NSPS

1
NSPS

• Pay Pool Results

2

• Pay panel met 5-8 Nov 07
• Sub pools reviewed a total of 324 appraisals
• Main pay panel and pay pool manager reviewed all
  ratings of 1/2/4/5, and any rating that a change
  was recommended
• Total pay pool funding for payout is 631,679
  (all elements)

3
Prior to Pay Panel Review
154
104
55
11
0
4
Prior to Pay Panel Review
48
32
17
3
0
5
After Pay Panel Review
221
89
10
3
1
6
After Pay Panel Review
68
27
3
0
1
7
Rating Count
8
Rating Distribution
9
Lessons Learned
10

• . Issue Many of the evaluations used
  Contributing Factors (CF) without identifying in
  the raters assessment which CF or what specific
  action the employee accomplished to achieve the
  CF (either or -).
• Discussion Although guidance was given to
  raters before the pay pool met, many failed to
  provide adequate justification or identification
  of CFs used to either increase or decrease an
  objectives rating. This seemed to be the
  predominate problem/issue that caused the pay
  pool to question or recommend changes to an
  objective rating. An inordinate amount of time
  was spent clarifying CFs.
• Recommendation Raters need to fully examine CF
  descriptors when awarding CFs. Provide early
  and specific guidance to raters on identification
  of CFs in an objectives rating. Additionally,
  have Higher Level Reviewers (HLR) confirm this as
  part of their review process.

11

• Issue Over-inflation of Ratings
• Discussion The majority of initial ratings were
  over-inflated with 65 of the employees being
  rated a 4 or above. After the pay pool
  deliberations, 28 were validated as a 4 or 5
  rating. It was obvious that the Rating Officials
  (RO) did not adjudicate their assessments using
  the Performance Indicators and associated
  descriptors, thereby requiring phone calls on 75
  of the PAAs.
• Recommendation ROs and HLRs need to adhere to
  the guidelines IAW NSPS, specifically that a 3
  rating is a valued employee who met the
  performance objectives. Justifiable CFs need to
  be clearly identified and linked to the
  objective not to exceed 2 CFs per objective.

12

• Issue Unavailability of Rating Official or
  Higher Level Reviewers due to Inaccuracy of
  Contact Info
• Discussion Contact information was inaccurate,
  if available at all for the majority of ROs. 234
  phone calls had to be made out of 325 ratings.
• Recommendation Contact information be indicated
  in the block titled Component Unique Information
  and consist of a primary and alternate contact
  numbers, home/cell.

13
Issue Location of Pay Pool Discussion The
pay pool should be conducted similar to a
Promotion Board and should be held at an off-site
location so panel members are not
distracted/interrupted from performing pay pool
responsibilities. Recommendation Select a
suitable off-site facility located near Fort
Knox, KY, with sub-pay pools being co-located at
the same facility for purpose of calibration.
14

• Issue Concerns about NSPS disruption during C2
  transformation. Civilian employees could be
  adversely impacted during pay pool process.
• Discussion Employees moving around between
  close-out (30 Sep) of rating cycle and pay out
  (early Jan) can cause employees to lose out on
  any pay-out. All aspects of how the
  transformation will impact on employees under
  NSPS needs to be thoroughly analyzed.
• Recommendation Assign Ms. Good as a member of
  the C2 Tiger team and schedule an appropriate L6S
  event to capture how best to proceed with C2 with
  minimum impact on process.

15

• Issue Having sub-element be pay pool members to
  avoid perceptions.
• Discussion Panel members briefly discussed
  COAs for pay pool organization under C2
  transformation.
• Recommendation Sub pay pools should be
  comprised of members from Pay Pool Manager level
  and levels from which the PAAs originate.

16

• Issue Gather all PAAs for specific RO before
  calling to adjudicate.
• Discussion Panel members found it helpful to
  evaluate all PAAs under a particular RO before
  making calls of adjudication.

17

• Issue Phone calls are for purpose of giving RO
  opportunity to provide additional information not
  previously captured in assessment, not to
  re-write assessment.
• Discussion Panel members call raters to advise
  that their assessments do not support the rating
  and that the panel will be recommending these
  changes to the PPM. The RO should be allowed to
  address specific issues telephonically, and if
  additional info is provided that they only be
  given 1-2 hours to email/fax the info for
  consideration.

18

• Issue Contributing Factors need to be limited
  to 1-2 per objective.
• Discussion Many objectives had numerous CFs
  assigned. It became difficult to discern what
  the RO was awarding with the net cast that wide.
• Recommendation CFs should be limited to 1-2
  per objective and then specifically address which
  CF you are awarding and why.

19
Questions