organization.

K. Training

    Six comments were submitted on the topic of training. Three 
comments addressed the content of the training. One suggested employees 
be tested. One addressed remedial training and the final one spoke to 
the cost of providing training.
    Comments: The three comments that address training content 
suggested drawing materials and lessons learned from other 
demonstration projects and systems such as the military evaluation 
system to enhance the training. Another comment suggested employees be 
tested for suitability and ability to perform the STRL tasks and 
responsibilities. One addressed the need for remedial training and the 
final one spoke to the cost of providing training on the STRL 
Demonstration Project vice returning to the China Lake demo which would 
minimize training costs.
    Response: Training materials and content cannot be finalized until 
the STRL is approved but the suggestion to draw upon other materials 
and lessons learned is a good one and will continue to be a practice as 
the STRL and the associated training requirements are finalized.
    The process for determining suitability is nuanced and not amenable 
to standardized testing. Assessments to determine ability must be 
developed and validated through a rigorous process. Currently Office of 
Personnel Management in conjunction with other Executive Agencies is 
pursuing the viability of such assessment instruments. Pending the 
outcome of their efforts the STRL's may adapt the recommended 
instruments. As noted above implementation and sustainment training are 
still being designed and cannot be finalized until the STRL itself is 
approved but the availability of training post conversion to refresh 
and enhance the necessary skills for

[[Page 8535]]

employees and supervisors is part of that design process.
    Cost of training, both in terms of the dollars spent and the impact 
on the productivity of the workforce is clearly an important 
consideration. These factors are being taken into consideration in the 
training design but delivery of the knowledge and skills needed are 
also a critical factor. The STRL Demonstration Project training will 
build upon the training that NAVAIR has already completed. Many of the 
skills needed are applicable under any of the demonstration projects 
(including NSPS) and provide a good foundation to build upon and will 
not need to be re-taught.

L. Automation Support

    Comments: One comment was received on this topic. Concern is 
expressed about the nature and features of the information technology 
(IT) tool that will be used to support the STRL performance system and 
that it might be as resource intensive and as rigid, restrictive, and 
difficult to use as the Performance Appraisal Application (PAA) was 
under NSPS. The comment notes that no information was provided in the 
September FRN on this subject.
    Response: The IT tool that will support the NAWC STRL performance 
system will be specific to NAWC requirements and hosted within NAVAIR. 
Ease of use and flexibility have been identified as two of the key 
performance requirements. Specific information about the tool was not 
provided in the FRN because that level of detail is not appropriate for 
this document. Preliminary requirements identification has been 
initiated and does incorporate input provided by NAWCAD and NAWCWD 
employee and supervisor focus group meetings as well as input from a 
variety of leadership briefings.

M. Evaluation Plan

    Comments: One comment was received on this topic. It stated that 
the STRL Demonstration Project should include provisions for metrics 
regarding comparison of health and stress between STRL situations and 
the former demo project situations (which focused upon retention and 
rewarding of employees based upon engineering, scientific, technical, 
and similar abilities and capabilities).
    Response: The STRL provisions for evaluation of the demonstration 
projects were provided by DoD. This evaluation plan was developed by a 
joint OPM/DoD Evaluation Committee and approved by the Office of 
Defense Research & Engineering. This evaluation plan has been applied 
at the existing STRLs and will be applied to the new ones that are 
currently being established.

3. Access to Flexibilities of Other STRLs

    Flexibilities published in this Federal Register shall be available 
for use by the STRLs previously enumerated in section 9902(c)(2) of 
title 5, United States Code, which are now designated in section 1105 
of the NDAA for FY 2010, Public Law 111-84, 123 Stat. 2486, October 28, 
2009, 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: February 8, 2011.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate 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
    E. Participating Employees and Union Representation
    F. Project Design
    G. Personnel Management Board
III. Personnel System Changes
    A. Pay Banding
    1. Occupational Families
    2. Pay Band Design
    3. Above GS-15 Positions
    B. Classification
    1. Occupational Series
    2. Classification Standards and Position Descriptions
    3. Fair Labor Standards Act
    4. Classification Authority
    5. Classification Appeals
    C. Mission Aligned Objectives and Compensation
    1. Overview
    2. Individual Mission Objectives (IMO)
    3. Rating Benchmarks
    4. Performance Feedback and Formal Ratings
    5. Pay Pools
    6. Performance Payout Determination
    7. Base Pay Increases and Bonuses
    8. Extraordinary Achievement Allowance (EAA)
    9. Pay Growth Within a Pay Band
    10. Awards
    11. General Pay Increase
    12. Requests for Reconsideration
    13. Adverse Actions
    D. Hiring Authority
    1. Qualifications
    2. Delegated Examining
    3. Distinguished Scholastic Achievement Appointment Authority 
(DSAA) for Scientific and Engineering Positions
    4. Legal Authority
    5. Expanded Term Appointments
    6. Extended Probationary Period
    7. Termination of Probationary Employees
    8. Supervisory Probationary Periods
    9. Volunteer Emeritus Corps
    10. Direct Hire Authority for Scientists and Engineers with 
Advanced Degrees for Scientific and Engineering Positions
    11. Non-citizen Hiring
    E. Internal Placement
    1. Employees Hired From Outside the NAWC STRL
    2. Promotion
    3. Reassignment
    4. Demotion or Placement in a Lower Pay Band
    5. Simplified Assignment Process
    6. Details and Temporary Promotions
    7. Exceptions to Competitive Procedures
    F. Pay Administration
    1. General
    2. Locality Pay
    3. Pay and Compensation Ceilings
    4. Pay Setting for Appointment
    5. Pay Setting for Promotion
    6. Pay Setting for Reassignment
    7. Pay Setting for Demotion or Placement in a Lower Pay Band
    8. Staffing Supplements
    9. Educational Pay Adjustment
    10. Developmental Promotions
    11. Pay Retention
    G. Employee Development
    1. Expanded Developmental Opportunity Program
    H. Reduction-in-Force (RIF) Procedures
    1. Competitive Areas
    2. Assignment Rights
    3. Crediting Performance in RIF
IV. Implementation Training
V. Movement Into and Out of the Demonstration Project
    A. Conversion From NSPS to the Demonstration Project
    1. Placement Into Demonstration Project Pay Plans and Pay Bands
    2. Pay Upon Conversion
    3. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Status
    4. Transition Equity
    5. Converting Employees on NSPS Term and Temporary Appointments
    6. Probationary Periods
    B. Conversion From Other Personnel Systems
    C. Movement Out of the NAVAIR STRL Demonstration Project
    1. Termination of Coverage Under the NAVAIR STRL Demonstration 
Project Pay Plans
    2. Determining a GS-equivalent Grade and GS-equivalent Rate of 
Pay for Pay Setting Purposes When a NAVAIR Employee's Coverage by a 
Demonstration Project Pay Plan Terminates or the Employee 
Voluntarily Exits the NAVAIR STRL Demonstration Project
    3. Supervision and Management Pay Band VI Employees
    4. Employees With Pay Retention
    5. Within-Grade Increase--Equivalent Increase Determinations
    D. Personnel Administration
    E. Automation Support
    1. General
    2. Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS)
    F. Experimentation and Revision
VI. Project Duration

[[Page 8536]]

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: NAWCAD and NAWCWD Duty Locations
Appendix B: Occupational Series by Occupational Family
Appendix C: Intervention Model
Appendix D: Individual Pay Band Level Rating Benchmarks Examples
Appendix E: Career Stage Rating Benchmarks Examples

I. Executive Summary

    NAWCAD is an organization within NAVAIR dedicated to maintaining a 
center of excellence for fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft and their 
propulsion systems, avionics systems, training systems, take-off and 
landing systems, and associated support and equipment including air 
traffic control and communications and ship/shore/air operations. 
NAWCAD has three primary locations: Patuxent River, MD; Lakehurst, NJ; 
and Orlando, FL. These facilities support research, development, test, 
evaluation, engineering, and fleet support of Navy and Marine Corps air 
vehicle systems and trainers. NAWCAD is a world leader in Naval 
aviation whose products and services include: aircraft, avionics, air-
launched weapons, electronic warfare systems, cruise missiles, unmanned 
aerial vehicles, launch and arresting gear, training equipment and 
facilities, and all other equipment related to Navy and Marine Corps 
air power. The mission of the NAWCAD is to be the Navy's principal 
research, development/test, evaluation, engineering, and fleet support 
activity for naval aircraft, engines, avionics, aircraft support 
systems, and ship/shore/air operations. NAWCAD is the steward of the 
ranges, test facilities, laboratories, and aircraft necessary to 
support the Fleet's acquisition requirements.
    NAWCWD is an organization within NAVAIR dedicated to maintaining a 
center of excellence in weapons development for the DON. NAWCWD has two 
locations: China Lake, CA hosting the land test range and Point Mugu, 
CA hosting the sea test range. NAWCWD is a world leader in Research, 
Development, Acquisition, Test, and Evaluation (RDA, T&E) of guided 
missiles, advanced weapons and systems, complex software integration on 
tactical aircraft, energetic materials, and subsystems. It is also a 
Center of Excellence for weapons and armaments and live-fire 
survivability testing. The mission of the NAWCWD is to provide Navy and 
Marine Corps warriors with effective, affordable, integrated warfare 
systems, and lifecycle support to ensure battlespace dominance. The 
NAWCWD is the steward of the ranges, test facilities, and laboratories 
necessary to support the Fleet's acquisition requirements.
    The goal of this demonstration project is to enhance and sustain 
the quality and professionalism of the covered organizations' 
workforces 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 
is built on the concepts, and uses much of the same language, as the 
other STRL demonstration projects already in place in DoD and is guided 
by 25 years of experience in operating the Navy's ``China Lake'' 
demonstration project. 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 General Schedule (GS) system has existed 
in essentially the same form since 1949. 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 in 1980 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 present reduction-in-force (RIF) process is unresponsive to 
requirements for work force restructuring and requires enhancement to 
provide better retention of the highest performing employees with 
mission appropriate skills.
    The need to change the current hiring system is essential as the 
covered organizations must be able to recruit and retain scientific, 
engineering, acquisition, skilled technical, and other professional, 
administrative, and support employees. The covered organizations 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.
    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.

C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits

    1. The primary benefit expected from this demonstration project is 
greater organizational effectiveness through increased employee 
satisfaction. The Department of the Navy ``China Lake'' and NIST 
demonstration projects produced impressive statistics on increased job 
satisfaction and quality of

[[Page 8537]]

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 covered organizations' workforce will 
facilitate increased:
    a. Quality in the workforce and resultant products,
    b. Timeliness of key personnel processes,
    c. Retention of ``excellent performers,''
    d. Success in recruitment of personnel with critical skills,
    e. Management authority and accountability,
    f. Satisfaction of customers, and
    g. Workforce satisfaction with the personnel management system.
    2. An evaluation model was developed for the Director of Defense, 
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) in conjunction with STRLs, service 
representatives, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The 
model, as modified in this plan, will measure the effectiveness of this 
demonstration project and will be used to measure the results of 
specific personnel system changes.

D. Participating Organizations

    NAWCAD and NAWCWD are Warfare Centers within the Naval Air Systems 
Command and are composed of five diverse major geographic locations. 
The locations are: Lakehurst, NJ, Patuxent River, MD; Orlando, FL; 
China Lake, CA; and Pt. Mugu, CA. Additionally, there are employees in 
a variety of other geographic locations shown in Appendix A. It should 
be noted that sites with fewer than 10 people may change. Successor 
organizations will continue coverage in the demonstration project.

E. Participating Employees and Union Representation

    This demonstration project will cover approximately 8,400 NAWCAD 
and NAWCWD 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), 
or DON centrally funded interns.
    The details and provisions covered under this Personnel Management 
Demonstration Project do not apply to any bargaining unit within NAWCAD 
or NAWCWD until a mutual agreement is reached between the STRL 
organization and the applicable exclusive representative. This 
demonstration project will not cover any bargaining unit members at 
implementation. If there is interest on the part of any of NAWCAD's or 
NAWCWD's bargaining units at any of their sites in participating in the 
NAWCAD or NAWCWD STRL demonstration project, negotiations would begin 
after publication of this Federal Register notice. The covered STRL 
organizations will fulfill their obligation to consult and/or negotiate 
with all labor organizations in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4703(f) and 
7117, as applicable.

F. Project Design

    An overarching objective in the project design has been the 
development of a personnel system that provides a maximum opportunity 
for adaptability to meet the variety of requirements of organizations 
engaged in missions ranging from RDA, T&E of guided missiles, advanced 
weapons and systems, complex software integration on tactical aircraft, 
energetic materials and subsystems to fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft 
and their propulsion systems, avionics systems, training systems, take-
off and landing systems, associated support and equipment including air 
traffic control and communications, and ship/shore/air operations. This 
demonstration project is built upon the successes of the many 
demonstration projects that have preceded it and adapts many of the 
provisions and features that have been shown to be successful in these 
other STRL demonstration projects to the NAWCAD and NAWCWD 
organizations.

G. Personnel Management Board

    1. The covered organizations will create 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 Executive Directors of 
the covered organizations. As needed, ad hoc members will serve in an 
advisory capacity to the Board.
    2. The board will execute the following:
    a. Establish policies and issue guidance on the composition of pay 
pools in accordance with the guidelines of this proposal and internal 
procedures;
    b. Review operation of pay pools and provide guidance to Pay Pool 
Managers;
    c. Oversee disputes in pay pool issues;
    d. Establish policies and issue guidance on the formulation and 
execution of the civilian pay budget;
    e. Establish policies and issue guidance on the awards pools;
    f. Establish policies and issue guidance on hiring and promotion 
base pay as well as exceptions to pay-for-performance base pay 
increases;
    g. Establish policies and issue guidance on classification review 
and oversight, monitoring and adjusting classification practices and 
deciding board classification issues;
    h. Approve major changes in position structure;
    i. Address issues associated with multiple pay systems during the 
demonstration project;
    j. Establish policies and issue guidance on and approve Standard 
Performance Elements and Benchmarks;
    k. Assess the need for changes to demonstration project procedures 
and policies;
    l. Ensure in-house budget discipline;
    m. Establish policies and issue guidance for workforce staffing and 
budget plans;
    n. Develop policies and procedures for administering Developmental 
Opportunity Programs;
    o. 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,
    p. Monitor the evaluation of the project.

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Pay Banding

    The design of the pay banding system has the benefit of being 
preceded by exhaustive studies of pay banding systems currently 
practiced in the Federal sector. The pay banding system will replace 
both the current NSPS and GS structure. The flexibilities in this pay 
banding section are similar in nature to the authority granted to: The 
Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, California 92152 and the Naval 
Weapons Center, China Lake, California 93555, 45 FR 26504, April 18, 
1980.
1. Occupational Families
    Occupations with similar characteristics will be grouped together 
into one of five occupational families with pay band levels designed to 
facilitate pay progression. Progression through the band depends on 
individual achievement, contribution to the mission goals, and 
accomplishment of higher level, broader scope, more difficult work 
assignments. Each occupational family will be composed of pay bands 
corresponding to recognized advancement and career progression expected 
within the

[[Page 8538]]

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 six pay bands with each pay band covering 
the same base pay range that would be covered by one or more GS grades. 
Employees track into an occupational family based on their current 
series as provided in Appendix B. Note that where the current series 
does not exist outside of NSPS the employee will be placed in the 
appropriate OPM series before being placed into an STRL occupational 
family. Upon conversion into the demonstration project each employee is 
assured an initial placement in the STRL demonstration project without 
a loss in pay. 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 VI of the Supervision and Management pay 
schedule. Comparison to the GS grades and NSPS pay bands 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 and NSPS pay bands 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 five occupational families:
    a. Scientific and Engineering (S&E) (Pay Plan DP): 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 S&E occupational family:
    (1) Band I is a student trainee developmental 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-9, step 10.
    (3) Band III is an intermediate developmental track covering GS-9, 
step 1, through GS-11, step 10.
    (4) Band IV is a full-performance technical track covering GS-12, 
step 1, through GS-13, step 10.
    (5) Band V includes senior technical positions covering GS-14, step 
1, through GS-15, step 10.
    b. S&E Technician (Pay Plan DT): This occupational family includes 
technician positions, such as engineering technicians, electronics 
technicians, physical science technicians, mathematic technicians, and 
geodetic technicians. These occupations require practical technical 
expertise in scientific or engineering support but specific course work 
or educational degrees are not required for these occupations. Five 
bands have been established for the S&E Technician occupational family:
    (1) Band I is an entry level trainee developmental track covering 
GS-1, step 1, through GS-4, step 10.
    (2) Band II is a developmental/full performance track covering GS-
5, step 1, through GS-8, step 10.
    (3) Band III is a full-performance technical track covering GS-9, 
step 1 through GS-10, step 10.
    (4) Band IV is a senior technical track covering GS-11, step 1 
through GS-12, step 10.
    (5) Band V is an expert technical track covering GS-12, step 1, 
through GS-13, step 10.
    c. Technical Specialist (Pay Plan DS): This occupational family 
includes such positions as logistics management specialists, equipment 
specialists, computer specialists, and telecommunications specialists. 
Employees in these positions may or may not require specific course 
work or educational degrees. Six bands have been established for this 
occupational family:
    (1) Band I is a student trainee developmental track covering GS-1, 
step 1, through GS-4, step 10.
    (2) Band II is a developmental/full performance track covering GS-
5, step 1, through GS-8, step 10.
    (3) Band III is a developmental/full performance track covering GS-
9, step 1, through GS-10, step 10.
    (4) Band IV is a full performance track covering GS-11, step 1, 
through GS-12, step 10.
    (5) Band V is a senior specialist track covering GS-12, step 1, 
through GS-13, step 10.
    (6) Band VI is an expert specialist track covering GS-14, step 1, 
through GS-15, step 10.
    d. Business Professional and Program Management (Pay Plan DA): This 
occupational family includes such positions as program managers, 
program acquisition specialists, budget officers, financial managers, 
accountants, administrative officers, human resources specialists, and 
management analysts. Employees in these positions may or may not 
require specific course work or educational degrees. Six bands have 
been established for this occupational family:
    (1) Band I is a student trainee developmental track covering GS-1, 
step 1, through GS-4, step 10.
    (2) Band II is a developmental/full performance track covering GS-
5, step 1, through GS-8, step 10.
    (3) Band III is a developmental/full performance track covering GS-
9, step 1, through GS-10, step 10.
    (4) Band IV is a full performance track covering GS-11, step 1, 
through GS-12, step 10.
    (5) Band V is a senior specialist track covering GS-12, step 1, 
through GS-13, step 10.
    (6) Band VI is an expert specialist track covering GS-14, step 1, 
through GS-15, step 10.
    e. Administrative Support (Pay Plan DG): This occupational family 
is composed of positions for which specific course work or an 
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 
managers, office automation clerks, security technician, safety 
technician, library technician and budget/program/computer assistants. 
Six bands have been established for this occupational family:
    (1) Band I includes entry-level/developmental positions covering 
GS-1, step 1, through GS-3, step 10.
    (2) Band II \*\ includes developmental and low-range full-
performance positions covering GS-4, step 1, through GS-5, step 10.
    (3) Band III \*\ includes mid-range full-performance technicians/
assistants/secretaries covering GS-5, step 1, through GS-6, step 10.
    (4) Band IV \*\ includes high-range full-performance technicians/
assistants/secretaries covering GS-6, step 1, through GS-7, step 10.
    (5) Band V includes senior technicians/assistants/secretaries 
covering GS-8, step 1, through GS-9, step 10.
    (6) Band VI includes expert technicians/assistants/secretaries 
covering GS-10, step 1, through GS-11, step 10.

    \*\ Band III overlaps with band II and IV. These bands replicate a 
feature used by the Navy's ``China Lake'' project.

    f. The Supervision and Management pay band includes all employees 
performing supervisory functions. This pay band is not applicable to 
team leaders. To be classified to these pay bands the supervisor must 
perform the full range of supervisory duties. To meet the full range of 
supervisory duties the supervisor must perform 3 of the first 4, and a 
total of 6 or more of the following:

[[Page 8539]]

    (1) Plan work and prepare performance plans covering work to be 
accomplished by subordinates, set and adjust short-term priorities, and 
prepare schedules for completion of work;
    (2) Assign work to subordinates based on priorities, selective 
consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and 
the capabilities of employees;
    (3) Evaluate work performance of subordinates and recommend 
official performance ratings;
    (4) Give advice, counsel, or instruction to employees on both work 
and administrative matters;
    (5) Interview candidates for positions in the unit; recommend 
appointment, promotion, or reassignment to such positions;
    (6) Hear and resolve complaints from employees, referring group 
grievances and more serious unresolved complaints to a higher level 
supervisor or manager;
    (7) Effect minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and 
reprimands, recommending other action in more serious cases;
    (8) Identify developmental and training needs of employees, 
providing or arranging for needed development and training;
    (9) Find ways to improve production or increase the quality of the 
work directed; and
    (10) Make appropriate distinctions in levels of performance while 
equitably applying performance standards.
    A sup