Frequently Asked Questions

Below are answers to questions most often received by the Research Position Evaluation Staff.

Topics Index

• Panel Decisions
• Case Writeups
• Panel Operations
• Panel Reports and ARS Form 516
• Assignment Changes
• Exhibits
• Serving as a Panelist
• RGEG Interpretation
• Peer Group Affiliation
• New Hires
• Miscellaneous

Top

Panel Decisions

1. What decisions can an RPES panel make?

Please visit Panel Decision Options

2. What is the upgrade rate for RPES panels?

Please visit Decision Options

3. How will I be notified of the panel review decision?

The Personnel Representative assigned to the panel notifies the RPE Staff of all panel decisions at the end of the meeting. The RPE Staff issues an e-mail message to the appropriate Area Director announcing the factor scores, overall score and decision. (For REF, GCP, and IFB decisions, only the decision itself is reported.)

Electronic mail messages are usually issued no later than the day after the meeting concludes. Area Directors transmit panel results through supervisory channels to the scientist. The designated point of inquiry for panel results is the scientist's immediate supervisor.

4. My supervisor just told me that the review panel kept me in grade. I am dissatisfied with this result. What can I do?

First, you should wait until you have a chance to study the panel report--it may explain the decision to your satisfaction. If not, you have three alternatives:

• If the panel score was at or near the "top of the range" for your current grade, and you are able to document significant impact or recognition within a year, you may request Early Review. A full year from last review must pass before Early Review can be requested. If the Area Director approves the request, your position will be scheduled for review by the next available panel for your Peer Group.
  
  
• You may request Reevaluation (request must be made within 60 calendar days of the panel report date). If approved by your Area Director, your position will be scheduled for review by the next available panel for your Peer Group.
  
  
• A final alternative is to file a classification appeal with either the USDA Office of Human Resources Management or the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Policies and Procedures 431.1 explains procedures for filing classification appeals.
  
  

5. I'm serving on a panel in the near future. One of our cases is a GM-15 position, and we may end up with a Refer to Supergrade (REF) decision. Please clarify the point values for "In Excess of Degree E."

Manual 431.3-ARS (Chapter 8) states that the maximum points creditable by a regular panel are 12 points for Factors I-III, and 24 points for Factor IV.

6. How do Research Leaders fare under the panel system?

Like all other Category 1 positions, Research Leader (RL) positions must be graded in terms of the OPM Research Grade-Evaluation Guide. RL's do not get "extra points" just because they are "burdened" by supervisory/administrative duties. Credit for research leadership is given under Factor I based on complexity of the unit research program. The RL is under the same obligation to demonstrate impact and stature under Factor IV as other researchers. ARS provides criteria for assessment of leadership impact--if a leadership accomplishment is claimed--in Manual 431.3-ARS.

7. If a less than satisfactory indepth review (IDR) has been performed, can the panel decision be invalidated?

There are several interesting aspects to this question: In whose judgment will the IDR be determined "unsatisfactory"? What is a sound basis for such an assertion--because the scientist 's position was not upgraded and he/she thought it should have been?--because people listed on the IDR contact sheet (ARS-570) weren't contacted (remember that Agency policy does not require IDR's to contact anyone on the ARS-570 other than the supervisor, and encourages IDR's to make information contacts beyond the list)? What does "invalidation" mean--should a panel decision be thrown out and an individual's judgment substituted?

Several mechanisms already exist to address inadequate indepth reviews: (a) if a panel determines that it does not have enough factual information--despite the case writeup, IDR report, its own discussions, and additional data obtained via tabling--to feel comfortable rendering a decision, it can and should reach an Insufficient Factual Basis (IFB) decision (indeed, that is the specific reason for having the IFB option); (b) individual panelists who are not convinced have the option of blocking consensus, forcing a Split Decision and writing an IFB minority report; (c) if the scientist thinks he/she has been misevaluated by an inept IDR and indifferent panel, he/she can attempt to win AD approval for reevaluation; and, (d) dissatisfied scientists always have the option of filing a classification appeal.

Top

Case Writeups

1. I just received a notice to prepare a case writeup for panel review. I plan to retire a few months after the scheduled panel meeting. Do I still have to prepare the writeup?

Understand first that there is no provision for general exemption of a Category 1 scientist from mandatory cyclic review for any reason. Each potential exception situation must be considered on its own merits, and authority to approve exceptions is delegated to AD's.

If you are just "thinking about retiring" and "would rather not be bothered" putting a case together, an exception is inappropriate. But if you are definitely going to retire, notify your Area Office immediately. If the AD concurs, they will notify this office and we will treat the situation as a Delayed Review. This is not an indefinite exception; we monitor all Delays and follow up to ensure conditions are met. If you do not retire as planned, your position will be rescheduled for review.

2. What is the purpose of the accomplishment statements in Factor IV of the case writeup, and how do I document them?

Impact on science and/or technology is the core value of RPES, and impact is judged on the basis of the number and quality of original contributions to a field of science or technology, or to ARS programs. These are termed "accomplishments," and are not to be confused with mere numbers of publications.

Each accomplishment statement must clearly answer three questions: What was accomplished? What was the incumbent's role in the accomplishment? Finally and most importantly, what is the impact on science, degree of adoption, or economic or program importance of the accomplishment? Subheadings Accomplishment, Role, and Impact are to be imbedded at the appropriate points in each Demonstrated Accomplishment paragraph, as shown in the samples in Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6. Accomplishment and Role subheadings may be linked in accomplishments where you acted alone.

For each accomplishment, supporting documentation (exhibits) must be provided. Research accomplishments are generally documented with publications (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles, patents, technical reports, germplasm releases, review articles, etc.). Other types of accomplishments are more appropriately documented by supporting statements.

Whenever an accomplishment is not or cannot be appropriately documented with a publication, a concise statement signed by some knowledgeable authority such as NPS staff scientist, action agency official, industry or commodity group representative, Area Director, etc., will be acceptable as an exhibit. Such statement must elaborate on the accomplishment to provide evidence to support the accomplishment, and particularly its impact. For research accomplishments, the statement must also indicate why the research was not or cannot be published.

In choosing from among possible exhibits or combinations of exhibits, be guided by common sense--the firmer the documentation, the more impressive the accomplishment. A peer-reviewed journal article will probably be viewed as more substantial documentation than a draft MS which has not even been submitted to a journal for review. The key is to take advantage of flexibilities built into the system. For example, a very recent accomplishment may best be documented by a combination of a draft MS and a statement from an action agency or user group showing the impact of your work on their programs. These documents together would probably present a stronger case than would either document by itself. Tailoring is essential in each situation.

Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6, provides detailed guidance on selection, description and documentation of various types of accomplishments.

3. How important is the case writeup to panel review?

The importance of an accurate, complete case writeup is underscored by the fact that 6 of the 7 panelists reviewing the position will base their tentative evaluation almost entirely on case writeup content. No matter how well the system works, and no matter how conscientious the IDR assigned to your case, it is surely unwise to substitute reliance on a "good IDR" for careful preparation of a quality package.

4. I submitted my case writeup to the Area Office over a month ago. Some publications I listed as pending have been accepted by the journals, and last week I was nominated for a prestigious society award. I think the panel needs this information when reviewing my position. How do I update my case writeup?

Scientists may update any portion of their case writeup up to the day the panel actually meets (approximately 2 months after the cutoff date). Updates are to be e-mailed as soon as possible to the RPE Staff, with an information copy to the Area Director.

5. How many persons should I list on the IDR Contact Sheet (ARS-570)?

The only contact who must be listed is your immediate supervisor. You may also wish to include your Center Director, Area Director, or National Program Leader. Selecting other recommended contacts is a matter of common sense, and should be influenced by the nature of your research assignment and the specific accomplishment under consideration.

For example, if you are heavily involved in technology transfer, you will want to list contacts in the appropriate action agencies, industries, and/or user groups. Other scientists might wish to list university cooperators or scientists/officials in other Federal agencies or foreign or international agencies. It is always wise to include as many contacts as possible from outside ARS--after all, the purpose is to show how others value your advice and contributions. Restricting contacts to ARS personnel may imply little or no substantive impact.

Conversely, the only individual on the ARS-570 the IDR must contact is your immediate supervisor. As part of the factfinding process, IDR's are encouraged to interview anyone they believe can verify or clarify information relevant to the position review. They will probably therefore contact persons not listed on your ARS-570.

Whomever you choose to select, please verify the accuracy of addresses and telephone numbers of each recommended contact to facilitate timely IDR contact.

6. Who is responsible for preparing the RPES case writeup?

The supervisor notifies the scientist of the requirement to prepare a draft of the complete writeup--Factors I through IV, exhibits, and IDR Contact Sheet (ARS Form 570). Supervisors normally make themselves available for advice and assistance during the drafting stage. The scientist,supervisor, and Area Director share responsibility for ensuring accuracy and completeness.

Scientists preparing a draft should rely on the detailed guidance provided in Manual 431.3-ARS. This will help ensure that the scientist really understands what the system expects and requires in connection with the research position classification process.

7. What happens if my supervisors and I cannot agree on the content of my case writeup?

P&P 431.3-ARS, Section 8, establishes the following policy: "Disagreements on the content of the writeup should be resolved at the lowest echelon possible. If agreement cannot be reached, the version submitted will appear as the AD directs, and a signed statement of disagreement from subordinate and/or supervisor may be attached."

8. I have been with ARS for many years, and served as RL of two different units. Am I restricted to a single leadership accomplishment when I prepare the Demonstrated Accomplishments segment of my case writeup?

Absolutely not! You may claim several leadership accomplishments if you so desire. In your situation, you may want to select two Research Leader accomplishments. Or, you might want to submit one Research Leader and one scientific leadership accomplishment. The point is, ARS scientists are authorized to select from among a variety of types of contributions, as explained in Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6. Use common sense--select those accomplishments and exhibits which reflect your best career-long contributions to science or technology. And remember that recency is an important consideration.

9. What types of exhibits are acceptable to document Demonstrated Accomplishments?

The most common exhibits are, of course, peer-reviewed journal articles. Others include technical reports, reviews, special project reports, CRADA's, patents, germplasm releases, computer models, videotapes, and supporting statements. See Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6. You may even submit a draft manuscript (not yet sent to a journal)--but that's not very solid, and should never be used as the sole exhibit if any alternative is available.

10. Is it necessary to comply exactly with the order of data entered on the Publications List as shown in Manual 431.3-ARS? Some of the journals I publish in enter data in a different order.

All required data (authors, title, journal name, volume, pagination, etc.) must be provided for each entry. Exact order of data is not critical.

11. When I submitted my case writeup a month ago, I documented one of my Demonstrated Accomplishments with a galley proof of an article accepted by a major journal. I just received the offprints and would like to substitute them for the galley proofs. How do I go about that?

There is really no reason to substitute offprints for galley proofs, or even for submitted MS'. The important point is that the MS was accepted by the journal. An offprint may "look nicer" than a marked up galley, but this will have no effect on how the panel evaluates the accomplishment. So, the cost of distributing offprints is not offset by a benefit. We suggest you save your offprints for your next cyclic panel review.

12. I just finished preparing my case writeup for scheduled panel review. Should I send a copy to the persons I included on my IDR Contact Sheet (ARS-750)?

It is not mandatory to give a copy of the writeup to your contacts, but many ARS scientists find it helpful. It alerts those persons that they may be contacted. It also allows them to "refresh their memory" about selected accomplishments, and to think ahead about how they will respond if contacted.

13. If a scientist can update their case writeup, may they substitute an accomplishment in their writeup which has already been distributed to panelists? After all, the panel review is the scientist's one shot every 3-5 years to document that they have done enough/had enough impact to warrant upgrade. Shouldn't the scientist be afforded every opportunity to "make his/her best case"?

RPES policy does not permit substitution of accomplishments once a case writeup has been distributed to panelists. The sentiments expressed above are not as well-founded as they initially appear.

First, accepting substitutes would actually allow a scientist to present an excessive number of accomplishments (and exhibits) to a panel. For example, a GS-12 researcher has claimed the full complement of 5 accomplishments in the writeup, and documented each with the maximum 2 exhibits (total 10). If substitution were permitted, the scientist would get to claim 6 accomplishments with up to 12 exhibits--it would be unrealistic to expect a panel to ignore the accomplishment/exhibits "substituted for" in the original writeup.

Second, if the substitution is intended to document a really recent accomplishment, the chances are that it can receive no more than "panel recognizes potential" credit anyway, because it will not have had time to generate substantial impact. Besides, IDR's are specifically tasked to capture and report to the panel any "late-breaking" developments unearthed by factfinding interviews. And, as noted above, ARS policy does permit scientists to update their writeups up to the day the panel actually meets.

Third, permitting substitution to document an accomplishment not included in the case writeup because of sloppy preparation would ignore the policy that writeups must be prepared with attention to detail, accuracy, and currency. Sloppiness should not be rewarded by giving the scientist a "number advantage."

Finally, while scientists are scheduled for mandatory review "every 3-5 years," they are at liberty to seek Area Director approval for Early Review if they believe their recent accomplishments and increased stature/recognition warrant such review.

14. I have several supporting statements which I could use to document the impact of one of my Demonstrated Accomplishments. Will relying on multiple statements use up my "quota" of exhibits?

No. Impact may be addressed by attaching a maximum of 3 supporting statements to a cover memo signed by your Area Director. The Area Director's memo must state that the attachments indicate your impact with regard to a particular accomplishment. Such memo/attachment combinations are counted as a single exhibit.

15. I am drafting my case writeup, and have some solid team research and research-related accomplishments to claim and document under Factor IV. Where can I find guidance on these types of accomplishments?

Detailed guidance on claiming and documenting the wide variety of accomplishments credited by RPES, and numerous sample accomplishment statements, are provided in Manual 431.3-ARS (Chapter 6).

16. I found out that some contacts whose knowledge I consider crucial to understanding the impact of my accomplishments weren't interviewed by the IDR on my last review. Is there any way that a scientist can designate crucial contacts on the IDR Contact Sheet?

With the exception of an incumbent's immediate supervisor, ARS policy leaves selection of contacts up to the judgment of the assigned IDR. And--aside from the "minimum of 5" rule--the total number of contacts is also a matter of IDR judgment. Also, IDR's are encouraged to interview persons other than those listed on the ARS-570.

The best strategy for improving the chances that crucial contacts will be interviewed is to:

• Include only your strongest Demonstrated Accomplishments in Factor IV of your case writeup.
  
  
• List only truly knowledgeable persons on the ARS-570. Submitting a plethora of names logically reduces the probability that the most knowledgeable will be contacted.
  
  
• Be sure to specify the accomplishment(s) each person is knowledgeable of in the last column of the ARS-570.
  
  
• If you feel the need, you may enter the phrase "crucial contact" in parentheses after the name of each such contact on the ARS-570. Such designation will not impose a requirement that an IDR interview the person, but will indicate special significance if you have multiple contacts for each accomplishment.

17. Is there any guidance available for documenting in my case writeup a special assignment as Research Program Representative (RPR) on new research facilities construction?

Indeed there is. Refer to Special Assignments and Projects under Demonstrated Accomplishments in Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6.

18. May I include contributions from my pre-ARS career as Demonstrated Accomplishments under Factor IV of my case writeup?

Absolutely. ARS policy not only recognizes a variety of types of accomplishments, it also encourages selection of a scientist's absolute best work for inclusion in the Demonstrated Accomplishments section. Whether those contributions arise from employment in academia, industry, the military, or elsewhere is not a consideration. This is in line with RGEG intent that Factor IV encompass a scientist's entire career.

Top

1. What is the function of an RPES panel, and under what authority does it operate?

Panels operate under authority of P&P 431.3-ARS. They are delegated authority (a) to determine whether a position under review is covered by the OPM Research Grade-Evaluation Guide (RGEG) and--if so--(b) to determine the proper grade level of the position using RGEG criteria and ARS policies. RPES panels make coverage and grade level decisions (not recommendations), and therefore perform a position classification function. They do not engage in performance appraisal or provide career management advice.

2. How are RPES panels put together?

RPES is a "schedule-driven" system. Each fiscal year, the RPE Staff develops a draft schedule of cases to be reviewed, and tentatively selects Chairs and Peer Group scientists to serve on each panel. The schedule and tentative selections are approved by the Area Directors prior to implementation, thus helping to ensure adequate case/panelist matches. Newly appointed panelists and Chairs are trained before being permitted to serve.

Seven people serve on mandatory review panels. The Chair and Personnel Representative are randomly selected. Since panels always review cases from two different Peer Groups, peer scientists are selected from those same Peer Groups--three from one group and two from another. In addition to membership in the Peer Group, some of the selected scientists usually come from the same occupational disciplines as the cases under review (i.e., Agronomists, Entomologists, Chemists, etc.). If Research Leader cases are to be reviewed, at least one Research Leader will be scheduled to serve.

The RGEG recommends, and Agency policy stipulates, a variety of research disciplines on panels to provide greater objectivity in decisionmaking. It should be understood that RPES panels are not "peer" panels in the sense that all or even a majority of the members have personal knowledge of the impact of cases being reviewed. Verifying and obtaining factual information is the task of the IDR assigned to the case.

3. What is the function of the IDR, and how is that person selected?

The reason for having an IDR is to provide for each case a focal point to collect, evaluate, and present information the panel needs in order to make an informed decision. It is important to understand that the IDR is not expected to be the source of the information. The information (facts and opinions) is gathered from knowledgeable sources as identified by the scientist in the IDR Contact Sheet (ARS-570), and as developed by the IDR in the course of factfinding. IDR's are not restricted to contacts listed in the case writeup, and are actively encouraged to go beyond the ARS-570.

The IDR for a given case is chosen by the Chair from among the Peer Group scientists assigned to the panel. To help in this process, each panelist has completed a summary of research interests and expertise. (Neither Chairs nor Personnel Representatives are assigned IDR responsibility.) In rare instances, IDR responsibility for a given case is assigned to a panelist from the "other" Peer Group represented on a panel. This flexibility is necessary to allow Chairs to balance IDR workloads, and reflects the philosophy that objectivity is more critical than specific discipline knowledge when it comes to doing a quality IDR.

4. My position was recently paneled, and I would like to find out the range of scores before the panelists reached consensus. How do I obtain that information?

No information on initial panel scores is kept. All initial scores are destroyed after the panel has reached consensus. This policy follows from the concept that the consensus decision is the important action. Initial scores are considered preliminary. It is expected that panelists will score cases individually to the best of their ability and knowledge, then engage in open discussion to satisfy themselves as to the facts and thereby reach consensus. ARS policy also states that panel deliberations (and IDR contacts) are confidential and are not to be disclosed outside of the panel meeting.

5. What is RPES policy regarding a panelist serving as IDR for the same position more than once?

RPES policy does not prohibit panelists from conducting "repeat IDR's." Chairs are responsible for making IDR assignments among their panelists. Chairs routinely ask if a panelist has any relation to the cases under review--such as having previously served as IDR--which might impede objectivity. This information is weighed along with other considerations in achieving balanced IDR workload distribution among assigned panelists.

6. What is the basis for periodic review of Category 1 positions?

Category 1 positions are reviewed on a mandatory cycle at 3, 4, or 5 year intervals, depending on the current grade level. Positions will be reviewed on this cycle unless an exception is approved by the Area Director. See P&P 431.3-ARS, Section 4.

7. Are positions always paneled on or near the anniversary date of their last review?

No. In order to make the annual review schedule manageable, a position may be scheduled within 6 months (before or after) the anniversary date. This is termed the "6-month leeway rule." Example: a GS-13 researcher was last reviewed in June 2004. The position will be scheduled again anytime between January and December 2008.

8. How frequently each year will panels meet to review cases in my peer group?

The way you have phrased the question indicates that you do not understand how panel meetings are scheduled. Panel schedules are developed on a fiscal year (FY) basis, and are directly dependent on the number of cases to be reviewed ARS-wide during the FY. Cases are reviewed either because they are "due" under the mandatory cycle, or because an AD has approved an exception (early or delayed review, or reevaluation) to the cycle. The number of meetings required is determined based on total number of positions to be reviewed, peer group mix, a caseload yardstick of 12 cases, anniversary dates, and the "6-month leeway rule" (see P&P 431.3-ARS, Section 4). So, there is no set minimum or maximum number of meetings each year per peer group. The scheduling process is flexible and responsive rather than mechanistic.

9. Isn't there a problem with coauthors and coworkers being assigned as IDR's on panels?

While this might appear to be a conflict of interest, the real concern is the IDR's ability to be objective during factfinding and reporting to the panel. Chairs are responsible for making IDR assignments among their panelists. Chairs routinely ask if a panelist has any relation to the cases under review which might impede objectivity. This information is weighed along with other considerations in achieving balanced IDR workload distribution among assigned panelists.

10. What can be done to ensure that a scientist receives appropriate credit for team research accomplishments?

As with any type of accomplishment, all players in the panel system have important responsibilities. First, the scientist must do a good job of documenting both the impact of the team's accomplishments, and their contribution to the accomplishments. The scientist must also carefully decide which indepth reviewer (IDR) contacts to list on the ARS-570.

Second, the IDR must conduct thorough factfinding to verify the extent of the scientist's contribution. IDR's need to be particularly alert to instances when the incumbent or other team members are claiming "more than their share."

Finally, each panelist must ensure by his or her actions on the panel that Agency policy is properly applied to every case under review.

As with all types of accomplishments, no one should expect to get credit just for being on or in charge of a team. In RPES, the bottom line is always documented impact.

Top

1. I just received the report from my last panel review. The panel reached a Remain-in-Grade decision. The report did not identify any weaknesses or explain why my position was not upgraded. Why not?

The purpose of the RPES is to ensure that research positions are properly graded. RPES is a position classification system, not a promotion or career management system. Panel reports do not explain why a scientist's position was not upgraded, since upgrade is neither the objective nor the routine expectation of the panel process.

A Remain-in-Grade (RIG) decision means the panel found the scientist performing at a level of quality and quantity of work sufficient to maintain the current grade level of the position. In some situations, panels may find evidence of emerging productivity problems which could adversely affect the scientist's impact and recognition (and perhaps result in a Grade/Category Problem decision in future panel reviews) if not addressed. The report will specify such problems when identified by the panel.

2. I do not serve on panels, and have never seen an ARS Form 516. I understand the form is prepared by the IDR after the factfinding process is completed, and serves as a draft panel report. What information is solicited by the form? What use is made of it?

There is no secret about the ARS-516. It is available on the RPES Forms page.

Following instructions in Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 8, the IDR completes an ARS-516 after conducting factfinding interviews, to capture relevant classification information in condensed form. Copies of the completed form are distributed to panelists as part of the IDR report for reference during panel deliberation. If the panel reaches a consensus RIG decision, it edits the ARS-516 to provide information for the narrative evaluation report issued to the incumbent. No narrative report is issued for other types of decisions, so editing the ARS-516 is not necessary if the panel reaches consensus on such decisions. Like all preliminary documents used by the panel, all copies of the ARS-516 are destroyed at the end of the meeting except the edited copy, which the Personnel Representative uses to prepare the narrative evaluation report, then discards.

3. During a recent panel, we reached consensus to upgrade an incumbent's position. However, we had concerns about the completeness of the case writeup. Narrative evaluations are not prepared for UPG decisions. Is there some mechanism to report such concerns back to incumbents?

Yes, there is. When panelists believe feedback is important, the Personnel Representative can make note of the concerns and summarize them in the "Remarks" section of the ARS-518.

4. Who do I contact if I think my panel report is overdue?

Through your supervisor, contact your Area Office. If they have not received the report, they will check with the Personnel Representative who served on the panel (identified in the results e-mail message issued by RPE Staff).

5. I am new to panel service, and am not quite sure I understand what a "prompt" statement is, or what its intended purpose is. Can you explain?

"Prompt" statements appear at the end of each factor page of the Research Position Evaluation Worksheet (ARS Form 516). The statements are intended to "prompt" the indepth reviewer (IDR) to capture certain information when conducting factfinding, and when completing the form. The IDR is to complete all entries on the form, although some information from the entries may prove marginal or irrelevant when the panel edits the worksheet to produce the final report. For example, an assessment of whether recency of a scientist's accomplishments is a concern (Factor IV) is very important. If recency is a concern, the IDR is to summarize relevant information on the ARS-516, convenient for panel reference during editing.

6. Can Factor II of the ARS-516 be revised to list specific options for responding to the "extent of supervision" "prompt?"

The ARS-516 could be revised in the manner you suggest, but there is no need to do so. None of the prompts in the ARS-516 is intended to be used "as is." Rather, prompts draw attention to concerns so that a specific comment can be included in the report when the panel deems necessary. See Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 8.

In this instance, if the box is checked, the panel must specify whether supervision is too restrictive (thus stifling creativity and initiative), or too loose (allowing incumbent to wander or remain unfocused, thus limiting impact, etc.). Providing a series of options for each prompt would make the ARS-516 unwieldy and defeat the objective of having panels be as specific as possible when identifying concerns.

7. I am not clear on the intent of the "prompt" phrase in Element A of Factor I in the ARS-516: "In team research, incumbent usually functions as [ ] leader or [ ] member, providing expertise in:" Should this be completed only for RL or LS positions?

No, the prompt should be completed for all positions except those which are not working in a team situation. It is intended to capture information about how the incumbent usually operates in teams in their current assignment--are they usually the leader or a member? Team leadership is not, of course, restricted to those occupying formal leadership positions such as RL or LS.

8. When does the Factor I, Element A, “prompt” about special assignments apply?

Generally, a special assignment is not “significant” unless it requires at least 25% of a scientist’s duty time, or it requires skills and knowledges that are markedly different from those required for the research assignment.

Top

1. How can I ensure that panelists realize my assignment had undergone a recent significant change?

Scientists can highlight recent assignment changes at two points in their case writeups. In Factor I, Element A (Assigned Responsibility), it is permissible to include a brief statement such as: "This assignment is new (since January 2003)." In Factor IV, Element D-3 (Other Significant Information), past assignments may be summarized where recent assignment change has occurred. Please note that it is not permissible to include copies of former position descriptions in a case writeup.

"Recent", by the way, means no more than 4 years ago. The term does not apply to scientists undergoing their first post-hire panel review

2. A scientist is preparing a case writeup for submission, and knows that a new research assignment will be made in a few months. Should the case writeup reflect the current assignment or the new assignment?

Factors I- III are supposed to describe the position as it will function for the next 3 to 4 years. Therefore, the new assignment must be included in the case writeup. It should be annotated as being new (i.e., "since November 2004") to ensure panelists are aware of that fact. If it is markedly different from the old assignment, the scientist may want to summarize the old assignment in section IV D 3 of the writeup. See Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapters 3 and 6.

3. What happens when a researcher's assignment is changing at the time the incumbent is due for panel review?

Particular attention focuses on the position description, because some researchers are afraid that their most recent work will be "lost" if they are forced to describe the new assignment rather than the one they are leaving (or just left).

ARS policy requires that Factors I - III address the current research assignment. "Current" means "the next 3 to 4 years" (Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 3). Because panel reviews sometimes occur very near to a period of assignment change--including reassignment between Areas--two steps should be taken to draw panelist attention to the fact that a change has occurred (or will shortly occur): (a) include a statement in Element A of Factor I identifying the assignment as new, for example: "This is a new assignment as of month/year;" and, (b) highlight the change in Element D 3 of Factor IV (Other Significant Information), and summarize the past assignment. See Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6.

ARS panelists know that assignment changes are routine events throughout a scientist's career. Panelists will therefore not expect to see evidence of "progress" in Factor IV if they have been informed that the assignment in Factor I is a recent change.

The new case writeup (including position description and AD-332) is to be prepared and certified by the gaining unit/Area, because that is obviously where the scientist will be for the next 3-4 years. If a previously unannounced reassignment takes place after the case writeup has been submitted, the new (gaining) position description and AD-332 must be substituted for the old Factors I-III. Submit changes to RPE Staff.

4. Does a researcher retain credit for past accomplishments if they are involved in significant redirection?

As the RGEG states: "The degrees of Factor IV are expressed in part in terms of standing and recognition in a specialized field. A researcher who is a recognized specialist in one field may be reassigned to a related field without change in degree of Factor IV, when it is expected by management that the researcher will probably perform at substantially the same level of competence after a reasonably short orientation period."

Within ARS, panels exercise management's classification authority in applying the RGEG. RPES panels are composed of experienced researchers, who realize that they themselves may sometime face the challenge of redirection (if they haven't already!). This reality operates to ensure a predictable degree of humanity and common sense when panels make evaluation judgments in redirection situations.

It is also important to realize that panels primarily assess the impact of a scientist's contributions, and the stature and recognition arising therefrom. Panels are not permitted to credit potential or "but for" situations involving substantial redirection, any more than they can in reviewing positions not so impacted.

Top

1. May I use a manuscript which has been submitted to a journal--but not yet accepted for publication--to document a Demonstrated Accomplishment?

Yes, you may. However, more important than whether this practice is acceptable is the question of whether manuscripts not yet accepted provide the "best evidence" of an accomplishment or its impact. Selection of supporting documentation (exhibits) is very important. In choosing from among possible exhibits or combinations of exhibits, be guided by common sense--the firmer the documentation, the more impressive the accomplishment. A peer-reviewed journal article will probably be viewed as more substantial documentation than either a draft MS which has not been submitted to a journal for review, or an MS submitted but not yet accepted. Relying on submitted-but-not-yet-accepted manuscripts should be done only as a last resort, and then preferably as only 1 of the 2 exhibits permitted for each Demonstrated Accomplishment. Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6, provides detailed guidance on selection, description, and documentation of various types of accomplishments.

2. May a statement from my supervisor be included in my RPES case writeup?

A statement from a supervisor may be included as one of the 2 exhibits permitted for each Demonstrated Accomplishment. Separate statements, not related to a specific accomplishment, are not permitted.

3. I have several supporting statements which I could use to document the impact of one of my Demonstrated Accomplishments. Will relying on multiple statements use up my "quota" of exhibits?

No. Impact may be addressed by attaching a maximum of 3 supporting statements to a cover memo signed by your Area Director. The Area Director's memo must state that the attachments indicate your impact with regard to a particular accomplishment. Such memo/attachment combinations are counted as a single exhibit.

4. Is there any restriction on using a book as an exhibit?

A minor one--please submit only one complete book. With your case writeup, submit scanned sets of the title page and table of contents, RPE Staff will ensure the book gets to the designated indepth reviewer for your position. (If you so specify ahead of time, RPE Staff will also return the book to you after the panel meeting.)

5. Since I submitted my case writeup, I discovered an exhibit which would more strongly document one of my Demonstrated accomplishments. May I substitute the stronger exhibit for the "weaker" one on this accomplishment?

No. RPES policy does not permit substitution of accomplishments once a case writeup has been distributed to panelists. The same policy applies to substituting exhibits, and for the same reason--accepting substitutes would actually allow a scientist to present an excessive number of exhibits to a panel. It is unrealistic to expect a panel to simply ignore the accomplishment/exhibits "substituted for" in the original writeup.

Also remember that indepth reviewers (IDR) are specifically tasked to capture and report to the panel any "late-breaking" developments unearthed by factfinding interviews. In this instance, the scientist's supervisor might possibly mention the exhibit when interviewed by the IDR.

Top

1. How often are new panelists selected?

Every fiscal year, in conjunction with development of the draft panel schedule.

2. How are scientists selected for panel service?

All Category 1 scientists in grades GM/S-13 and above are eligible for appointment to the Research Position Evaluation Committee (RPEC). After completing mandatory new panelist training, RPEC members are available for assignment to panel service.

The majority of scientists are selected for appointment to ensure that each Peer Group has an adequate representation on the RPEC. The RPE Staff recommends new appointees when developing annual panel review schedules. Area Directors affirm these nominees or designate replacements. A second significant source is direct nomination by Area Directors. These are usually new Research Leaders with no prior panel experience.

Appointment to the RPEC is for an indefinite period. Panelists actually serve an average of once per year. Area Directors (not the RPE Staff) are authorized to relieve you from scheduled panel service for reasons acceptable to the Area Director.

Scientists are removed from the RPEC only if they manifest disruptive behavior by pursuing personal agendas in disregard of policy or procedure, or are needlessly argumentative to the extent that panel consensus is hampered. Panels do not have time to deal with "problem personalities"--they have to focus their energy on case resolution.

3. As a panelist, I get tired of carrying mounds of paper on long trips to panel meetings. Why do I have to lug along all of those cases and exhibits?

Actually, you don't! The only writeups and exhibits you must take to the meeting are those for case(s) for which you have been assigned indepth review responsibility.

4. I have noticed that the number of cases assigned for panels to review fluctuates within a range of 8 to 13. Why is that?

The Administrator asked the RPES Advisory Committee to recommend ways to reduce RPES travel and administrative costs. Among the adopted recommendations was a change in the average panel caseload guidelines. Under the new policy, a minimum of 8 cases is assigned per panel, and a "working" maximum of 12. To accommodate Reevaluation and Early Reviews approved by Area Directors, an "absolute" maximum of 13 cases may be assigned to a panel.

5. I served on a panel recently where the IDR for one of the cases came across as something of an advocate for upgrading a position. Is my memory slipping, or wasn't the need for IDR objectivity a key point repeated during our New Panelist training?

Your memory is excellent... it is expected that IDR's will be objective both in factfinding and in reporting to the panel. The IDR is, after all, the agent of the panel they are serving on. Representing the system objectively and honestly is an important responsibility. Of course, it is sometimes difficult not to develop strong feelings about a case one has dedicated so much time to. As long as IDR's present a balanced view of a case, and can anticipate and field questions from fellow panelists in a forthright manner, they can feel confident that they have served well.

6. Should an IDR conduct a computer search of citation indexes to determine how frequently an incumbent's work is cited? This would appear to be a useful quantitative measure of impact, particularly for scientists engaged primarily in basic research.

IDR's are free to consult citation indexes if they choose to, but there is no requirement to do so. And, always bear in mind that while citation frequency may serve as a useful indicator, it cannot be substituted for the RPES focus on qualitative impact of a scientist's contributions.

7. I've noticed that phone numbers and e-mail addresses are sometimes wrong on IDR contact sheets (ARS-570). It is a major pain to track down the correct information, and it may prove impossible to reach a potentially valuable source. What can be done about this?

Naturally, ultimate responsibility for accuracy of information on the ARS-570 rests with the scientist preparing the case writeup. Writers are urged to verify the accuracy and currency of all information on the Contact Sheet--especially if they are using the name of an "old" contact they haven't communicated with recently. Be careful about Area Code... a lot of changes have occured across the country. If, as an IDR, you cannot quickly resolve a contact information discrepancy, please call this office (301-504-1562). We will contact the scientist to get current information while maintaining IDR anonymity.

8. The AD-202 covering my upcoming panel meeting has the "car rental" block checked. But, the letter of instruction I received with my case package states that, since shuttle service is available, car rental is not authorized. Which document am I to follow?

The RPE Staff letter of instruction has priority. AD-202's are signed at various locations, and some Areas have standard completion procedures which make no distinction among types of travel. But any expenses actually charged to the RPES account on a travel voucher must comply with RPES policy. Long-standing RPES policy (as stated in the letter of instruction) specifies that car rental is not authorized without prior approval from Head, RPE Staff. And, when shuttle service is available, authorization would be a very rare occurrence absent compelling justification.

9. I am scheduled to serve on an upcoming panel, but have just learned that I will be required to travel overseas during the period of the meeting. What is the procedure for notifying you that I will not be available?

Panelist service assignment--and relief from such assignment--are determined by Area Directors, not RPE Staff. If you determine that you have a potential service conflict, notify your Area Director immediately. The Area Director will decide on your relief, and work with us to select a replacement if necessary.

10. How long does a panelist serve, and how are they notified when their term is over?

Appointment to the RPEC is for an indefinite period. Balancing this, panelists actually serve an average of one mandatory review panel a year. They may also be asked to serve on ad hoc (New Hire) panels during the year. Panelists who believe they have "done their share" and want a "break"--or to be removed from the RPEC--should notify their AD.

11. Why do some scientists at a location serve on panel, but not others?

Not all Category 1's are appointed to the RPEC, because not everyone's services are required. Training costs must be kept consistent with actual panel needs, and not everyone is suitable.

12. Where can I find tips on how to do a good indepth review? Also, is there a prescribed format for presenting the IDR's oral report?

Refer to Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 10. There is no prescribed format for an oral report, given the varied situations an IDR may encounter in the course of factfinding. However, you should prepare an outline of significant findings. Be sure to identify each persons you actually contacted. The most common approaches are to (a) state who was contacted, then summarize the gist their collective comments and observations, or (b) briefly summarize what each individual had to say. The first approach is useful when all or most of the comments are similar; the second, when you encounter greater divergence. Whatever your style, keep your oral report succinct and on-target. You can probably anticipate most questions your fellow panelists will raise. Be prepared to address these in either your oral report or the subsequent deliberations.

13. I notice that e-mail addresses have been added to the IDR Contact Sheet (ARS-570) format. Is it OK to use e-mail for IDR factfinding?

E-mail addresses were added to the ARS-570 on the RPES Advisory Committee's recommendation, after numerous suggestions to do so were received from scientists and panelists across ARS. The primary reason for adding e-mail addresses was to provide an alternative to "telephone tag" as a tool for scheduling telephone interviews with contacts. So, it is certainly OK to use e-mail to arrange mutually convenient interview times.

It is not OK to conduct factfinding interviews by e-mail. E-mail was never intended as a substitute for oral interviews. Neither e-mail nor any other form of written communication should ever be considered as a primary means of factfinding. There are two reasons for this. First, the RPES confidentiality principle can be easily breached when questions are asked and answers given via e-mail. Second, and perhaps more importantly, e-mail based factfinding is almost certain to be less useful that a personal interview. Spontaneity and flexibility in directing the interview are lost when exchanges are reduced to writing. Just think how differently you reply to oral questions versus the same queries in questionnaire form, and you will take the point.

Finally, it should be noted that IDR's are not required to use e-mail to arrange telephone contacts; it is simply a matter of personal style.

Top

1. Do all elements of an RGEG factor have the same relative weight? For example, should Element A (Demonstrated Accomplishments) of Factor IV be weighed more heavily than Elements B (Stature, Recognition and Impact) and/or C (Advisory and Consultant Activity)?

Yes, all elements of an RGEG factor are of equal value--no one element is superior in evaluation significance. Some confusion may arise from the fact that the factors themselves are not of equal value. The RGEG emphasizes that Factor IV is intentionally double-weighted. When evaluating a Category 1 position, the full intent of criteria for each factor must be considered.

2. Why doesn't RPES give more credit for publishing articles in quality journals? Isn't publication prima facie evidence of an important contribution?

This is a source of confusion to some scientists. RGEG operation is philosophically simple: researchers can influence the grade level of their positions by making quality contributions (accomplishments). When these contributions are reported, they may generate impact in terms of scientific excellence, solution of practical problems, and/or monetary savings. Impact in turn enhances the scientist's professional stature and recognition within a scientific or technical field as evidenced by consultation, appointment to technical committees, invitations, honors, and awards.

Clearly, then, application of the RGEG requires much more judgment than merely "counting papers." In fact, basing a grade on numbers of publications, or upon some artificial rating scheme of the purported "value" of various journals, is clearly inappropriate and violates the intent of the RGEG (and therefore Federal position classification law). Publishing is one means of initiating the process which may generate impact, but must not be confused with impact in terms of the RGEG or RPES. Publication is merely the starting point for the possible generation of impact and resultant recognition. Therefore, publication is not synonymous with accomplishment, and impact is not synonymous with publication.

3. How are various scientific journals rated in terms of relative difficulty of publication therein?

Panelists take note of, and make value judgments about, the media or methods a scientist uses to release information about his or her research work. But this is only a minor step in the broader process of judging the impact of the accomplishment. The medium through which the results of an experiment are announced is far less important than the extent to which the results are subsequently accepted and applied by user groups, action agencies, and the scientific community. Publication is merely the starting point for the possible generation of impact and resultant recognition. Logically, impact is not synonymous with publication, but rather may flow from it.

The RPE Staff does not have, nor would it attempt to develop, any "standards" or otherwise attempt to rank or rate the quality of publications. To do so would be (a) to overemphasize the importance of mere publication as opposed to the generation of impact and resultant recognition, and (b) to oversimplify the variety and diversity of assignments in which ARS researchers operate.

Assignment diversity is a significant characteristic of the ARS research workforce. Our scientists operate in a wide variety of research, academic, cooperative, industrial, and administrative situations. It would be unrealistic to stipulate that a single medium or method of releasing research results is universally appropriate, or to be valued above other media or methods. In some assignments, statements from user groups or supported action agencies will be far more significant in establishing impact and recognition than publications would be. In other circumstances, combinations of statements, publications and patents may serve best. Selection of documentation must therefore be tailored and balanced to the nature of the assignment and accomplishment, and to the arena of impact.

Having attempted to place publications in their proper context, it should be pointed out that panelists--and other scientists--are naturally more impressed by publication in "solid" media than in less demanding media. By "solid," we mean scientific media featuring a rigorous pre-acceptance peer review procedure. The reason is evident: manuscripts which are subjected to rigorous peer review will more logically stand the test of scientific scrutiny than will those which are accepted without critical review. The importance of "solid" media must not, however, be allowed to obscure the fact that RPES evaluates the impact of the accomplishment, not the medium.

4. The RGEG does not provide criteria for Degrees B and D in any of the four factors. Does this mean that Degrees B and D are not to be used?

As the RGEG itself states, "Definitions are not included for intermediate degrees B and D... because we [OPM] have not been able to develop language precise enough to express these degrees without some overlapping of words. However, degrees B and D and their point values are an integral part of the [evaluation] plan, and are to be used when an element is determined to fall between the defined degrees." Thus, for example, Degree B must be assigned when a position's characteristics exceed Degree A criteria but do not fully meet the intent of Degree C criteria of a factor. Degrees B and D are definitely to be used for both preliminary and final scoring when appropriate.

5. My position was recently reviewed by an RPES panel, which assigned a total of 34 points. I thought that ARS policy prohibited panels from assigning such "top of grade" scores.

A score ending in "4" is technically referred to as a "borderline" score, since it is "on the border" between two grade levels. ARS policy does not prohibit panels from assigning borderline scores. Such scores are an inherent part of the RGEG grade determination system. The ARS panel approach requires preparation of a detailed case writeup, factfinding by an indepth reviewer (IDR), and full panel deliberation to reach a consensus decision. This approach usually ensures that all relevant information is available to the panel, so that reaching a borderline decision is entirely acceptable.

6. How are patents viewed within RPES?

Patents are an important means of documenting certain applied research and technology transfer accomplishments. In addition to including a copy of the patent as an exhibit, the scientist should summarize information about the significance of the patent (i.e., improved product, economic savings, etc.) in the accomplishment statement. There are two points when a patent is considered for credit under RPES procedures: (a) the award of a "notice of allowance" by the Patent and Trademark Office (comparable to acceptance and publication of a manuscript by a refereed journal), and (b) when a licensee's annual report highlights significant application of the invention in terms of new products, improved products, lower cost to consumers, stimulation of investment, or some other form of demonstrable impact.

7. How does a scientist get credit in the RPES if a substantial portion of the assignment involves a CRADA with a confidentiality agreement which prevents publication of the research?

The concern about inability to publish is misplaced, since RPES evaluates impact, stature, and recognition... not the publication record. If the scientist is involved in a confidential CRADA, then by definition a firm has found the technology useful and/or a significant improvement, and has invested or plans to invest in the technology. The accomplishment statement must describe the nature of the improvement and extent of investment, and be supported by a statement from an official of the firm. That official should also be listed as an IDR contact on the ARS-570. The bottom line is that panels cannot credit "potential impact," and cannot credit any impact that is not properly documented.

8. The continued emphasis on senior authorship is of concern in team research and graduate student/major professor situations. Younger colleagues are often given senior authorship to permit them to advance, even when a mentor provides funds and many of the ideas, and does a lot of work on the manuscript.

RPES assesses the impact of a scientist's contributions, and the extent of stature and recognition resulting from that impact. Impact is neither measurable by nor synonymous with publication or authorship. Impact is a question of the value of and use made of a contribution. Also, IDR's are specifically tasked to determine an incumbent's relative contribution in team research and student/professor situations--a necessity because the Federal position classification system can only evaluate individual positions, not groups or teams. These situations are wide spread throughout science and not considered unusual by experienced panelists (or by other scientists, for that matter). Scientist's can help ensure proper evaluation by following the accomplishment statement preparation guidance in Chapter 6 of Manual 431.3-ARS.

9. RPES panel members should be reminded that research publications senior-authored by a graduate student, with the incumbent (major advisor) as second author, deserve the same weight as a senior-authored publication.

First--as has been noted many times before--papers (publications) are not the focus of either RPES or the RGEG... rather, the impact of accomplishments is assessed.

Four points should be kept in mind: (a) a primary indepth reviewer (IDR) responsibility is to determine an incumbent's role in each Demonstrated Accomplishment; (b) RPES instructions (Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6) already state that accomplishment paragraphs must be written to explain the incumbent's role in each Demonstrated Accomplishment; and (c) even if one conceded that publications/authorship are important per se, we must disagree with the implication that there should be an automatic assumption of relative contribution just because the coauthor is a graduate student. There is no automatic assumption of anything in RPES, given the range and scope of ARS research situations.

10. How do panels handle situations such as the time and diversion from productivity involved in starting a totally new CRIS, and the lower productivity which results from loss or absence of support personnel/facilities?

Being experienced researchers, panelists recognize such situations when they are encountered in reviewing cases. They tend to be lenient is terms of, for example, reaching a Remain in Grade consensus rather than Grade/Category Problem decision. Panels cannot, however, be expected to give extra credit under a speculative rationale such as, "if it weren't for this circumstance, the scientist would have achieved X more productivity/impact."

11. Who established the point ranges and scores that determine researcher grade levels?

Grade level criteria are set forth in the RGEG. The RGEG is a type of standard called "point rating"--so many total points equal grade X, so many total points equal grade Y, etc.

The RGEG contains a "gap" at the top of each grade range. Example: 8-12 points = GS-11, 16-22 points = GS-12. What would 14 points equal? A 14 point score could be either an 11 or a 12, depending on the panel's best judgment! To ensure consistency and prevent indefensible and arbitrary panel decisions, ARS long ago eliminated the "gap" by assigning each point total to a discrete grade level, so that scoring would be uniform. In RPES, 8-14 points = GS-11, 16-24 points = GS-12, etc.

12. Is it true that individual research accomplishments are supposed to be given greater value than the more "non-traditional" types of accomplishments, such as technology transfer, team research, modeling, leadership, special projects, etc.?

Absolutely not! ARS recognizes and credits equally all of the various types of accomplishments detailed in Manual 431.3-ARS, Chapter 6. But here's a reality check: if a scientist isn't able to claim some research accomplishments, the position is not a research (Category 1) position anyway!

Top

1. Where are the ARS peer groups defined?

Peer groups are listed in Exhibit 1 of P&P 431.3-ARS at <http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/ppweb/431-3-ARS.pdf>

2. Because of the type of research I am pursuing, I do not believe my current peer group affiliation is the "best fit." How can I change my peer group?

Scientists can change their peer group affiliation at any time. Review the group definitions, decide if you want to change, and--if so--contact RPE Staff to obtain copy of the change form. Proper peer group affiliation is very important. Our case submission notice identifies the scientist's current peer group and requests initiation of a change if the scientist believes another peer group will provide a better match.

Top

1. How are New Hire situations handled?

The answer to this question differs, depending on a number of variables:

The servicing Human Resources Specialist exercises delegated classification authority without panel review for: (a) initial appointment of non-Ph.D. at GS-9 either by reassignment of current ARS employee or selection from a certificate of eligibles, (b) initial appointment of Ph.D. at GS-ll or -12 from a certificate of eligibles when the Specialist judges selectee's qualifications meet RGEG criteria for the desired grade, and (c) selection at GS-11 or -12 of an ARS employee who does not currently occupy a Category 1 position. (ARS Merit Promotion Plan requires that such employees compete for movement to a Category 1 position; noncompetitive "conversion" is not authorized.)

Panel review (usually ad hoc) is required for (a) selection at GS-11 or above of a non-Ph.D., and (b) selection for positions at GS/GM-13/15 from a certificate of eligibles of individual who does not currently occupy a Category 1 position.

2. I am a Research Leader, and have just selected someone to fill a research vacancy advertised at GS-13/14. I want to ensure the selectee gets the greatest possible credit during the New Hire panel process. What documentation alternatives are available?

For detailed information, check out (a) Perspectives And Strategies, and (b) Format Options.

3. What is the process for setting up a New Hire panel?

The RPE Staff sets up a New Hire panel when it receives complete case materials (whether "full blown" or "streamlined") from the servicing Human Resources Specialist. The Staff contacts panelists to obtain their agreement to serve, designates the indepth reviewer, and arranges the teleconference call. Case materials and instructions are then sent to the panelists via FedEx or e-mail. Elapsed time between receipt of case materials by RPE Staff and panel convening is normally 2-3 weeks.

RPE Staff does not set up panels prior to receipt of complete case materials. Incomplete or late arriving material imposes inconvenience on the panelists, reduces the time available for indepth review, and may require new teleconference arrangements.

4. Why are narrative reports required for New Hire panels?

The RPES Advisory Committee has determined that New Hires need to see a complete narrative evaluation, addressing all RGEG criteria. This will help the new scientist develop an appreciation for system expectations and thoroughness.

Top

1. Why does ARS have both performance appraisal and position classification systems for its Category 1 (research) positions? Don't these overlap?

Not really. Separate performance appraisal and position classification systems exist for all categories of ARS positions--in fact, for all positions in the Federal government. The reason is that the two systems serve completely different objectives, and are operated under completely separate Federal personnel statutes.

Performance appraisals are annual ratings of employee achievement against specific criteria of written performance standards tailored to individual positions, and for a 1 year period. Performance appraisals have no effect on position grade level. Appraisals are used for certain salary-setting determinations, to determine appropriateness of recognition/awards, to establish additional service credit for reduction-in- force purposes, and to determine appropriateness of demotion, reassignment, or removal when unacceptable performance occurs.

Position classification, by contrast, exists to determine the proper grade level of individual positions. Grade levels, in turn, determine the possible range of employee salary. Grade determination is based on the criteria of Governmentwide standards published by OPM. For research positions, this standard is the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide (RGEG). The RGEG is one of a handful of classification standards which allows incumbents to influence position grade level based on the impact of quality contributions (accomplishments), stature, and recognition--the so called "impact-of-the-person-on-the-job" concept. Because of the expectation of impact, research positions are reviewed for grade level accuracy at intervals of 3-5 years, depending on current grade level.

Even receipt of "outstanding" performance ratings does not provide any basis for upgrading a position under the ARS Research Position Evaluation System (RPES). This follows because, as noted above, performance appraisal and classification address very different criteria, under different legal authorities, and over markedly differing time frames.

Performance ratings and similar awards (such as extra effort and spot awards) may not be cited as honors and awards in case writeups. The RGEG (and therefore RPES) is interested in evidence of recognition for significant contributions to science, not recognition from management that typically takes the form of such awards.

2. I have some questions about the relationship between the annual performance appraisal system and RPES. Developing annual standards and appraisals requires much time and discussion, and a common criticism is that they are not standardized ARS-wide. I believe that if there were more linkage to RPES, scientists and RL's would view the annual appraisal process more objectively and less emotionally.

• Why aren't indepth reviewers (IDR) instructed to obtain performance appraisal ratings for interim years... since a scientist was last reviewed? If this were mandatory, RL's would have to do a much better job of supervising, and would have yet another input into the RPES score.
  
  
• What is the correlation between point advancement within the RGEG and the 5-tier annual performance appraisal system? If the correlation is not an extremely high positive number, it would seem something is wrong with one of the two systems.

The answer to both of your questions is that there is no linkage between the annual performance appraisal (APA) system and RPES. The RGEG establishes criteria for classifying research positions. APA ratings are not position classification criteria.

APA and RPES are legally and logically separate mechanisms. They embrace different criteria, cover different timeframes, and serve distinctly separate goals. For example, performance standards tend to focus on annual publication, which is diametrically opposed to the long-term impact, stature, and recognition criteria central to application of the RGEG.

ARS policy does require that RL's and AD's identify "poor performers," and that such scientists be excluded from panel review until performance deficiencies are resolved. The APA helps identify emerging problems in the intervals between panel review, so they can be addressed.

RL's who ignore "poor performer" situations and send them to panel usually have to contend with a Grade/Category Problem (GCP) decision. Development and monitoring of the correction plan required by a GCP is usually far more demanding and onerous than is dealing with poor performance "up front."

The Administrator has chosen to delegate substantial authority to AD's for establishing researcher performance requirements. There may be value in standardizing these requirements for research scientists Agency-wide, but the RPES system cannot address this question. The bottom line is that both APA and RPES have a place in the Agency's personnel management program.

3. Certain timeframes have been established for scientist response within the RPES. For example, a scientist considering requesting reevaluation must do so within 60 days of the date of the panel report. Why are no timeframes established for compliance by the management levels which are responsible for transmitting reports?

Ensuring prompt delivery of panel reports is a matter for Area accountability. It is expected that all levels will transmit official reports expeditiously. Timeframes may be waived when it can be established, for example, that a request was received from a scientist after the 60 day timeframe has expired because of delayed handling within the management hierarchy. This would not guarantee that a reevaluation request would be approved, but it would prevent arbitrary denial of consideration because a timeframe was missed for reasons beyond a scientist's control.

4. I am a recently hired researcher, and have been inundated with all kinds of paper. What is the single most important document I can read to understand RPES and its importance to me as a scientist?

Without question, the single most important document is Manual 431.3-ARS. Part I explains how to prepare a case writeup--this tells you what ARS considers important, and what panels look for. Part II provides RPES evaluation material--the actual criteria against which you will be judged when a panel reviews your case.

For a quick review, visit the sites linked on the "Tips for First-Timers Page."

5. I'm thinking about requesting Early Review. May I find out when meetings in my peer group are scheduled so I can select an early panel?

You may find out when panels reviewing positions in your peer group will meet... but you are putting the cart before the horse. The RPE Staff cannot honor a request for review by a specific panel.

More importantly, only Area Directors are authorized to approve Early Review. When an AD notifies us of such approval, we schedule the position for review by the next available panel in the scientist's peer group. Depending on the time of year and panel workload, the "next available" panel may not meet for several months--perhaps not until the next fiscal year. And, there is a limit to the number of cases that can be assigned to a panel. A panel that was "available" when you made your inquiry may be "filled" by the time your AD approves your Early Review request. The best approach is to concentrate on making the strongest argument you can to convince your AD that Early Review is warranted.

6. Why are new case writeup format, content, exhibit, and submission rules being adopted?

These changes were recommended by the RPES Advisory Committee and approved by the Associate Administrator.

The streamlined, more tightly focused format will facilitate panelist evaluation and panel consensus decision making by eliminating extraneous or marginal information not pertinent to RGEG application. The electronic case submission and distribution system is the first standardized (ARS-wide) systems for reviewing and approving case writeups. It will greatly reduce the costs of mailing cases to RPE Staff, and of subsequent distribution to panelists.

Together, these changes constitute the first comprehensive revision of case writeup policy since RPES was "nationalized" in 1985.

Last Updated 10/08/2004