Guide to Classifying General Schedule (GS) Positions

Assign classification by identifying the position’s primary duty as the activity that consumes the majority (>50%) of work time; match that duty to the applicable OPM occupational series and apply grade-level criteria stated in the corresponding position classification standard. Document percentage time, supervisory authority, and specialized qualifications right away, and include specific examples of completed work products, measurable outcomes, and points of contact for verification.

For field assignments – for example, mining operations in the south – list travel frequency as a percentage, describe environmental conditions (heat exposure, need to be acclimatised), and record physical barriers to access (remote roads, river crossings). Describe site amenities such as shade, light, and power for electronics, and include signs of hazard control and personal protective equipment. Attach sample trip reports, travel orders, and photographic evidence to strengthen the classification package.

Capture planning and administrative factors that affect grade determination: complexity of assignments, independent judgment, budgetary or financial responsibility, andor supervisory duties. Use a checklist with specific checkpoints: series alignment, primary duty percentage, grade-control examples from the standard, training requirements, and position sensitivity. Perform a desk audit and a short onsite review when duties show mismatch between PD and actual work; record all findings and obtain supervisory concurrence.

Prepare a concise submission to HR that includes the updated position description, org chart, time-allocation table, travel logs, examples of deliverables, and any medical or acclimatisation orders stated by occupational health. Request written assurance of the classification decision and an effective date; if classification decisions create budget impacts, present the projected financial adjustments and a recommended implementation timeline for staffing and pay changes.

Service Center GS Classification Workflow

Assign the onus for initial intake to a certified classifier and require a completed classification sheet within 3 business days to keep cases moving.

Collect a position description, org chart, duty percentages, supervisory statements and evidence of technology use; add a practical checklist that flags managing responsibilities, machinery operation, protective equipment needs, and whether duties occur inside or outside controlled facilities.

Use a structured approach to determining series and grade: examine primary duties by percentage, map duties to the applicable standard, document the rationale on the sheet, and capture one-line references to controlling factors and KSAs for audit purposes.

Require supervisory review of every draft classification within 2 business days and implement assurance controls: 5% random audits, monthly peer reviews sent to mansfield and kingsport centers for cross-checks, and an error-rate target below 3%.

Leverage technology to track cycle time: an electronic workflow should record timestamps for intake, screening, desk audit, field visit, supervisory approval and notification; protective measures must include role-based access, redaction of sensitive fields and a secure audit trail.

Follow a standard timeline: screening 3 days, desk classification 10–15 days, full classification with fieldwork 30 days. If new information arises, escalate to a supervisory classifier ahead of the next milestone; exceptions could add documented extension days.

When examining positions that involve plant, facilities or fieldwork, require on-site verification: a scored sheet (noise, hazard exposure, PPE, proximity to machinery), dated photos, and a supervisory attestation that confirms managing duties and headcount.

Maintain a central repository of finalized sheets, decisions, and precedents; track metrics (turnaround, appeal rate, concurrence rate) monthly and use quarterly practical training sessions for classifiers and supervisory reviewers to reduce rework and improve consistency across other centers.

Determine the correct occupational series for customer service, claims processing, and technical support roles

Assign customer service to an Administrative/Customer Contact series, claims processing to a Claims Examiner/Insurance series, and technical support to the Information Technology (2210) or equivalent specialist series. Use the series that aligns with the position’s primary duties (those that consume the largest percent of duty time), and document that duty mix directly in the position description.

For customer service, classify positions performing intake, benefit counseling, appointment scheduling, or social-media responses under an administrative/contact center series; avoid classifying those duties as an officer function or as clinical work found with hygienists. Identify job tasks which are transactional versus analytical, record percent time for each task, and map the transactional tasks to the customer service series. If staff also manage policy interpretation or appeals, add a claims or program-analysis series citation in the PD and note dual-series tradeoffs.

For claims processing, match the position to a claims/insurance or adjudication series when the core responsibility is claim development, eligibility determination, or freight/cargo damage adjudication. Use concrete examples from your sources: a position that reviews cargo manifests and freight invoices, obtains direct evidence, and issues a written report is claims work; a role that inspects environmental damage or collects lab science results may require a specialized environmental or science series. If the file-handling and decision duties could cross employment or benefits laws, document applicable statutes and cite OPM guidance updated April or the agency’s classification guidance.

For technical support, select the 2210 Information Technology Specialist series for help-desk, desktop, cloud-service, network-support, and system-administration duties. Distinguish technical troubleshooting from customer-service interaction: technical support that primarily diagnoses complex system faults and manages cloud migrations belongs in IT; support that only follows scripts to route calls fits a contact-center series. Consult HR classifiers in regional offices (for example topeka or madison) and attach authoritative sources when you submit the PD for review.

Follow this step-by-step process: 1) perform a duty analysis and assign percent time to each task; 2) compare duties to OPM series definitions and job family standards; 3) identify grade-controlling factors and supervisory responsibility; 4) prepare a PD with direct examples and attach evidence sources; 5) request a written classification decision from your servicing classifier. Mark ambiguous duties as shaded in your matrix and encourage early consultation with classifiers to reduce rework.

Watch for misclassification red flags: assigning claims examiners to administrative customer-service series despite substantive adjudicatory responsibility, labeling technical support as clerical when they manage cloud or network infrastructure, or placing environmental claims under a clinical series that serves hygienists. Despite local practice, follow federal series definitions and employment laws; local titles or region-specific terms (south office, australias benchmark, etc.) could inform but not replace OPM criteria. Prepare a short report that cites statutes, guidance, and internal sources, then proceed to manage the PD update and classification appeal path if necessary.

Yapılacaklar: document the primary duty percentages, attach OPM and agency guidance, involve classifiers in topeka/madison early, and submit a formal classification request with clear examples of tasks (cargo/freight adjudication, cloud administration, social customer interactions). This approach clarifies responsibility, reduces rework, and produces a defensible classification.

Quantify major duties and time allocations to justify series selection and grade placement

Assign percentage values to each major duty using a two-to-four week time study with 15-minute increments, then use those percentages and objective measures to justify the series and grade.

Record tasks as hours and convert to percent-of-duty; aim for at least 10 working days of sampling to smooth out week-to-week variability. Mark duties that occupy the single largest share as the primary duty and flag any task at or above 15% as a significant duty. Acceptable margin of error for final percentages is ±5 percentage points when you aggregate multiple weeks.

Map series selection to the duty that requires the highest specialized qualification. If a physician-level clinical workload accounts for the primary duty, select the healthcare/physician series; if administration tasks dominate, select an administrative series. When percentages fall between two series (for example 45/55), document necessary qualifications, decision authority, and consult the classification handbook and HR for final determination.

Quantify grade-related factors with measurable indicators: supervisory span (e.g., 0, 1–5, 6–15 direct reports), program size (number of clients or facilities served), and budgetary control ( <$100k, $100k–$1M, >$1M). Add workload measures such as tests completed per month, inspections per week, and number of clinical visits per day. Use fact-based metrics rather than impressions to support higher grade placement.

Include collateral duties and environmental exposure in the file: collateral assignments (emergency response groups, special projects), exposure to industrial hazards or cool storage controls in restaurants, and seasonal surges (summer inspection cycles or patient volume). Document rest and on-call scheduling, weekend or holiday shifts, and any between-site travel that increases scope and complexity.

Provide concrete examples localized to your operating area: Saginaw public health clinic logged 62% clinical care, 18% administration, 12% outreach to restaurants and industrial employers; Lexington county office showed 40% program management, 35% consultative work, 25% field inspections; Mansfield nursing unit recorded 55% direct patient care, 20% documentation, 15% training groups. Use these templates to create a concise justification packet that shows opportunity, controls, necessary credentials, and measurable facts to support series selection and grade placement.

Apply Position Classification Standards to distinguish supervisory, lead, and non‑supervisory grades

Classify a position as supervisory when the incumbent has formal personnel authorities (rates of pay, hiring, promotion, sustained performance appraisals, or discipline), directs the work of others, and spends a measurable portion of duty time on those activities; use 25% of work time or supervision of three or more full‑time equivalents as a practical threshold for initial review.

Use the following checklist to apply position classification standards: identify documented authorities in legislation and the agency handbook; record time spent on supervisory tasks via timesheets or surveys; verify the ability to take or recommend personnel actions; confirm control over workload assignments, training, and performance ratings; and capture direct report lists on the organizational chart. Keep evidence: PD excerpts, signed appraisal forms, and program memos.

Differentiate a lead from a supervisor by authority and accountability. Classify as a lead when the employee assigns tasks, offers on‑the‑job instruction, or sets work methods for a crew but lacks authority to approve promotions, impose discipline, or sign ratings. Document lead duties in the PD, state allowable time for lead tasks (typically 10–40% of duty time), and note any lead pay or functional supervisor codes used by the employer.

Mark a position non‑supervisory when duties are advisory, technical, or clerical without formal supervisory authorities. Examples: a clerk processing tariffs and food inspection paperwork who mentors junior clerks but cannot sign performance ratings; an environmental science technician working outdoors on a solar study who coordinates volunteers but cannot hire staff. Record those limits explicitly to prevent misclassification.

Apply grade‑level criteria after establishing supervisory status. For supervisory GS grades, evaluate the program scope supervised (local vs. regional), the complexity of assignments supervised (technical science vs. routine clerk work), and the impact on agency mission (transportation program or extended environmental remediation). Use functional statements and classification standards to assign the correct grade based on difficulty, responsibility, and required qualifications.

Provide concrete PD language samples for each outcome: for supervisors include “directly supervises X FTE; authorizes leave and corrective action; prepares performance appraisals and recommends promotions”; for leads include “assigns work and provides technical guidance; does not prepare official performance ratings”; for non‑supervisory include “works independently; provides training support only; no personnel action authority.” Follow the handbook format and cite applicable legislation or program guidance when you write the PD.

Use objective evidence during reviews: payroll and time records that show extended supervisory hours, signed rating forms, organizational charts from Dayton or Fargo field offices, post‑award program memos for transportation or solar projects, and survey results that indicate direct managerial control. Include quality assurance notes and automation logs to confirm delegation of functional duties.

When classification disputes arise, route the file through the agency classification office with a concise packet: PD, org chart, time survey, sample directives, and copies of relevant tariff or food program guidance if applicable. Expect classification review timelines of 30–60 calendar days; keep communication direct and document follow‑up. Some employers accept an interim rate adjustment for misclassified positions while final review proceeds.

Map KSAs, education, and experience to minimum qualifications and grade-controlling factors

Set numeric minimums and a repeatable rubric: assign Knowledge 30, Skills 35, Abilities 35 (total 100); require either a qualifying degree or N years of directly related experience; require a baseline pass score of 70 to meet minimum qualifications for the position.

1. Conduct a job-specific analysis.

   • Use thornberg analysis or a focused survey of incumbents and supervisors to identify KSA weightings by occupation and sector.
   • Identify barriers documented in surveys (training gaps, certification availability) and record by family of occupations (e.g., administrative, environmental, biological, health services).

2. Translate education into credit units.

   • Score academic credentials: associate = 25 points, bachelor = 50 points, master = 65 points, doctorate = 85 points toward the 100-point KSA rubric (use only as substitute where regulation allows).
   • Allow semester-hour conversions: 30 semester hours = 25 points; 60 = 50 points. Apply a clause in the vacancy announcement specifying substitution rules.

3. Quantify experience.

   • Define one year of specialized experience = 20 points; cap experience credit at 60 points unless supervisory experience justifies higher score.
   • Map years-to-grade example: GS-5 baseline = 0–1 year specialized; GS-7 = 1–2 years; GS-9 = 2–4 years; GS-11+ requires progressively deeper scope and supervisory/analytical duties. Use documented examples from similar positions in Kansas or other jurisdictions for benchmarking.

4. Apply grade-controlling factors.

   • Define 3–5 grade-controlling factors for each position: scope/complexity, supervisory responsibility, contacts, impact on services, hazardous conditions (environmental/biological, medication handling, hydration management in field roles).
   • Assign each factor a multiplier: +0 for baseline, +5 for moderate, +10 for high. Add multipliers to candidate score to determine grade eligibility.

5. Use a standardized scoring sheet.

   • Columns: K, S, A scores; education credit; experience credit; GCF multipliers; total. Require documentation for each claim (training certificates, performance appraisals, supervisor attestation).
   • Limit subjective rating by requiring examples: list three achievements demonstrating the claimed skill or ability and date ranges.

6. Validate with cross-sector benchmarks.

   • Compare your scoring to occupations in other sectors and standards such as AS/NZS guidelines where relevant for environmental controls or biological safety; reference Australia’s and Kansas state job surveys for comparable roles.
   • Note sector differences: administrative positions rely more on documented tasks and software proficiency; service and clinical positions require medication handling competencies and hydration/first-aid training records.

7. Mitigate selection barriers.

   • Flag barriers early (credential deserts, family care constraints, geographic limits) and provide alternative pathways: supervised on-the-job training, provisional appointments, targeted development plans.
   • Document any clause that allows temporary appointment or conditional hiring when a candidate meets most KSAs but lacks only one formal credential.

8. Audit and adjust annually.

   • Run a biennial survey of incumbents and supervisors to reweigh KSAs and update multipliers; track turnover, performance, and grievance data to identify misaligned grade controls.
   • Keep a change log noting why each adjustment occurred (e.g., new regulatory standards, expanded services, environmental hazards, biological threat protocols).

Quick implementation checklist:

• Create the 100-point KSA template and GCF multiplier table.
• Collect candidate education documentation and map to points (use semester-hour conversion).
• Require experience narratives with dates and measurable outcomes.
• Apply multipliers for grade-controlling factors; calculate final score and record justification.
• Use audit results and external references (Kansas surveys, Australias ASNZS standards where applicable) to refine standards.

Apply this method to any position to identify minimum qualifications, reduce subjective decisions, and justify grade assignments with documented analysis that connects KSAs, education, and experience directly to grade-controlling factors and organizational needs.

Prepare the position description and classification justification package for reviewer routing and potential appeal

Prepare a single, organized package that bundles the position description (PD), a concise classification justification memo, and all supporting documents; label files with the position title, series, grade, and a date (e.g., “Program_Tech_0343_GS-09_2026-01-09.pdf”).

Provide a PD of no more than two pages that lists major duties with percent time, supervisory/accountability indicators, required certification or medication handling (if applicable for health technician roles), minimum education and vocational experience, and clear examples of work products. Attach a one- to three-page justification memo that cites the specific classification standard paragraphs and legislation used when determining series and grade so an external assessor can match facts to criteria quickly.

Route the package through a three-stage review: stage one for HR completeness (SF-50, org chart, duty station), stage two for technical assessment (subject matter assessor reviews duties against series guidance), and stage three for classification authority sign-off. For each stage include a routing slip with reviewer name, view date, and expected turnaround in calendar days so anyone receiving the packet knows timing and responsibility.

Anticipate appeal needs by including allowable supplemental documents: prior classification decisions, position questionnaires, training certificates, grant abstracts if the job supports grants administration in Peoria or outside offices, and a redacted personnel file excerpt when necessary. Identify the decision body for appeals, list contact information, and state the appeal window (for example, 30 calendar days from transmittal). Address common barriers to appeal such as missing duty descriptions or absent supervisory signature, and correct those before routing.

Tailor supporting evidence to the occupational context: for industrial occupations provide workload metrics and equipment lists; for environmental or arts positions attach project summaries and sample deliverables; for technician positions include competency tests, vendor certifications, and medication administration protocols where applicable. When a position involves vocational training or grants, include course outlines, enrollment numbers, and funding documents to show scope and complexity.

Format documents for reviewer efficiency: convert to searchable PDF, use bookmarks for key sections, keep individual files under 10 MB, restrict access to only necessary reviewers, and remove personally identifiable information except where required. Use clear headings, short paragraphs, and a one-page executive view that highlights the recommended series, grade, and three facts that support the recommendation.

Finish with a signed cover page that lists preparer, supervisor, and HR representative, plus a simple checklist: PD attached; justification cites specific standard paragraphs; SF-50 and org chart included; assessor comments requested; appeal instructions enclosed. Deliver the package electronically and retain a stamped copy for file audit so any assessor or appeal body can verify timing and content without delay.