NAO 202-511A: NOAA Science Career Track: Position Classification for Research and Development Scientists

Issued: 2/27/2013; Effective: 2/27/2013; Last Reviewed: In Process

SECTION   1. PURPOSE.

. 01 This Order establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
policy for classifying research scientist and development scientist positions, and processing the
appeals of these classifications. This order supplements and is to be used in conjunction with
Department Administrative Order (DAO) 202-511, Position Classification and establishes a
NOAA Science Career Track (science career track) that allows non-competitive promotion of
specified positions with a peer review panel process .

. 02 This Order cancels the previously issued NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 202-511,
dated July 16, 1993.

SECTION     2.  SCOPE.

. 01 The provisions of this Order apply to non-supervisory research and experimental
development (development) scientists either in the General Schedule (GS) or Commerce
Alternative Personnel System (CAPS), at the GS-11 through GS-15 and ZP-III through ZP-V
levels, classified under Chapter 51 of Title 5, United States Code .

. 02 Research scientists conduct or lead basic or applied research in engineering and biological;
medical; agricultural; physical, mathematical; and social sciences occupations as defined in the
current edition of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Research Grade Evaluation Guide
(RGEG) .

. 03 Development scientists require significant scientific knowledge but are not directly engaged
in research activities. Development scientists commonly work in laboratory settings; involve the
personal performance of experimental and investigative work processes; require considerable
theoretical analysis to establish hypotheses on which to base their assumptions and their
validation by experimental methods. Primary duties are concerned with the development of
instrumentation, techniques, processes, materials, and equipment; and investigation of physical
and natural phenomena to establish performance requirements and design criteria for equipment.

.04 Positions excluded from coverage are as follows:

1. Senior Executive Service (SES);
2. Scientific and Professional (ST);
3. Senior-Level (SL);
4. Commissioned Officers; and
5. Wage Mariners (WM).

SECTION   3.  POLICY.

. 01 Science Career Track Positions

1. The primary focus of science career track positions is conducting or guiding natural and social science research and related activities and the systematic application of the knowledge gained through that research in support of NOM's mission.
2. Research scientist positions included in the science career track must meet the criteria in the NOAA Science Career Track Handbook (NSCTH) as adapted from the OPM RGEG and satisfy both the definition of research and research responsibility as described in the RGEG.
3. Development scientist positions included in the science career track must meet the criteria defined in the accompanying NSCTH as adapted from the OPM Equipment Development Grade Evaluation Guide (EDGEG).
4. The NAO defines a three (3) level peer review promotion and cyclical review process for positions included in the science career track. First, all employees holding science career track positions will be evaluated by a Local Level Peer Review Panel as defined in Section 4.01. Next, evaluations and recommendations concerning employee promotion or continuation at the grade/band level of the employee's most recent promotion will be forwarded to the Line Office (LO) Assistant Administrator (M) or the Staff Office (SO) Director for LO/SO-level review and decisions on employee promotion or performance relative to their current classification status. The LO/SO-level review will follow the guidelines described in Section 4.02. Finally, once the LO AA or SO Director has made a decision to promote or retain the employee, packages will be forwarded to a NOAA Headquarters Review Panel for review of process consistency and policy adherence, as defined in Section 4.03. All positions promoted through the science career track process are subject to five (5) year cyclical reviews (Section 4.06).
5. Not all science-related positions will be eligible for the science career track. For existing positions that are eligible, movement into the science career track will be done through voluntary reassignment to the science career track. NOAA's Workforce Management Office (WFMO), working with the respective LO/SOs, will determine what positions will be placed in the science career track.

.02 Position Types

1. Research Scientist (GS-11/12/13/14, ZP-3/4) and Senior Research Scientist (GS-15, ZP-5) that conduct research including, but not limited, to empirical and theoretical investigations to determine the nature, magnitude, and interrelationships of physical, biological, psychological, social, economic, and other comparable phenomena and processes; the creation or development of empirical, theoretical, or experimental means of investigating such phenomena and processes; or the development of principles, criteria, methods, and data of general applicability in natural and social sciences or engineering.
2. Development Scientist (GS-11/12/13/14, ZP-3/4) and Senior Development Scientist (GS-15, ZP-5) that perform experimental and investigative work processes in support of NOAA's programs; such positions are concerned with the development of instrumentation, techniques, processes, materials, and equipment; and investigation of physical and natural phenomena to establish performance requirements and design criteria for equipment which support NOAA's mission.

. 03 Evaluations of Positions

1. NOAA will use a three step review process described in Section 4.01, 4.02, and 4.03, to evaluate any research and development scientists occupying science career track positions proposed for non-competitive promotion beginning at GS-11 and ZP-3 levels and above.
2. Any appeal issue resulting from a classification action that is not specifically provided for in this NAO shall be subject to the provisions of DAO 202-511.

SECTION 4. RESPONSIBILITIES.

. 01 Local Level Peer Review Panels:

1. Evaluation of all research and development scientists within the science career track will be conducted by Local Level Peer Review Panels (Local Panels) convened at the local level ( e.g. Financial Management Center (FMC), Program Office (PO), Science Center, or Laboratory) as appropriate to the LO or SO. Local Panels will be established by LOs or SOs existing outside a LO.
2. Local Panels will:
   • review professional qualifications and make recommendations for promotion,
   • and, for those employees that have been previously promoted within the science career track, conduct cyclical reviews to determine if they are performing at the band/grade level to which they have been promoted.
3. All Local Panels meet a minimum of one (1) time per year or more frequently as determined by the needs of the LO or SO.
4. The chair and all members of the panel are appointed by the relevant senior executive one (1) level below the Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA). Local Panel members will include:
   1. A minimum of six ( 6) standing members whose term of service is governed by terms of reference for the panel developed by the LO or SO. 
      • A minimum of three (3) members will be drawn from within the respective LO or SO as determined by the LO or SO and will have scoring rights. Members of the committee cannot hold a lower grade level than the employees they are evaluating.
      • One (1) panel chair who will have scoring rights.
      • One (1) external member will come from outside the LO or SO (e.g. from another LO or SO, another agency, academia) and will have scoring rights.
      • One (1) classification specialist from NOAA's Work Force Management Office (WFMO) will be included in the panel and will not have scoring rights.
   2. Additional standing or temporary members may be included to provide the appropriate expertise or for other reasons, at the discretion of the chair. These members may come from outside the LO or SO (e.g. from another LO or SO, another agency, academia) and will have scoring rights.
5. The Local Panel has the responsibility of making recommendations on proposed classification actions, as requested.
6. The WFMO representative will provide the Local Panel with advice and assistance on the consistent and accurate application of NSCTH criteria, and classification of positions .

. 02 Line Office/Staff Office Level Process

1. Each LO AA/SO Director will review the recommendations of their LO/SO's Local Panels on promotion and cyclical review packages and make final decisions to approve promotions or continuations at the band/grade level of the employee's most recent promotion.
2. Each LO AA/SO Director will have the flexibility to employ the structure of their choice for the review and decision-making process. This includes use of a formal review panel, review by a designee, or their own review.
3. The LO AA/SO Director is responsible for making decisions on the promotion and cyclical review packages based on the recommendations from the Local Panel(s) and the outcomes of the LO/SO review.
4. The LO AA/SO Director is responsible for providing the NOAA Headquarters Review Panel with a decisional memorandum for each promotion or cyclical review package being considered .

. 03 NOAA Headquarters Review Panel

1. Review of all research and development scientist candidate promotion and cyclical review packages will be conducted by a NOAA Headquarters Review Panel (HQ Panel) convened at the NOAA Headquarters level. The HQ Panel will be established by the NOAA Chief Scientist and WFMO.
2. The HQ Panel will review promotion and cyclical review packages to ensure:
   • consistency of process,
   • adherence to policy, and
   • LO AA/SO Director concurrence.
3. The HQ Panel will meet a minimum one (1) time per quarter or more frequently as determined by the needs of the Agency.
4. The chair of the HQ Panel will be appointed by the NOAA Chief Scientist. HQ Panel members will include: 1. One (1) person appointed by the AA of each LO. 2. One classification specialist from NOAA's WFMO 3. No external representative will be required.
5. The HQ Panel has the responsibility of reviewing all promotion and cyclical review packages and forwarding those packages with a positive recommendation for promotion or continuation at the band/grade level of the employee's most recent promotion for implementation.
6. The WFMO representative will provide the panel with advice and assistance on the consistent and accurate application NSCTH criteria, and classification of positions .

. 04 Classification Process:

a. At least once per year the WFMO will send a reminder to all LO DAAs and SO Directors to consider and submit, as deemed appropriate, promotion and cyclical review packages for employees in the science career track. The senior executive will consult with the Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer (CFO/CAO) of the LO or SO to determine if resources are available to support one or more promotions. All promotions and evaluations will start with the following process:

1. An employee and their direct supervisor prepare a promotion package in the appropriate format and provide the package to the senior executive.
2. The senior executive submits the promotion package to the Executive Secretary of the Local Panel.
3. The Local Panel meets in person or by conference call to discuss the employee's qualifications and scientific contributions and score the employee with respect to the NSCTH criteria.
4. The Local Panel makes a recommendation on employee promotion (in the case of promotion packages) or continuation at the band/grade level of the employee's most recent promotion (in the case of cyclical review packages). The panel then submits their evaluation and the mean panel score to the LO AA/SO Director.
5. The final decisions concerning promotions and reviews are made by the LO AA following the review process of the LO/SO's choice.
6. Once a decision has been reached at the LO/SO level, approved promotion and review packages are forwarded to the HQ Panel. The HQ Panel will review the packages for consistency of process, adherence to policy, and LO AA/SO Director concurrence. If a promotion package is not approved, it will be returned to the employee and his/her supervisor with an explanation as to why the package was not approved and suggestions for improvement. If the employee so requests, unapproved packages can be forwarded to the HQ Panel for a process and policy review. This change in band/grade would not be considered an adverse action.
7. The final decision is transmitted to the employee's direct supervisor and if the decision is to promote the employee, the direct supervisor works with local WFMO to implement the promotion .

. 05 Promotion and review package requirements

a. For research and development scientist positions the promotion and review packages must address the criteria contained in the NSCTH.

1. Packages for promotion to research and development scientist positions must include:
   • Written justification addressing NSCTH Factors I-IV from the employee and their immediate supervisor
   • Written endorsement of the senior executive that is proposing promotion of the employee to the committee
   • CV in suggested format provided in NSCTH • Current and proposed position description and cover sheet
   • Current and proposed performance plans
   • Performance appraisals for the previous year
   • Three (3) to five (5) letters of reference in suggested format provided in NSCTH
     • A maximum of two (2) from within the employee's office, laboratory, or science center
   • A total of five (5) submissions from these categories: peer-reviewed journal articles, documents, reports, or other publications ( e.g. stock assessments, strategic science plans, patents) from past five (5) years. Further examples of appropriate submissions are outlined under Factor IV criteria in the NSCTH.
   • A narrative of the employee's work and accomplishments if appropriate, not to exceed three (3) pages
   • A checklist of key steps in the promotion and review process in the format provided in NSCTH
2. Packages for promotion to senior research and development scientist positions are identical to packages for promotion to research and development scientist positions except they require:
   • Not less than five (5) letters of reference from outside the employee's office, laboratory, or science center
     • A maximum of two (2) from within the LO or SO
     • A maximum of two (2) from references listed on the employee's curriculum vitae
     • A minimum of two (2) international references
   • A total often (10) submissions from these categories: peer-reviewed publications from internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals, documents, reports, or other publications ( e.g. stock assessments, strategic science plans, patents) from past 5 years.
3. Review packages are required for cyclical reviews as outlined in Section 4.06 below. Review packages are identical to promotion packages except:
   • Only three (3) letters of reference are required (one from LO or SO, two from outside LO or SO). The letters for research and development scientists should be national in scope and the letters for senior research and development scientists should be international in scope.
   • Senior research and development scientist positions require evidence of lead authorship in internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals .

. 06 Cyclical Reviews:

1. a. The purpose of the cyclical review is to assure that employees who occupy positions covered by the science career track.continue to perform the duties that support the assigned band/grade.
2. b. Cyclical reviews will be conducted for all employees promoted through the science career track process. The review of cyclical review packages will be identical to the review of promotion packages.
3. c. Reviews will be conducted at 5 year intervals after the effective date of promotion through the science career track. Employees and their supervisors will be required to sign a statement of receipt and understanding outlining the cyclical review process. A minimum of90 days prior to the 5 year cyclical review WFMO will forward reminder notices to both employees and supervisors.
4. d. In the event that changes occur within the Agency resulting in workloads below the standard required by the current classification then reclassification to a lower band/grade level or lower pay may occur without adverse action.
5. e. If the employee is promoted within the science career track between reviews, a new review cycle begins.
6. f. Employees may apply to their senior executives for an extension of the 5 year cyclical review period. If the senior executive approves the application, they will inform LO AA/SO Director and the chair of the Local Panel of the extension. There is no limit to the number of extensions. However, it is expected that, in total, a 3 year overall extension to the cyclical review timeframe will not be exceeded. Extensions may be granted for the following reasons:
   • by reason of specialized experience or training, when during such experiences, research publications and other relevant activities are expected to be significantly reduced or interrupted;
   • by reason of significantly increased administrative duties or activities required to meet the agency's mission that were unanticipated at the time of the cyclical review timeframe, e.g., serving as an acting division chief, or establishing a new, off-site program, etc.;
   • by reason of call to active military duty;
   • when a child is born or adopted into the incumbent's household, (includes the biological parent, adoptive parent, or other parent);
   • by reason of a serious health condition, in response to which the scientist is required to act as the primary caregiver for a parent, child, spouse, or domestic partner;
   • by reason of a serious health condition persisting for a substantial portion of the period for which the extension is sought, the scientist is unable to perform the functions of her or his position; or
   • by other reasons recommend by the respective DAA and approved by WFMO Director.

SECTION 5. REQUESTING A CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION

.01 Management-Nominated Employees:

1. If the direct supervisor considers the employee's work to exceed band/grade level and the candidate has passed their probationary period and has a minimum of 1 year in their current grade or band, the direct supervisor may nominate the employee for promotion. b. A promotion package is then submitted to the peer review panel process as described in Section 4 above .

. 02 Self-Nominated Employees:

1. The employee must first request a nomination from their direct supervisor.
2. If the direct supervisor declines the request, the employee may self-nominate provided the employee has passed their probationary period, has 1 year in their current grade or band, and is performing satisfactorily.
3. The direct supervisor must assist the employee in preparing a promotion package that includes the following in addition to the promotion review package described in Section 4: • A record of the management declination.
4. A promotion package is then submitted to the peer review panel process as described in Section 4 above .

. 03 Appeal Procedures:

All NOAA employees covered by the NOAA Science Career Track retain the right to formally appeal the final classification of their positions through established Agency and OPM classification appeal procedures (5CFR, Part 511, Subpart F). Employees may appeal within NOAA to the Director of WFMO, or directly to the OPM. OPM classification appeal decisions are final within the Federal Government and binding on NOAA.

SECTION 6. EFFECT ON OTHER ISSUANCES.

None .

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

Office of Primary Interest: Workforce Management Office