Federal personnel manual system

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Federal personnel manual system
Portion of title:
FPM letter
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
United States Civil Service Commission
United States -- Office of Personnel Management
Publisher:
United States Civil Service Commission
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Personnel management -- Handbooks, manuals, etc -- United States   ( nal )
Civil service -- Handbooks, manuals, etc -- United States   ( lcsh )
Personnel management -- Handbooks, manuals, etc -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )

Notes

Issuing Body:
Vols for 1979- issued by: Office of Personnel Management.
General Note:
Description based on: 410-19 (Aug. 22, 1977); title from caption.
General Note:
Latest issue consutled: 292-23 (No. 3, 1983); title from caption.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 021549616
oclc - 06727309
lccn - 2009238041
System ID:
AA00012996:00056


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

Re tkeronnl MaageentFPM Letter 331-7

ieal Personnel Manual System- Published in advance
-A te of1 i corporation in FPM
YPM,,etkr*Chapter 337
W8VC'-Revised Guidelines for the, Dialegatioi o'f MEAIN UNTIL SUPERSEDED
Examining Authority to Ag enc iO
ashinglon, D. C. 20415
March 10, 1982
Itad 'of C liartnierts and inde endent Estabhshm, i



001977 the Office of Personnel Management 4ut ed various Federal
O'iS tb conduct all or a part of the competi~t-v cess necessary to
40jobs_ in the competitive service. Under the terms of specific written agree-
cgnies wore authorized to administer competitive examinations either through
al examining unit (SEU) for OPM, or by establishing their own examining operation
'rthft authority, of 5 USG 1104.

40101 .the, Mode I Staffing Plan and through'the establishment of special examining
PM adopted a liberal policy of examining delegation. While there have been
tks't)ve results from this policy, there have also been some negative aspects:

fa-The delegation of examining authority for occupations which appear to be
common'to, other agencies,.

Applicnsf u multiplee applications -for what appears to be the same job
7 ~with several agenctes.
c., Dupltidtion, of examining efforts by agencies for similar occupations.
.Some filstanceg of apparent inadequate public notice of competitive examinations.
(PP has been amending outstanding~delegation agreements to require minimum
areas of publicity and ,open periods.)

3 o eqpslderation of these problems, OPM undertook a comprehensive'review of its
teyor delegatidg examining authority. The result of this review has been a revision
Af our dojeqati)n policy. The Proposed clianges were discussed at the July 1981 Personnel
VDkiirectat,$onference- 'S~pecific' proposals Were discussed with Directors of Personnel
atan 1A13,met-,rg Keld on September 10, 1981. Following our review and subsequent.
dfscQ slohs,.with Personinel Dfirecta'rs, WPM 'has adopted the following delegation guide-

1,4OPM wil II, it delegate examining 'authority for entry-level positions previously
or currently covered by AE,orn for positions under the mid-level and senior
level examinations which are' common to agencies. (For example, personnel,
computer related occupAtions, budget, supply, etc.)





UA0* Ax aminatioa Planixllrg and Recruitment Branch, office of staffing, Safn ru
**'4 1(,02) 632-6231
V 331, Grganization for Recruitment and Examining

4St,\ o mine chapters .331 and 337. The material in this etrwlbencpoad
*USGOVERNMENT PMNTINGOGFFCU 1982- 381393~ 10B4 OPM FORM 652 1f9

















f must be the predominant (see attached
:ion in the relevant labor market area,

grade interval positions. -


positions OPM or agency


ionwide.


region.,,


***~ ~ i ...
HI


4. To provide for an orderly transition OPM will negotiate with individual. a.emr
the termination, where appropriate, of delegated examinations and phase the rueti
of delegated examinations to OPM over a 2 to 3-year period.


5. For your information we are attaching an outline of our new guidelines 'a.fii
mentation plan.




Donald J. Devine
Director
V i:'P


Attachment


. l i .ii::;





"'1


iHii l


VA

i
4


.; i.;:.:
* .. ".. ..... ...
E ; M


> .


I 'i


'i


ii
















Delegation criteria9


. ... .. .


A. OPM may delegate examining authority to an agency/installation when the
occupation does not have qualifications requiremegts common to occupations
in other agencies/installations, and the agency/installation is the predominant
employer of the occupation in the relevant labor market.

B. OPM may delegate examining authority to an agency/installation in exceptional
cases when the delegation is: in the interest of economy and efficiency and
will not weaken the application of merit principles.

Delegation Policy:


.4.
"" S
Ni"





::: ':. .


I.










II.


The fact that. an occupation or recruitment situation meets the delegation criteria
- In section I, does not necessarily mean that.OPM will authorize an examining dele-
.gation. The responsible OPM officials must also consider these additional factors.

1. OPM must have resources available for the adequate training and oversight
of the agency's examining Unit.

.2. The delegation must be cost efficient. :That is, agency examining operations
are economical and, efficient. when compared to OPM examining operations.

3. Merit principles will be adhered to by the agency and the agency personnel
staff is adequate to assume an examining operation.

4. There may be a shared examining responsibility between OPM and an agency/
installation. That is, a partial delegation to the agency/ installation
with limited authority. For example, OPM rates applications and furnishes
the results to the agency/installation. The agency/installation is delegated
authority to maintain registers and certify eligibles. Shared examining
is .especially appropriate for delegations granted on the basis of criterion
1I.B. above.

5. A shared examining delegation wherein one department/agency issues certi-
ficates of eligibles to another department/agency will not be authorized
without OPM central office or regional office approval.

6. The establishment of a special examining unit (SEUl) for OPM must be based
on the same delegation criteria (section 1. above) as the complete delegation
of examining responsibility to an agency/installation.

7. Time limited delegations to fill one-of-a-kind positions may be authorized
S if the total examining operation is cost :efficient. This would normally
occur when an agency/installation, over a year's period, would examine for
several one-of-a-:kind vacancies and the cost of OPM training and an OPM
audit could be prorated over several examinations.


.Attacbewiato IFP Letter 331-7





Guidelines for the Delegation of
Competitive Examining Authority
to Agencies:


(Also see section 11.)












































This would usually involve a situation where an unusual condition of employmie
makes it difficult for the agency/installatioh to recruit candidates from tbl&e:
OPM register. (For example, a chronic shortage of available eligibles; or a
high declination rate because of extensive travel, hazardous working conditifom,
isolated duty location, etc.)

Note: If the conditions for direct-hire authority are met (FPM chapter 332, H
appendix D), this may be the preferred solution to the agency recruitment
problem rather than an examining delegation.

E. Economy and Efficiency.

This refers to the overall cost to the Government of conducting an examining
program. Included are intangibles such as timeliness of service, quality of
candidates, public access to information, adherence to merit principles, and
meeting public policy goals. One of the major considerations will be whether
or not the examination, as proposed to be conducted by the agency/installation,
would require more of OPM's resources for training and oversight than OPM
would require to conduct the examination.



4lia










IV. Effects of new delegation criteria.

Under criterion I.A. above, OPM could delegate examining authority to agencies/
installations for what are basically single-agency occupations with unique qualifi-
cations requirements, such as Air Traffic Controller and Mine Inspector. However,
OPM could not delegate authority for positions which have qualifications requirements
common to agencies/installations in the labor market area. This includes most
entry-level positions (formerly or currently filled through PACE) and most adminis-
trative and management positions (formerly and currently filled through OPM's
mid-level and senior level examinations.)

V9. Implementation of the revised delegation guidelines.

A. OPM will not delegate.examining authority for occupations not meeting the
revised criteria.

B. OPM will immediately terminate delegations where there are abuses of merit
system principles.

C. When an agency plans to.establish a field examining unit, the request
for delegated examining authority will be reviewed by all affected OPM
regions to determine if the considerations in section II. above are met.

D. OPM will phase out all current delegations (including special examining
units for OPM) with examining authority for occupations not meeting the
new criteria. However, unique situations, as determined by OPM, may be
considered for exception. To provide for an orderly transition, OPM will
|| e negotiate these actions with individual.agencies/installations on a
phased basis over a two to three year period. OPM, on a phased schedule,
will also reassume examining for delegations which are not cost efficient
to the Government.

E. An agency may, for any reason and in accordance with the advance notice
provisions of its delegation agreement or memorandum of understanding with
OPM, terminate the delegation.





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

S1111111111llAl l ii I 11111 1111111111 i111111111111111111iill1
3 1262 08729 4061


....... ...





11" J.





'I,
r.
... ." .. .::. : :: m




.: *: 2 <..


5- *5, : -
i






'1 5** ;
5.... 7 1 .....,..,,.:.. i^
..i, ,., kl. ; '.1!


:: .,.. i: ;^Wi i?:'




". i,


f'., ..,,".1. I. :
*; h;


1"~A 2y, 't~




54;!






... .. .






Is* *1
.:: .. .. .... ;;".: ::iE "iimiii i l.;












l *: s' .. ^ ^
.. "1 ":. ,i; :: i. ::: *: i ;^


.. ... : <': ... ;! .
:' .. 1 ., : :.





1. ". i 5 *m1 ;
I{~ ~ ....... ....ii; :











:t mI
: / 'i: .: ,ir ..
*t:, ," :s ,,.'!i~i:: 3;i



*.." "i 4.
................................... ...:::..:,......: iH"..........,




.5. S ti .... ; ;ii


.. .. : ... :: .. *
.. i; ;, i~i; :": i ,.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EPBY1ZLZP_SY2OF1 INGEST_TIME 2013-01-18T14:17:31Z PACKAGE AA00012996_00056
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES